Claude Barfield responds to Clive Crook's December 22 article in the Financial Times.

The best option to regain control of the multilateral negotiating process would be to suspend the Doha round talks for a year, to January 1 2010. There is no guarantee the atmosphere will be more benign in early 2010, but there is a possibility the international economy will have turned the corner by then, and that with new leaders, and the Obama administration on top of its portfolio, greater political will can combine with more substantive flexibility to produce compromises acceptable to the WTO's diverse membership.

Resident Scholar Claude Barfield

Mr Crook cites with apparent approval Dr Sally's contention that much liberalisation in the developing world has been unilateral and not the result of negotiations. The implication is that unilateralism is the wave of the future. Alas, would that this were true: as Dr Sally has also conceded, most of the unilateral measures now celebrated occurred in the 1990s and have not continued apace during the Doha round. Further, as a number of observers have noted, in the current economic crisis many countries are unilaterally raising barriers at the border or through internal regulatory means (demonstrating the weakness of national measures unsecured by multilateral commitments).

Dr Sally (along with Mr Crook) is right that there is a need for "greater modesty and realism" in WTO negotiations. But they are on dangerous ground when they hold that, in Dr Sally's words, "the multilateral approach to trade liberalisation is mostly a spent force". Further, the Financial Times seems to suggest the Doha round be jettisoned, recommending the exploration of "other options" because of "severe doubt on Doha as a vehicle to push through real liberalisation" ("The broken promise of Doha", editorial, December 17). Turning to "other options" without some closure on the Doha round would have devastating consequences for the WTO and the multilateral system.

The best option to regain control of the multilateral negotiating process would be to suspend the talks for a year, to January 1 2010. This would match political realities. First, the incoming Obama administration will be fully occupied during its first year with the financial crisis at home and abroad, and with its extensive and difficult domestic reform agenda. Further, in recent weeks powerful interest groups in the US agricultural and manufacturing sectors, backed by key congressional leaders, have signalled adamant opposition to suggested Doha compromises in their areas. Finally, Indian elections in May and a new European Commission in the autumn mean India and the EU are likely to be in a holding pattern in the near term.

There is no guarantee the atmosphere will be more benign in early 2010, but there is a possibility the international economy will have turned the corner by then, and that with new leaders, and the Obama administration on top of its portfolio, greater political will can combine with more substantive flexibility to produce compromises acceptable to the WTO's diverse membership. Mr Crook, Dr Sally and the Financial Times should not abet anti-globalism--even inadvertently, with honourable intentions--by despairing of, or abandoning, the multilateral negotiating process.

Claude Barfield is a resident scholar at AEI.