Editorial: Same old story at WTO summit

As the curtain comes down on the latest WTO summit meeting that began last Tuesday in Hong Kong, very little progress has been made. This is not the first time that lack of substantive progress from multilateral negotiations has become a concern for WTO meetings of this sort. The same thing happened during the two prior WTO summits: the 1999 meeting in Seattle and the 2003 meeting in Cancun.

The biggest stumbling blocks continue to be the disparity in wealth between the WTO members and the very contradictory nature of their interests.

Wealthy, developed members such as the US and the EU want developing countries to actively open up and deregulate their telecommunications, financial, insurance and banking sectors, as these are eyed rather greedily by Western multinationals which hope to reap lucrative profits in these developing markets.

One the most appealing of these is without doubt the Chinese market. Therefore, it came as no surprise when the US released a report on China that accused its government of not fully living up to its obligations as a WTO member and demanded less government interference in key industries. It should also be mentioned that the issue of intellectual property piracy in China remains a major sore point for the US.

By in order to become a WTO member in the face of staunch Chinese opposition, Taiwan had to enter the organization as a developed economy, thereby exposing itself to the far more stringent requirements this entails, and for which many believe it was not well-prepared. This obviously had some very detrimental effects on the economy. For example, opening up the local market to rice producers from abroad has seriously threatened the livelihood of local rice farmers -- and the government seems ill-prepared to provide aid to this sector.

The developing countries, on the other hand, feel that not enough is being done to narrow the wealth gap between the WTO's members. In particular, the farm subsidies granted (under various disguises) by developed countries to their agricultural sectors have become a major source of disagreement between the two camps. For example, during this past week, the US practice of buying agricultural products from its own farming sector and then donating them to poor countries as food aid came in for much criticism, as it is seen as one way of subsidizing the US agricultural sector. Similarly, the fact that the EU spends around US$110 billion each year on farm subsidies has also invited much criticism from certain WTO members.

In the light of all this discontent, the only real substantive achievement of this round of talks may be the agreement to offer tariff-free and quota-free treatment to farm products from the least-developed members of the WTO.

Many agree that WTO meetings have become a platform for heated and protracted economic quarrels. Apparently, disagreement was so severe this time around that virtually no progress was made on the intended agenda -- reaching a draft free trade agreement with respect to the farming, service and industrial sectors.

It is indeed saddening to see the WTO summit meeting being remembered largely for the bickering that went on inside the meeting hall, and the demonstrations and protests that took place outside.

The WTO was founded on ideals. While the process of trade liberalization instigated by the organization has caused its fair share of grief, the ideals on which it is founded should not be lost altogether.