WTO AND DOHA DEVELOPMENT ROUND: CHALLENGES FOR GLOBAL TRADE

WTO AND DOHA DEVELOPMENT ROUND: CHALLENGES FOR GLOBAL TRADE

Introduction
In the post-World War II era, international community has shown a great attempt to have a more organized and united world paying much more attention on peace-keeping and interdependence. It was thought that a more united and interdependent world would be much more peaceful. This perception has primarily taken place with the establishment of the United Nations (UN) as an instrument for global affairs. Subsequent to the UN, the international organizations has propagated to many different areas ranging from military to energy, from politics to trade over time.
The expansion of global interdependence to trading field starts with the Bretton-Woods Conference in 1945. The states participating to the conference has come to a mutual understanding on an agreement which anticipates the reciprocal mitigation of tariffs in international trade. The agreement which was referred to General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) has gone into operation by 1947. However, it was not an end for the international progress of interdependency on trade since the member states have launched a process improving and expanding the terms of the agreement, which they have had a consensus on, with the inclusion of the new members. In 1986, GATT members have organized a meeting in Uruguay which was the eighth round of the multilateral trade negotiations. By the end of the summit, the member states have declared that it has been deemed to forge an institution based on GATT in order to have a more inclusive position in global trade. This event has paved the road for the emergence of World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995 (Barton et al. 2006)
WTO and Doha Round
By the establishment of WTO, global trade has gained momentum since the liberalization of the world markets has accelerated besides the alleviation of the tariffs which has already been adopted by GATT. Trade has been based on common and particular rules and trading negotiations between states have found a legal platform to proceed. WTO has disseminated with the inclusion of new trade agreements over time and become a pivotal international economic organization in the world (Barton et al. 2006).
On the other hand, multilateral trading negotiations which were put into practice under the umbrella of WTO were not a picture of complete success since 1990s have become a turning point for the global economic transformation with the rising trend of financial markets and new economic areas. As a consequence of this contingency, expectations of the multilateral negotiations have not matched with the national priorities of the states and the process was lock in talks. The first concrete proof of this retardation has emerged with the failure of 1999 Seattle WTO Ministerial Conference. The attending parties of the conference would not reach a compromise and the meeting was ended before the planned time schedule because of the trenchant criticisms of the non-governmental organizations. Moreover, subsequent ministerial conferences and even the summits have shared the same destiny with the conference in Seattle (WTO 2007a).
Under these circumstances, just after the September 11 attacks, WTO has announced that the agenda item of the new round, which would be held in Doha, capital of Qatar, has been set as the "development". Since the round has planned to focus on the economic progress of developing countries primarily, it was named as Doha Development Round. Even though the international trade authorities have tackled a considerable amount of criticisms, pressures and conflicting preferences of the members during the conference, it was a productive meeting since the parties have negotiated a wide range of issues from many diverse perspectives. Doha Development Round has begun a new period in the multilateral trading negotiations which proceeds even today (Cline 2005).
What Happened in Doha?
Doha Development Round is a substantive event for the global economics since it does not merely address the problems of the developing countries but opens a new phase in the liberalization of the global markets. The agenda of the round contains the negotiations of agricultural and service sectors as well as manufacturing sector, in contrast to GATT. This means that the influence of liberalization on multilateral trade does not remain limited with manufacturing sector but encompasses the whole market. Besides, the recent rise in prices of the agricultural goods emphasizes the significance of the inclusion of agriculture in multilateral trading negotiations and concentrates the focus of the developing countries on agriculture. As a natural consequence of the contingent, the sensitivity of the countries on agricultural priorities rises to a substantial level and forges a severe problem in the process since it gets harder for countries to appease on agriculture. In particular, the conflicts emanating from the special protection mechanisms of the some sensitive agricultural products deepen the disagreement (Sutherland 2004).
By July 2008, the members of WTO initiate a meeting in Geneva to outpace the problems of the Doha Development Round. Indeed, some contradicting issues among states in terms of national priorities are resolved by this attempt. However, different agricultural preferences of the countries keep being a trouble during the meeting and there is still no accurate compromise on it (De Jonquiéres 2008).
