WTO Continued
can we call it 'UN creep'?

looks like the victimization of the third world, which has been propagated by the NGO's has caught on.

here's an activist writing about how the first world didn't make the correct moves. too bullying she says.

the thing is, it looks more like the WTO is going to be more of a talking shop like the UN rather than a place to do business. "clapping after speeches like the developing world has done, rather than debating the issues" sounds like diplomatese for propaganda wars....

i have a very different take on the events after reading a lot of what happened more in depth. the US looks like they were ready to deal:

The American delegation, for one, came into this summit talking a good game. They proposed to eliminate tariffs on all manufactured and consumer goods by 2015, and to cut agricultural tariffs by 76% over five years. They were prepared to be bold, they said, if other countries were bold too.

no small comment coming from an anti-american publication.

so where does blame lie? well, turning the talks into a "we've been so victimized" forum by the 3rd world will earn only scorn. these are business people from western countries, not social workers. a first class ticket to exclusion is what the developing world will find and seperate forums for discussing tariffs without the developing world may develop. no trade minister wants to meet if all he'll hear from a govt is "you owe us for raping our land". you might as well walkout and talk to like minded countries if that's the response.

and yet this is wrong. cheering the end of the talks. walking out. this does nothing for world trade. nothing for alleviating the plight of africa. zero. africa needs this more than the first world, and we have to make a deal. something. lower tariffs.....but blame belongs in the first world too....

japan, an extremist when it comes to tariffs had its own little game to play...by discussing not tariffs, but.....

On Sunday afternoon, the European Union suggested that talks on trade facilitation and government procurement be launched in this trade round, and that discussions of investment and competition policy be left for future rounds. But South Korea (backed by Japan) insisted they talk about all four Singapore issues;

not the US, not africa.....the Euros! and the Japanese!

Some cynics suggest that the Singapore issues are just chaff thrown up by the EU and Japan to disguise their own intransigence over agriculture. Ever since the current round of trade talks was launched in 2001, Japan and the EU have been on the defensive

i don't know that i'm a huge cynic, but i'll say 'oh hell yes'. this is common sense. i was wondering how japan might deal with its 900% tariffs on external rice to protect its own rice industry (a long, complex issue with the japanese). ....ridiculous.

so, this has to be one instance where the US came to the table to actually be a good guy in foreign trade and has come away taking at least part of the blame for this....really, if they came in good faith (and i honestly believe them, since there is so little evidence to the contrary, and so much bad faith from a lot of other parties)....then this has been a massive loss for africa.

maybe canada and the US and Canada can deal bilaterally with Africa/India/China and South America by themselves and bypass the EU and Japan in this. that would almost certainly hurt the overall prospects of the WTO. But, if the developing world won't catch a break from Japan and the EU, well, its like they have a veto over the rest of the world's trading policy.