"With political courage, commitment and sheer hard work, governments of the WTO are capable of achieving great things."~Director-General Panitchpakdi

One of the major debates I have had as a student representative at the U of A is the debate on whether or not protest is effective. Are the results tangible? Can you effectively make change through protest? It is a great debate. It is far-reaching and encompasses more than just student politics, that is for sure, and even at the global level it is hard to nail down exactly the benefit, or toll, that protest has taken.

I am sure many of you know where I fall into the debate on this, because I think that protest is the *only* voice I have against the oppressive nature of the plutocracy that I live in. Would I rather have a voice that counts and not have to protest? Hell yeah!! But given the current political climate that's not really realistic is it? Much to my glee the Canadian Learning Television network, or 'CLT' (rather a funny acronym if you have a gutter-mind, like me) has been airing the series "Commanding Heights" and last night was episode six. It documents the new global economy and featured a lot of coverage from the anti-globalization movement and the impacts of the protests in Seattle and the like. This great documentary highlights the effectiveness of these protests and also the drawbacks. It shows that it is not the protest itself that effects change really, but instead it is the pressure applied on the government to start listening to an ever growing group of individuals who just won't sit idly by and take it anymore.

I think that pressure has had an effect. When I read the news from Doha this last weekend I wonder how much of this reported progress came from protests? Is it working? Or was it the diligence of the less developed countries that finally created action? Perhaps it was a little of both? From the bottom up the pressure seems to be seeping into the mainstream and it has had an effect on the way that trade negotiations are handled. But progress is slow. Very slow. Here is the background...

This last weekend, at the Doha round of the W.T.O negotiations, The E.U. and the U.S. have agreed to remove agriculture export subsidies which has been a critical topic. So they have come up with a framework. And by 'agreeing to remove these subsidies' they mean "talk about it some more". So that doesn't really mean a thing does it? Talk, talk, talk...It's like when Klein touted that Alberta is debt free when realistically those debts will be outstanding for a few more years. It's like the abbreviated truth...but technically not the whole truth.

Who saw the Daily Show last night? Jon Stewart talked a bit on the subject of twisting the truth because it seems it is easier than actually fully explaining the truth. Is this the kind of world we want to live in? Where details are just ignored and the fact twisted into something barely resembling the truth?

That's what this big announcement from Doha feels like to me. For the most part it is how politics feels to me sometimes; full of half-truths and misleading distortions. Shit, even Leftists like Michael Moore utilize this approach even though I would argue that they have the truth on their side, so why lie? Does anybody even know what the truth is anymore?

Is this a step forward to a more egalitarian trade regime? Technically this will have little actual effect. On one hand rich countries have promised to get rid of all their export subsidies (holy Shit!)... but at a date yet to be fixed....and not until this trade round ends...which has been pushed back to 2007.

So it sounds like (and looks like) a huge amount of progress has been made during the Doha round of Trade negotiations, right? And they look poised to affect real change, right? Call me cynical but there are also a lot of loopholes in the agreement which you can read about at The Economist if you are a subscriber. They posit in the article Progress at last, but still a long way to go (Aug 2nd 2004) from The Economist Global Agenda that:

The details of the framework agreement suggest that the rich countries are now prepared to pay a price to ensure access to the markets of the bigger, more attractive developing nations, and that price is the freeing-up of their own agricultural markets. Meanwhile, the poorest countries, in being relieved of many tariff-cutting obligations, have opted out of the process. So, though the Doha round is back on track, the WTO has, in effect, split into two tiers: one for those countries that are fully engaged in the round, and one for those that are little more than bystanders.

Will this work? Will it be enough? Considering the huge domestic implications due to rampant protectionism, (incidentally Canada is one of the worse perpetrators of this kind of protectionism) and political backlash that could come after this announcement, I have to say I have hope that the E.U. with it's approach, (that's a PDF link to their position paper)and the U.S. stick to it and can actually commit. But, that remains to be seen. And I am certainly not holding my breath, although I have to admit I am seriously impressed that this compromise was reached and glad talks will continue.