WTO AFTER CANCÙN Results of the panel discussion on 19.9.2003 at the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung in Berlin Reasons for the failure in Cancún Karl-Ernst Brauner of the Federal Ministry of Economics and Labour in Germany defines Cancún rather a„profound misunder­standing“ offering a starting point for a long process of learning. When negotiations started, EU judged itself to be well equipped in order to reach a final success by skilful tactics. Surprised by the joint stance of the G 21- Brazil, a country based on agricultural exports, joining amongst others with India and China – which was underestimated by the developed countries due to its heterogeneity, the EU did not realise in time that none of the Singapore issues(investment, competition, government procurement, trade facilitation) were negotiable. As a consequence of South Korea’s insisting on the discussion of all Singapore issues, the Mexican foreign minister and chair, Luis Ernesto Derbez decided to conclude the end of negotiations – to the surprise of most of the participants. However, the Federal Ministry sticks to its conviction that the discussion of investment issues and questions of competition within the context of development remains sensible. Amit Dasgupta of the Indian Embassy in Berlin believes that defining winners and losers would just lead to confusion. He pleads to look at the simple facts: the US are at the brink of elections, the WTO ambassadors have been congratulated by the EU and EU farmers´ lobby for the collapse, and EU Trade Commissioner Lamy insisted on the introduction of the whole range of Singapore­Summary • The failure in Cancún is caused by two years of missed deadlines and postponement of decisions leading to an overloaded agenda. • The EU insistence on the Singapore issues was vehemently rejected by the developing countries. • The stalemate is attributed by the developed countries to a profound misunderstanding, by the developing countries to a total lack of interest in their most urgent request: combating extreme poverty. • One important fact emerged in Cancún: despite of their heterogeneity, the G21 became a key player within the WTO. issues, while the Doha-issues got stuck. It emerged that developed countries did not only show a total lack of understanding, but simply a lack of interest in the requests of the developing countries. The creation of G 21 aggravated the conflict, the multilateral assembly was split up in “us” against“them. The resulting scepticism against multilateralism is deplorable, but trade is not a target in itself. Statements like those of US Trade Minister Zoellick on the occasion of his visit to India“Those who to no play ball with us will bite the dust”, contribute to the negative impression.