Another significant issue that comes to fore with Doha Round is the involvement of service sector into multilateral trading negotiations. Service sector plays a very severe role in the world economy since it is the rising power of the global markets in terms of volume and growth rate. Services export comprises of a great part of the world trade and augments its share day by day (Hertel et al. 2000). It gives an opportunity to developing countries to participate the global economics in a more influential way and has a great capacity to create employment which is crucial for developing countries since they tackle high unemployment rates. That's why, the inclusion of service sector into the process is very substantive for primarily developing countries. Moreover, it might be a new way to improve the amount and variations of trade between developing countries since multilateral trading negotiations are supposed to decrease the obstacles of free trade and to reduce the gap between developed and developing countries in terms of economy as much as possible. An easy and efficient trade of services would assist the developing countries to restrict their disadvantages and to compete with the developed countries which is admittedly a crucial step (Narlikar 2004).
Besides, Doha Development Round brings a new dimension to the issue of intellectual property rights with the initiation of TRIPS (Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) Agreement. TRIPS anticipates the modernization and liberalization of the regulations of the member states in terms of intellectual property rights. Even though implementation of TRIPS creates a lot of disagreement during the negotiations, the progress that has been made is undeniable. That is to say, Doha Round is remarkable in terms of development on intellectual property rights (Baldwin 2006).
Another issue that comes to fore in Doha Round is regulations concerning anti-dumping and subsidies. These regulations are key to an effective fight with unfair commercial practices; however, they might turn into obstacles for free trade if they are not implemented at a proper level. In that sense, WTO members agree to engulf the regulations of anti-dumping and subsidies in the negotiations. It is also decided to reconsider the terms of WTO agreements related to anti-dumping and subsidies and to make them clear since the implementation of these regulations without impeding free trade is crucial. That's why the inclusion of the anti-dumping regulations into the negotiation process sets a precedent for both developed and developing countries (WTO 2007a).
In addition, the attempts of WTO in terms of easing of trade gain momentum with Doha Development Round since abolishment of tariff quotas does not mean that all commercial obstacles are eliminated. Indeed, countries implement many other types of trading restrictions emanating from lack of capacity mostly. These restrictive regulations complicate the trading affairs by increasing the expenditures. Therefore, WTO anticipates the removal of administrative differences and facilitation of complicated customs procedures for efficient trade relations (Schott 2006).
Over and above, Doha Round depicts an important place not just for trading relationships amongst states but for domestic trading regulations of states. Most of the countries have their own type of commercial regulations influencing the internal and external affairs with other countries and when it comes to the table of multilateral negotiations, it complicates the situation since it gets harder to reach a settlement on the terms, which are the constitutive part of the meetings, because of the diverse conceptualization of trading regulations. In that sense, Doha Round has its own particular significance; for it accelerates the process in which the member states of WTO attempts to find a common ground in terms of different domestic trading regulations. Even though there is still a considerable amount of disagreements among countries on this issue, the progress that has been made by Doha Round is irrefutable. That is to say, Doha Round forges a rising trend of compatible trading regulations between countries in spite of a slow process (WTO 2003).
On the other hand, the deadlock in the Doha process directs the participants to take different steps that are concentrated on unilateral solutions instead of multilateral ones. The rising tendency of the countries towards the regional partnerships and bilateral trade agreements mitigates the interest on multilateral negotiations and obstructs the progress. Since the regional or bilateral free trade agreements do not ensure a liberalized global market, they just increases the privileges of the parties that have such an agreement by enhancing the discrimination among countries which violates the "non-discrimination" principle of WTO. That's why, many countries are deeply concerned about the rise of regionalism and bilateralism and anticipates WTO to take some precautions about it. Considering the deceleration in the negotiations, the most effective precaution might be the acceleration of the process by resolving the problems (Winters 2006).
Nonetheless, the only reason behind the ongoing disagreement in the process is not the conflicting interests of the member states but the problems originating from the internal dynamics of WTO. Some severe criticisms towards functioning mechanisms of WTO constitute a significant reason for the reluctance of the countries since they damage the reputation of the institution.
