May, 2003: Publius

By Greg Rushford

Published in the Rushford Report

The trouble with the WTO’s Doha Round, observes Guy de Jonquieres of the Financial Times, is that it has the feel of  “an officials’ round.”

            U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick and his European Union counterpart, Pascal Lamy, are highly skilled trade negotiators who could probably wrap up a Doha deal by the end of next year, right on schedule. And in Geneva , nobody doubts the determination of WTO Director-General Supachai Panitchpakdi and his experienced team to make Doha work. The trouble that de Jonquieres refers to is the undeniable fact that by themselves, the trade technocrats can’t deliver a deal.

            For the WTO negotiations to work, the deal must be struck at the highest political levels. On the key issue of agriculture reform, this means that presidents and prime ministers will have to overcome their differences. Men like French President Jacques Chirac, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and George W. Bush. The persuasive Blair would like to be the healer. But Bush and Chirac can barely stand the thought of being in the same room together. And none of the leaders is really focused on getting the stalled international economy and the Doha talks back on track. 

            Let’s focus on Bush. His attitude is making it very unlikely that the Doha negotiations will be wrapped up successfully by the end of 2004. While international economic issues slide, the president is pressing a domestic economic stimulus package. Which is more important?

            According to a study done by PriceWaterhouseCoopers for the Business Roundtable, the president’s domestic proposal “would add $738 billion of new income to the economy during the first five years and $1,561 billion during the first 10 years.” Fine. But by contrast, as the WTO’s Supachai has pointed out, “a successful [ Doha ] liberalization round could contribute as much as $2.8 billion to global growth.” This is a far bigger prize.

            You would think that the president would now be doing everything in his power to promote global economic growth. That means spending personal presidential capital on the Doha process — the sooner the better. Last year, the president did spend valuable political capital in getting the fast-track trade negotiating authority that he needed from Congress to launch the Doha Round. But after that welcome victory, the president has spent very little time, if any, on the subject.

             What the president is spending time on these days, apparently, is punishment. Bush is punishing Chile by delaying the ratification of the U.S.-Chile preferential trade accord. This is because the Latin American country resisted U.S. pressures in the Security Council to join the “coalition of the willing” aimed at toppling Saddam Hussein. Of course, Chile isn’t the only party that is being punished. Bush is also punishing those in the American business community who stand to start making money by sealing contracts with Chile as soon as the bilateral trade deal is sealed. The president’s pettiness is not even in America ’s own economic interests.

            You’ve read the stories that Bush is also out to punish France, making it clear that President Chirac is not about to be invited to the presidential ranch in Texas anytime soon.  I spoke with a well-connected White House official last month who denied that Bush was out to punish and otherwise embarrass Chirac. Bush will go to the G8 summit in Evian with a positive attitude, the official insisted. “Every time people accuse this administration of breaking eggs, we end up with an omelette,” the White House aide said.

            This isn’t about punishment, it’s about “consequences,” the official insisted. “It isn’t business as usual,” because of what the Chirac did to oppose Bush’s Iraq policy. “We will work with them, but we certainly understand what they are, and who they are,” the U.S. official said of the French. “We can’t be naïve.” Think of the outcry if the president would say such things about Israel .

            On April 22, White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer explained to reporters how Bush makes foreign policy. “One of the things that I think you have seen in the President’s conduct of foreign policy now for some, almost two and a half years, when you go back to the P-3 incident in China, when you go back to take a look at what happened in the lead-up to the events and military operation in Afghanistan, and now in Iraq, you see a President who lays out in very clear moral terms the beginning of a debate and what he stands for,” Fleisher declared. “He’s willing to speak, in terms of good and evil, black and white, right and wrong.”

            One has the sense that George W. Bush has looked into the soul of Jacques Chirac, and doesn’t like what he has seen. It’s Mr. Christian Right meeting Mr. Moral Ambiguity. These guys have been feeding off each other. Bush is enjoying his role as the world’s leading hegemon. And Chirac seems to be enjoying his reincarnation as Charles de Gaulle. In purely domestic political terms, the two presidents have positioned themselves to benefit by railing against each other’s vision.

            If this continues much longer, it’s the rest of us who will be punished economically by the inevitable delay in the Doha Round.

TOP