August 2006/N°9 WTO´s Doha Development Agenda: Suspension of negotiations reveals the underlying problems of the Round The 24th of July was a black Monday for the cur­rent negotiations on the Doha Development Agenda(DDA), when WTO Director-General Pas­cal Lamy recommended a“time-out” and the indefinite suspensions of the negotiations across the Round as a whole. The day before, the G-6 group of key trading partners(Australia, Brazil, EC, India, Japan, US) was again not able to bridge the gaps on agricultural domestic support and market access, which have been the main stum­bling blocks of the negotiations for several months. Many WTO members blamed the US for the failed negotiations due to its inability to com­mit itself to deeper cuts in agricultural domestic support. The highest decision-taking body of the WTO, the General Council, supported Lamy’s rec­ommendations at its meeting on 27–28 July. No­tably, the negotiations were not formally suspended to avoid that some members could block the resumption of talks in the future. This means that negotiations could continue without formal decision, whenever the political climate becomes more favorable. However, it is already clear that the Round cannot be concluded by the end of the year, missing the most important dead­line set by the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration. What are the difficulties? – Reactions of the stakeholders The reactions on the suspension of negotiations varied among the different stakeholders. EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson affirmed that the EU had been willing to show further flexibility in market access and directly blamed the US for not having moved on the issues of farm subsidies. On the other hand, US Trade Representative Susan Schwab stated that she was very disappointed that the promised flexibility and increased market access offered at the G-8 summit in St. Petersburg a week before did not materialize in Geneva, reaf­firming that a“Doha Lite” had never been an option for the US. While this kind of brinkmanship has constantly interfered real negotiations, the reactions of major developing countries and NGOs hit the mark more precisely by questioning the negotiating logic at its heart. India’s Commerce Minister Kamal Nath e.g. described the status of the Round“between intensive care and the cre­matorium” and mentioned that there is not only a gap in numbers but also a gap in mindset. He criticized the logic that subsidy cuts should be paid for in market access.“First of all, trade-distorting subsidies should not be there and, if developing countries are asked ´please pay us to remove these distortions´, I’m afraid that’s not going to work.” This position was strongly supported by NGOs and trade unions, which called for a refocusing and rebalancing of the negotiations. The International Confederation of Free Trade Unions stated that “[…] any trade talks that don’t encompass chang­ing unfair trade practices simply cannot succeed in the current international context”. These reactions show that the process of“serious reflection” that Lamy proposed in parallel with the suspension of the negotiations already started, encompassing various dimensions: Reflection on what is at stake, on the negotiation power and tactics, and on what is supposed to be at the heart of the Round, i.e. development. The diffi­culty of finding consensus showed the immense power of domestic pressure groups, such as the EU and US farming lobbies, but also the increased negotiation power of developing countries. Rajiv Chaudhry, member of the prestigious Evian Group, recently stated that“we live in a world where three billion people are simply no longer