Less than a year later, it is apparent that `development' was just a selling point to buy agreement at Doha. As the talks inch towards a mid-term review next year, ahead of the ambitious end-2004 deadline set for a final agreement, in form and content this round is turning out to be a repeat of the past. Issues of interest to the developing countries are being pushed aside, veiled threats are being served on hesitant negotiators and the agenda of the more important members of the WTO is being thrust forward.

When the agenda for the Doha round was framed, deadlines were laid down for some issues while the others only had to end in an accord within the larger target date of end-2004. Longstanding issues such as the implementation concerns of the developing countries as well as the more difficult subjects such as agriculture had specific deadlines. But what has already happened at the WTO is that the deadline in at least one area of interest to the developing countries is certain not to be met, while another is under threat of also falling by the wayside. At a review meeting at the WTO last week it was acknowledged that talks on operationalising the Special and Differential (S and D) treatment of developing countries would not meet the end-July target for an agreement. While there is substance in the argument that an over-emphasis by the developing countries on S and D treatment allows the advanced countries to generally treat them as less than equal partners, the relevant point here is the lop-sided nature of negotiations so far in the new round. It is also worrying that the U.S. is now speaking of "differential" treatment of developing countries, implying that countries such as India and China should be treated differently from others. This sounds suspiciously like the approach followed by the U.S. in walking away from the Kyoto Protocol on climate change. Similarly, going by the current pace of talks, the developing countries have a legitimate fear that an agreement will not be reached on the more important set of implementation issues (arising out of the 1994 GATT agreements) before the end-December 2002 deadline. These issues have been on the table since 1999 and the promise always was that they would be speedily addressed within a larger WTO round.

The members of the WTO have now agreed that they will complete the modalities on an agreement on reduction of tariffs on industrial goods by end-March, 2003, and negotiations will be completed by the end of May. The industrial tariff issue is a weak spot for the developing countries because their customs duties are generally high, though these countries do have an interest in reducing tariff peaks and tariff escalation which hurt their exports. There was no specific deadline for industrial tariffs in the Doha agenda. It has now been inserted under pressure from the E.U. and Japan. In the complex cat and mouse game that is continuously played at the WTO the reason why these two major trade powers pushed for a deadline on industrial tariffs is that written into the Doha agenda is a first-stage deadline of March 2003 on agriculture, on which the E.U and Japan are under pressure. So the two need to know what they will gain on industrial tariffs before they commit themselves on agriculture. The way in which the negotiations have progressed so far and other developments such as the new U.S. law which enhances subsidies to agriculture and the caveats designed to boost protectionism contained in the U.S. Trade Promotion Authority legislation all point to a familiar story of trade might is right.