The most outstanding and influential criticisms might be described in four diverse ways, given the explanation of critical perspectives. First view targets the principle of "reciprocity" by emphasizing the fact that "reciprocity" of GATT has worked since it just involves the manufacturing sector. However, "reciprocity" of WTO involves the other sectors such as agriculture or service sectors and this expansion complicates the negotiation process. Secondly, the transformation of GATT into WTO is a complicated issue, given increase of the number of the member states and the rising influence of the developing countries. As a consequence of the contingency, WTO stops being an institution that is easily controlled by the developed countries and to negotiate an issue gets harder since developing countries are much more capable of following their own interests. Third is the lack of leadership for Doha Development Round since neither USA nor EU take the lead during the meeting. It practically leaves the process to its own devices and discredits the negotiation dynamics. Lastly, erosion of the trust over the liberal market economy and free trade influences the Doha process in a negative manner all around the world (Cohn 2007).
Beyond these four points, there are some other critical views towards the decision-making process of WTO. Most of them stresses on the issues of democratic participation, transparency and efficiency by expressing the fact that WTO needs to be improved on these aspects. If WTO turns into an institution that is more democratic, transparent and accountable, it might help WTO to gain confidence of skeptics and to accelerate the process. Considering all those views, it seems to be quiet obvious that Doha Round works slowly not only because of the conflicting priorities of the countries but the unreliable functioning of WTO itself (Keck et al. 2006).
Conclusion
2001 Doha Round which is held under the umbrella of WTO is a crucial development for both developed and developing countries since it brings new dimensions to the global trade. While the predecessor of WTO, GATT anticipates inclusion of only manufacturing sector into the multilateral trading negotiations, agricultural and service sectors are included in the scope of negotiations by Doha Round. By this way, new possibilities appear about multilateral cooperation among the member states of WTO.
Furthermore, some issues which are not considered by WTO before Doha Round such as trade-related intellectual property rights and anti-dumping regulations open to discussion. However, the negotiations proceed in a very slow and challenging manner since there are severe disagreements on the table. Indeed, the conflicts decelerating the process arise from either the different national priorities of the countries or the mistrust towards the internal functioning mechanisms of WTO. Nevertheless, it is expected to outpace all of the obstacles and to reach a compromise as long as the attending parties and WTO itself are ready to face with and resolve them.

























Bibliography
1- Baldwin, R.E. (2006), 'Failure of the WTO Ministerial Conference at Cancun: Reasons and Remedies', The World Economy, 29(6), 677-696.
2- Barton, J.H., J.L. Goldstein, T. E. Josling and R.H. Steinberg (2006), The Evolution of the Trade Regime: Politics, Law, and Economics of the GATT and the WTO, Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.
3- Cline, W. (2005), 'Achieving a Grand Bargain in the Doha Round', Center for Global Development / IIE Brief, December 2005, Washington DC: Institute for International Economics.
4-Cohn, T.H. (2007), 'The World Trade Organization and Global Governance', Neo-Liberalism, State Power and Global Governance, Springer.
5- De Jonquiéres, G. (2008), After the Doha Debacle: What Next for the Global Trading System, Chatham House Briefing Paper, IEP / JEF BP 08/05, Eylül 2008, London.
6- Hertel, T. and W. Martin (2000), 'Liberalising Agriculture and Manufactures in a Millenium Round: Implications for Developing Countries', The World Economy 23(4), 455-469.
7- Keck, A. and P. Low (2006), 'Special and Differential Treatment in the WTO: Why, When, and How?, Economic Development and Multilateral Trade Cooperation, Washington DC: The World Bank.
8- Narlikar, A. (2004), 'Developing Countries and the WTO', Trade Politics, London and New York: Routledge.
9- Schott, J. J. (2006), 'Completing the Doha Round ', Policy Brief in International Economics, No. PB06-7, Institute for International Economics.
10- Sutherland, P. (2004), The Future of the WTO: Addressing Institutional Challenges in the New Millenium, Geneva: WTO.
11- Winters, L. A. (1996), Regionalism versus Multilateralism, Policy Research Working Paper, No. 1687, November 1996, Washington DC: The World Bank.
12- WTO (2003), Doha Declarations, Geneva: WTO.
13- WTO (2007a), World Trade Report 2007- Six Decades of Multilateral Cooperation: What Have We Learnt?, Geneva: WTO.