CANCUN, Mexico (AFP) - The World Trade Organization (news - web sites)'s Cancun conference, called to galvanize momentum toward a new multilateral trade accord, collapsed, succumbing to a bitter North-South rift.
The WTO played down what it termed a "setback," the United States blamed some delegations it did not name for refusing to compromise, while developing countries celebrated their new-found strength.
"The meeting did not come to a successful conclusion," Brazilian (news - web sites) Foreign Minister Celso Amorim said after five days and nights of sometimes bitter bargaining between the 146 WTO member states.
But, speaking on behalf of more than 20 colleagues, Amorim said the conference was a victory for developing countries that showed unity in pressing their demands, particularly for the reduction of agriculture subsidies.
But US Trade Representative Robert Zoellick insisted the question was not one of developed or developing, but one of "can do" and "won't do" countries. "The rhetoric of 'won't do' overhwelmed the concerted efforts of the 'can do.' 'Won't do led to the impasse."
He said "the larger lesson of Cancun is that useful compromise ... requires a serious willingness to focus on work -- not rhetoric -- to attain the fine balance between ambition and flexibility."
European Union Trade Commissioner Patrick Lamy bemoaned the collapse of the conference, insisting the EU made concessions in all areas.
"We could have gained, all of us, we have lost, all of us," he said, adding that while the current round of trade liberalization talks was not dead "it is in intensive care."
Delegates said the conference foundered on its final day over what are known as the Singapore issues -- cross-border investment, competition policies, trade facilitation and government procurement.
Developing countries oppose the issues, fearing in particular that a new international investment regime would benefit multilateral corporations at the expense of their own industries.
The European Union and Japan had urged a prompt start to talks on the Singapore issues.
The conference was also riven by deep divisions on agriculture, with developing countries clamoring for an end to trade-distoring subsidies offered to farmers in rich countries.
The EU agreed that export subsidies on certain products deemed critical by developing countries could be removed but balked at the elimination of all such assistance by a specific date.
The United States went along with demands for an end to export subsidies but sought concessions in return.
The ministers adopted a statement describing the outcome of the conference as a "setback" and stating that "more work needs to be done in some key areas" to fulfil the roadmap for trade liberalization the WTO adopted at its Doha conference two years ago.
But Zoellick said it was unlikely January 2005 deadline for the conclusion of the talks could be respected.
"It's hard for me to believe that in the position we are now we will be able to finish on time," Zoellick told reporters after the abrupt end of the meeting.
The ministers agreed senior WTO officials should meet again by December 15 to try again to further the negotiations.
Ugandan delegate Yashpal Tandon blamed rich countries for the impasse.
"They should have been faithful to the promise they made at Doha to talk about development," he said.
"The whole point is that Western countries utilised this meeting in order to push their issues."
As news of the collase spread through the fortress-like conference venue, several activists accredited to the gathering sang in the lobby, celebrating what they saw as a victory for poor countries.
"Rich countries over-played their hand and misjudged the strength of feeling and unity of the developing world who want to make trade fair and have a stake in global prosperity," the Oxfam international relief agency said.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. NoNonsense English offers this material non-commercially for research and educational purposes. I believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner, i.e. the media service or newspaper which first published the article online and which is indicated at the top of the article unless otherwise specified.