MONTREAL - In a downtown Montreal hotel, well away from Canada's wheat fields and dairy plants, agriculture is set to take centre stage next week at a World Trade Organization meeting.
While few observers expect significant progress at the three-day meeting, the results will say a lot about where Canada and the 145 other WTO member countries stand in their efforts to conclude the latest round of trade negotiations by their deadline of Jan. 1, 2005.
About 25 trade ministers representing a cross-section of WTO members will assess progress and discuss how to persevere with the Doha Development Agenda, named after the mandate for negotiations on a new trade treaty that was agreed to in 2001 in Doha, Qatar.
Outside the Sheraton Centre, thousands of anti-globalization activists will unite in an attempt to disrupt the meeting and spread their message that the WTO, through many of its policies, is "a form of war."
The Montreal meeting, which begins Monday, is the last scheduled gathering before a ministerial meeting of all 146 WTO member countries Sept. 10-14 in Cancun, Mexico, where progress on a deal will be officially reviewed.
Next week's sessions are aimed at "weeding out" the issues so that in Cancun ministers can get right down to work, Trade Minister Pierre Pettigrew said in an interview.
Key to the latest negotiations is determining how to bridge the deep chasms that exist between developed and developing countries. The fundamental issue, for both Canada and many developing countries, is the elimination of about $300 billion US in annual farm subsidies they say depress international prices.
Much has been said in recent weeks about a deadlock over agriculture. There have also been suggestions that the strength of the United States' commitment to the WTO might be tested if the 2005 deadline is not met.
Pettigrew said it's unfortunate and frustrating that deadlines have been missed along the way to the ultimate 2005 target, but Canada remains optimistic.
"I see some people who say 'they are panicked,' " said Pettigrew. "But it is on the contrary. As we are really engaging (in debates) things are moving to substance, rather than just scripted positions."
Expectations must be kept in check, cautions Bill Dymond, executive director of the Centre for Trade Policy and Law.
"They are at an impasse but there's nothing unusual about that," Dymond said in an interview from Ottawa. "This is going to be a long haul. It's a very complicated negotiation and it's going to take a long time before consensus begins to emerge."
Dymond said the 2005 deadline is artificial and a deal could take as long as 10 years to reach, with agriculture being "the key that unlocks the rest of it."
He added the issue is being wrongly portrayed as a rich-poor debate when it is really a battle between two groups of developed countries.
Exporting countries such as Canada, Australia, Argentina and the United States want better access to markets currently dominated by the protectionist policies in places such as Europe, Japan and Korea. But Canada's own position is ambiguous, said Dymond. The federal government lobbies for free trade for western Canadian exports such as grain and oilseeds, while keeping high tariffs on poultry and dairy products to protect eastern Canadian producers from imports.
The political balancing act can often be "awkward," he 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.