The well known British jornalist and political commentator, Martin Jacques, has a piece in today's GUARDIAN called 'The death of Doha Signals the Demise of Globalisation'. He concludes that the deadlock in Doha is final and that it suggests not so much the end of globalisation as the death of multilateralism. He points in particular to the US turn to bilateralism and suggests that this is directly tied to developments in the WTO. In particular it suggests that the US only favours multilateralism when it gets it suits its interests, and that changing relations between the developed and developing world in the WTO is such that the WTO is now beginning to resemble the UN, with the result that the US can no longer guarantee getting its own way. He argues this is of great symbolic signifance, marking the end of the process of globalisation that has been in train since the 1970s. He suggests that the WTO will now be relegated to the backburner and that this is 'redolent with significance' because of the unique importance of the WTO as an institutional expression of globalisation.He adds that though the WTO is the first casualty it is unlikely to be the last, reflecting a broader shift in economic power from developed to developing countries, citing India and China as prime examples. The rise of China in particular is said to generate pressure for protectionism, and on this Jacques cited James Kynges book, CHINA STAKES THE WORLD. He claims that current events present the irony that though the west has traditionally been the key defender of free trade (tying this to an unequivocal statement that free trade always favour the most powerful and advanced countries) it is now likely to seek protection behind barriers. 'In a sense, the death of Doha is a dress rehearsal, albeit an early one, for the end of globalisation. And those who bury it will be those who designed it and proselytised for it - the US and Europe'.
There is much that could be said; not least the incompatibility of the statement about free trade invariably favouring the powerful and advanced countries with Jacques' acceptance that the developed world can no longer get its way in the WTO. Perhaps more important though is the sense of finality which emerges, just as it did with the demise of the failed European Constitution. Failure in the high politics of Doha, or in the ratification process of the Constitution for Europe, doesn't mean that these organizations stop working. Disputes continue, and continue to be resolved. This is true most visibly in the dispute settlement organs, but more importantly in practice in the plethora of committees and councils which comprise the WTO. In this more humdrum world, developed countries never got it all their own way, and developing countries continue to make recourse to these mechanisms to resolve tensions at an early stage, and to secure technical assistance packages which mitigate the impact of regulatory initiatives in the developed world. (I have a recent paper 'Regulatory Cooperation in the WTO: The Case of the SPS Committee' on this topic). Jacques is clearly right to point to the demise of Doha but it seems unlikely to spell the demise of the WTO, much less globalisation. Whatever, globalism will proceed just as far and fast under bilateralism as it does under multilateralism, and without the safeguards associated with the multilateral gaze. For those who have watched the TRIPS saga unfold over the years, this is all too clear.
