The warning the World Trade Organisation chief, Supachai Panitchpakdi, sounded to the member states on Monday (July 19), has not come unexpected. For it revolves round fears of "all of us" turning poorer in case of failure of the Geneva moot to somehow salvage the blocked trade talks by end-July deadline, which is only days away.
Coming rather too late in the day, at the opening of the current trade envoys meeting in Geneva for ventilating their initial response to the draft deal laboriously worked out in the aftermath of the collapse of the last year's Cancun conference, Panitchpakdi's observation may be seen as a logical conclusion from the unwavering stand then adopted by the developed countries.
With slim prospects of any change of mind in the developed countries, failure at Geneva could mean continuation of an unsavoury and uncertain status quo over a rather too long period. Which, to say the least, can undermine the whole purpose behind the Doha Round.
It will be recalled that frustrated by the alarming setback at Cancun, the WTO members were left with almost no other choice than agreeing to devise, until the end of July, a "road map" for trade reform, particularly focusing farm and industrial goods.
This should leave little to doubt about the exceptionally crucial nature of the ongoing Geneva moot. For if all goes well there, it can provide the member states with some breathing space to concentrate on disputed issues until end 2004, before getting distracted by the forthcoming elections in the United States and leadership issues in the European Union.
The "roadmap" now before them is ostensibly aimed at convincing poorer countries that they would win big cuts in rich countries' farm subsidies, while offering developed nations more open markets for their industrial goods and services. However, there appears to be little evidence of the rich nations agreeing to any such arrangement.
The only ray of hope, in this regard, may be seen in the idea of flexibility as indicated in the approach of EU, which is inclined to agree to setting a date for eliminating farm export subsidies. As for the other rich states, they remain firm in their refusal to commit themselves to sharp reductions in any forms of aid to their farmers, a situation which the developing countries abhor, saying it distorts world trade.
Viewed in this perspective, chances of any compromise at Geneva will appear to be far from bright, despite EU viewing the blueprint as a "step in the right direction, as also calling for more work until the meeting of the WTO's executive General Council, scheduled for July 27, which alone can take any decision on the eagerly awaited agreement.
It will be recalled that in his address to the earlier held Unctad XI, the WTO chief had pointed out that the July package would consist of framework level agreements, thus not requiring all the details, in particular, of reduction commitments to be specified and that these could be negotiated later.
While so elaborating on its prospects, he had also advised resistance to the temptation to pre-empt or pre-determine the final outcome, adding that to ensure success at this stage WTO members would need showing some restraint and faith too.
In this regard, he had also stated that according to the prevailing view, LDCs deserved exemption from commitments to reduce tariffs and that account should be taken of preferential access which developing countries enjoyed in other markets.
He had also tried to clarify that in non-agricultural market access LDCs were not expected to apply any agreed reduction formula to their tariffs or to necessarily take part in any sectoral approach.
All in all, he had expressed the need of a constructive response to the package. For, failure to secure a framework agreement, he had warned, could mean the unravelling of commitments made by developed countries to eliminate agriculture export subsidies and other subsidised forms of export competition. Again, saying that all have their priorities and interests, which work as a complicating factor in any negotiation, he emphasised the need of ever searching for compromises.
It remains to be seen to what extent the words of wisdom on this occasion will be effective in influencing the decisions at Geneva, to which the world will be looking with mixed feelings of hope and despair.