Transatlantic media coverage immediately after of the collapse of the World Trade Organization's Doha Round of trade talks in Geneva July 29 provided a wide range of different perspectives on the same story. Commentators blamed the failure variously on the United States, India, or China, or a combination of some or all of them, with occasional tangential swipes at the European Union and Brazil.
United States Media Coverage
Washington Post: "Trade Talks Crumble in Feud Over Farm Aid', July 30, 2008
The Washington Post reported that whereas American and European officials were prepared to make big concessions, the talks fell apart after India and China insisted on keeping the right to protect their farmers and accused the United States and other rich nations of exaggerating the generosity of their offers. India's chief negotiator, it said, “may have played the biggest role in undoing the talks.” The Post said the talks “at times took on a highly charged, personal tone that immediately cast the negotiations as a power struggle between the developed and developing worlds.
“Within 24 hours of landing in Geneva nine days ago, Brazil's foreign minister, Celso Amorim, infuriated First World negotiators, comparing their efforts to hype their proposed trade concessions to Nazi propaganda. His comments drew sharp reprimands, particularly from Washington's top negotiator, U.S. Trade Ambassador Susan C. Schwab, the daughter of Jewish Holocaust survivors.”
The article conceded that Brazil ultimately was more flexible than India and China, but still lumped it in with the hold outs.
The New York Times: "After 7 Years, Talks on Trade Collapse'
The New York Times report was among the few to observe that the failure of the negotiations “delivers a blow to the credibility of the World Trade Organization.” It also noted a strategic power shift among the countries at the table, pointing out that India and China have become aware of their economic power and are finally asserting themselves.
European Media Coverage
The Guardian: "Tariffs: WTO talks collapse after India and China clash with America over farm products'
The Guardian blamed the collapse of the talks on disagreements between India, China and the United States. It quoted remarks by U.S. Trade Ambassador Susan Schwab that sounded pushy and condescending:
“[Schwab thought] it was "unconscionable' that developing countries were insisting on shielding their farmers'in the face of the food price crisis, its ironic that the debate came down to how much and how fast could nations raise their barriers to imports of food.' She [Schwab] suggested that if India and China had got their way "we could have come out with an outcome that rolled the global trading system back three years, or five years, or 30 years: 30 years of progress.”
The report said Schwab “has come under fierce political pressure from Capitol Hill to secure fresh markets for America's rust belt manufacturers.”
It added, however, that EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson “had also come under intense political pressure over promised reforms to Europe's lavish common agricultural policy.”
The Guardian recalled that French President Nicolas Sarkozy had demanded an urgent meeting with Mandelson in the middle of the negotiations, a summons that Mandelson politely declined, and that Sarkozy had tried to rally other countries, including Italy and Greece, to reject the deal as it stood. Thus while the headline fingered the United States, the report seemed to suggest that Europe would also have had trouble accepting the outcome.
The Scotsman: ‘US Clashes With New Giants'
Like the Guardian, the Scottish daily The Scotsman laid most of the blame on the United States for clashing with India. The Scotsman, however, was one of the few to point out that Brazil and India had been allies in the past during these trade rounds and that their split at this meeting was remarkable.
The Times of London: "Why the Doha Round of Talks Finally Died'
The Times laid the blame unequivocally on India. Almost all of its report focused on Kamal Nath, the Indian Trade Minister, who "was gritting his teeth, doing his best to justify a wrecking operation that has earned him brickbats from all round. He has brought to an end a seven-year struggle for a global trade agreement that would open boarders and reduce subsidies and he knows it.'
The report said India disagreed not only with the United States but also with "a host of developing nations in Latin America, including Brazil, Uruguay and Argentina,' as well as other countries such as Thailand.
“The trade row finally destroyed the fiction beloved by development charities and poverty lobbyists that we live in a world divided between North and South, or rich and poor. Instead, we live on a globe of powerful and conflicting interest groups – Asian peasants versus Latin American farm laborers, for example.”
FT.Com-Financial Times: "Negotiators sift the debris for signs of hope'
The FT stressed the importance of an agreement for many of the countries involved, including Brazil. Nevertheless, while noting that WTO chief Pascal Lamy did not view the failure as final, the FT argued that Western countries were unlikely to offer similar concessions again soon. It blamed the collapse squarely on disagreements between India and the United States, with some meddling by China.
Der Standard: Greetings from the New World Order
In Austria, a commentary in Austria's biggest daily publication Der Standard struck a similar note to the New York Times, calling attention to the global power shift that has occurred since the start of the Doha round in 2001. According to commentator Michael Moravec:
"The reason the negotiations of a world-wide trade agreement failed spectacularly is easily explained: When the discussions began seven years ago in Doha, when the goals and basic conditions were specified, the world looked very different: China, India, and Brazil still belonged to the community of developing countries and the US and the European Union set the tone. If an agreement was reached between Europe and the United States, the remainder would be a child's game in comparison, one thought at the time. Now, the negotiations failed because of India and China.'
