Seats Away and World Apart at WTO

U.S. Trade Representative Robert B. Zoellick may have met his match in Edward B. Rugumayo.

“In biology, it has been observed that the speed of a locust swarm is determined by its slowest member,” said Rugumayo, who taught environmental science long before he became Uganda’s minister of tourism, trade and industry.

“The way the world is designed, we poor people are a drag on you,” Rugumayo said. “You will not move far until that slow locust is with you.”

Rugumayo’s admonition helps explain the problems Zoellick has encountered as he tries to build support among the 142 members of the World Trade Organization for launching another grand round of global trade liberalization.

Zoellick and his counterparts in other industrialized countries insist that trade expansion improves the fortunes of all countries, rich and poor. Their faith is shared by the World Bank, which says removal of trade barriers could lift 300 million people out of poverty.

Rugumayo, who represents the interests of the 30 “least-developed countries,” said he too believes in the benefits of trade. But the Zoellick doctrine works only when it is agreed to by all parties, Rugumayo said, and not when its terms are dictated by the wealthy few.

The unexpectedly stiff resistance offered by developing countries is one of the principal reasons Zoellick and his allies have been unable to get a new round off the ground. Because the WTO operates by consensus, he must convince Rugumayo and like-minded ministers that their countries will reap the benefits of more trade liberalization.

He’s running out of time. The WTO ministerial conference in Qatar, the first held since the collapse of similar discussions in Seattle two years ago, is scheduled to finish its business tonight.

As of late Monday, consensus was proving hard to find. “Bluntly, there are still too many areas of substantial difference,” WTO Secretary General Michael Moore warned delegates in a late-evening status report.

Still, some progress was being made. Representatives of nine countries were nearing agreement on compromise language affirming the right of developing countries to override drug patents under some circumstances when faced with health emergencies such as AIDS or malaria.

The proposed compromise, which was still being debated late Monday, would state that a 1994 pact on intellectual property rights “does not and should not prevent members from taking measures to protect public health.” If accepted by all WTO members, it would settle a dispute that has pitted the United States and other big pharmaceutical producers against more than 80 developing countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America that want to buy generic equivalents of high-priced patented medicines.

Even if the drug dispute is resolved, developing countries have other major complaints about the proposed guidelines for a new round of trade talks, which would take several years to complete. They want the “Quad” economies--the United States, Europe, Japan and Canada--to accelerate the timetable for reducing farm subsidies and opening their domestic markets to foreign agricultural and apparel products. They oppose efforts by the wealthy countries to expand trade rules in the areas of environmental protection, labor rights, foreign investment and competition policy. They want more time and flexibility to carry out their commitments under the last big trade agreement in 1994.

“The objectives of the developing countries are clear,” Pakistani delegation leader Munir Akram told reporters. “Unfortunately, despite hours and hours of negotiations, these priorities are not adequately reflected. If they are not reflected, we will have very, very difficult last hours.”

U.S. trade officials are still struggling to help ailing textile and apparel manufacturers in Pakistan, a key ally in the anti-terrorism battle, without angering the powerful domestic textile and apparel lobby needed to pass trade liberalization measures in Congress.

The U.S. government will extend a small olive branch today when it accelerates by four months the elimination of a quota on imported yarn from Pakistan. But Pakistani textile and apparel makers want the reduction or elimination of tariffs on all Pakistani textile and apparel imports, a measure strongly opposed by domestic apparel makers but supported by U.S. Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kansas). He plans to submit a bill today that would allow the president to take that step. The issues of greatest importance to Uganda are drug patents and agricultural reform. Uganda has been devastated by the AIDS epidemic, and “a sick nation cannot do serious business,” Rugumayo said. Its 5 million farmers have been hurt by imports of heavily subsidized grains and oil seeds from the developed countries, but First World trade barriers restrict exports of their own agricultural products.

Although Rugumayo sits only a few seats away from Zoellick in WTO sessions, a reflection of their alphabetical proximity, the countries they represent are about as far apart as it’s possible to get in one world. The U.S. has a $10-trillion economy, the world’s largest, and exports $1trillion in goods and services every year. Uganda ranks 96th among nations, with gross domestic product of $6billion and exports of $380million.

But the 66-year-old trade minister does not hesitate to take stock of a fellow politician, no matter how big his portfolio. European Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy? “Very slippery fellow.” Zoellick? “A genuine man,” but one who is hemmed in by powerful business interests and members of Congress who oppose trade reform.

They may operate at different ends of the swarm, but they have much in common. “We understand one another,” Rugumayo said. “We appreciate each other’s position.”