Mike Moore: Down to the WTO's bogey of agriculture

Last week 50 trade ministers assembled in Geneva to try to advance the much-delayed Doha Development Round.

The meeting failed. This was an informal meeting so the failure wasn't as spectacular as the collapse of negotiations in Seattle.

The protest movement claimed credit for the collapse and still does.

But that's untrue. We failed because ministers couldn't agree.

Trade negotiations have failed and fizzled before in Montreal, Brussels and Hong Kong. But labour, justice, and foreign ministers have meetings which never fail.

Why? Because the communiques are written in such a general, unspecific way that everybody goes home happy.

The same is true of grand meetings of leaders at Apec and the Commonwealth. They never fail because the findings are not binding - they are vague and general, allowing countries with contradictory positions to look as though they have won.

Meanwhile, nothing keeps happening.

The World Trade Organisation meetings are more difficult because real decisions must be reached by consensus, ratified by parliaments, and are subject to a binding disputes mechanism, when differences emerge.

No trade round has come through on time and none has ever failed.

When President John F. Kennedy launched the Tokyo Round, he said success would help developing countries like Japan!

The multilateral trading system has underpinned the most successful 50 years in history. Life expectancy is up 20 years, infant mortality rates down 80 per cent and the countries that have done the best are the most open societies and economies.

So given the evidence what's the problem?

We are now down to the most difficult issues excluded for too long, especially agriculture. A deal in agriculture would give Africa four to five times more help than all the aid given by all nations.

The rich countries spend $1 billion a day on subsidies that make food dearer and reduce choice.

Developing countries are showing solidarity and won't move unless there's real change. Good for them.

But the privileged and protected seldom give up their tax-payer handouts without a fight. There's only one thing worse than when the big guys gang up and that's when they don't.

The European Union must give more market access and the United States must reduce domestic subsidies.

They need to define sensitive products. Is it all sugar, rice, dairy or coffee?

This will unlock the talks but won't be cost-free and without change for developing countries. Open trade is development.

Postponing internal reform because of local politics and privileged interests is like the overweight, chain-smoker promising to quit and lose weight in the future.

There are, correctly, special and differential timetables for poor countries to allow them time to adjust and build capacity.

The World Bank and development agencies should be focused in a coherent way to help in this adjustment period.

There is a dangerous suggestion being floated that special and differential treatment could become an "opt out" and "opt in" clause. Who does this help in the long run?

When some ministers talk of a minimum deal, of lowering of ambitions, what they are really saying is we need to have minimal change to our agriculture. Minimum outcome is their maximum ambition.

Some politicians want to cut a tiny deal, call it victory, and go home. I hope not. That's like declaring victory in Iraq and running away, hoping the good headline drowns the reality of failure.

Alas, the votes are in opposing change, always are.

The protectionists grazing off the taxpayers have the politicians' ears and know how to manipulate the media.

France has elections next year, and the US Congress faces the voters this November.

It's too late for politicians to tell ambassadors to work harder in Geneva, now's the time for hard decisions in capitals. It is argued that there's no alternative, but there is and that's bilateral and regional agreements that insult the concept of free trade.

Sensitive areas are often excluded, creating trade diversions and dangerously putting more levers in the hands of big players.

Politicians love to sign things and I'd do it, too. It's not a big deal - it's only a big deal if you are excluded.

These are "new coalitions of the willing" and there is little interest in doing deals with poor or small countries.

The Director-General of the WTO will now do some shuttle diplomacy, trying to edge nations closer together and then try to retail and massage a result.

But the Director-General has not and should not have the power to force a result on a sovereign government.

Bob Strauss, a great US trade negotiator, famously said when talks were stalled once before, "It's time to cut bait and fish."

President Lyndon Johnson was more graphic when he said, "It's time to c**p or get off the pot."

* Mike Moore is a former Prime Minister of NZ and director-general of the World Trade Organisation