WTO post Doha: trade deadlocks and protectionism

• Date: 06 September 2013
• Published date: 06 September 2013
• Pages: 272-288
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JITLP-05-2013-0013
• Author: Elimma Ezeani
• Subject Matter: Economics

WTO post Doha: trade deadlocks

and protectionism

Elimma Ezeani

Aberdeen Business School, Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen, UK

Abstract

Purpose – At its inception, the Doha Round offered the hope of a more inclusive World Trade

Organisation (WTO); one where developing countries in particular envisioned would allow them the

policy space to enable their socio-economic advancement even as they carried out their obligations

as Member States of the rules-based international trade system. While the rewards of this novel

development round are awaited, WTO Member States are making a marked shift away from the

foundation principles of multilateralism on non-discriminatory treatment, and pursuing independent

trade deals outside the rules. An emerging acceptance of this shift comes with an idea that countries

can converge after divergence – that alternatives to multilateralism can still yield agreements that

will operate in a multilateral rules-based framework, post Doha. To this end, this article reviews

the challenges facing the Doha negotiations as it pertains to developing country concerns and the

shortcomings of the existing development framework. It critically examines the issues arising from the

stalemate of the Doha negotiations and the efforts of the international trading system to continue

engaging in trade in the face of globalisation, increasing unemployment, decreased wages and living

standards in the backdrop of a global recession. It examines the emerging convergence theory which

recognises departures from the uniform trading arrangements under multilateralism, without

recognising this as a tacit acceptance of a return to protectionism with its consequences. The paper

aims to discuss these issues.

Design/methodology/approach – Reference is made to primary and secondary research material

on the subject including WTO rules and agreements.

Findings – The article finds that the stalemate in this Doha Round reveals more than just

dissatisfaction between Member States on the nature and scope of the rules that must guide their

global trading activities. It reveals the fragility of rules and the potential inefficacy of a system that

attempts to regulate nebulous activity – trade in the face of divergent needs and concerns.

Research limitations/implications – The research is library/desk based.

Originality/value – This work is an original contribution and is not under consideration elsewhere.

Keywords Development,Global crises, Protectionism, Tradedeadlocks, WTO

Paper type Viewpoint

1. Introduction

In the aftermath of the financial crisis of 2008 and significant reductions in domestic

employment and global trade statistics, every country is affected by a threat in reduced

trading power. The promises of the WTO to enter into “mutually advantageous

arrangements directed to the substantial reduction of tariffs and other barriers to

trade” and to further the “elimination of discriminatory treatment in international trade

relations” (WTO, 1994) are giving way to countries’ interest to “negotiate trade opening

bilaterally, plurilaterally and regionally” (Lamy, 2013a). The central theme of the Doha

Round, Development, is now at its fringes. Along with it, the WTO development

framework is in danger of being forgotten in the stalemate of negotiations. Part 2 of

this paper highlights the concerns with the Doha Development Agenda (DDA) which

underlie the stalemate in negotiations. This part also evalu ates the present

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1477-0024.htm

Journal of International Trade Law

and Policy

Vol. 12 No. 3, 2013

pp. 272-288

qEmerald Group Publishing Limited

1477-0024

DOI 10.1108/JITLP-05-2013-0013

JITLP

12,3

272

development framework of the WTO in the view that legal binding provisions still

constitute a veritable part of the development agenda. Part 3 notes the departure from

the non-discriminatory principle and considers that there are benefits to the continued

sustenance of the open trade concept in the face of globalisation, when countries are

able to enter arrangements that are acceptable under the rules-based system and also

respond to the needs and concerns of trading partners. While Part 4 draws attention to

the emergence of a convergence theory post Doha, it examines whether this is in

essence a tacit acknowledgement of the disenchantment with the WTO and

multilateralism in trade negotiations. In Part 5, the paper concludes that the emerging

“convergence” theory admits the inevitability of new and increased preferential trading

arrangements following the Doha stalemate. It however stresses that non-multilateral

negotiations and any subsequent agreements from these should not be incorporated

into the multilateral framework and that should this happen, it presents a wider

question of the authenticity of a multilateral rules-based system.

2. The Doha “Development” stalemate

Twelve years after the Doha Round was initiated, the negotiations are still at a

stalemate. Broadly speaking, the polarisation is between developed countries’

resistance to allow more concessions to their developed country counterparts on

non-tariff barriers (NTBs) to trade, and developing country refusal to concede on issues

of trade such as agriculture, wherein they consider their natural advantages are in

continued danger of erosion by the strong domestic measures including subsidies, etc.

prevalent in developed countries. There is pressure on both sides to reach a deal but to

reach a deal with whom? The recent announcement of moves by two strong trading

blocs – the United States (US) and the European Union (EU) under the Obama

administration – a Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement and an EU-US free trade

agreement (McGregor, 2013; Stokes, 2013) signify disillusionment but with what –

multilateralism in general or the Doha negotiations in particular?

These suggestions for alternatives to a concluded Doha Round may in reality be

evidence of disenchantment with the ambitious projects set out under the Doha

negotiations. Four objectives are set out in the preamble of the Doha Declaration:

[...] we shall continue to make positive efforts designed to ensure that developing countries,

and especially the least-developed among them, secure a share in the growth of world trade

commensurate with the needs of their economic development. In this context, enhanced

market access, balanced rules, and well targeted, sustainably financed technical assistance and

capacity-building programmes have important roles to play (McGregor, 2013; Stokes, 2013,

italics for emphasis).

These areas are properly so-called, the “development agenda” of the Doha Round and

are central to the deadlock. The objectives of enhanced market access, an essential

attribute of the general free trade theory has been brought to a halt with debates about

agriculture and non-tariff barriers.

The deadlock is ultimately strengthened by the greater negotiating presence of

developing countries, particularly from Asia and Latin America. More generally, in

spite of their greater majority in the WTO Membership, the market access benefits of

open and free trade still elude the greater number of developing countries. These

economies, especially those in sub-Saharan Africa have not made significant economic

progress if reliance is to be placed on the various publications of international

WTO post Doha

273