While I do not want to buy into the agricultural debate, it is important when considering the cuttent status of the Doha Round to look at the 3 pillars, Agriculture, MANA and Services as a package especially as many of the gains in trade could have manifested themselves in services. This is especially important as service industries are such a significant proportion of the economies of both developing and developed countires. The trade in agriculture and NAMA of developing countires can be substantially enhanced by accepting services from developed countries as well as provide benchmarks for developing their own service industries.

In the case of the spat between the US and India, it can be argued that neither proposed sufficient changes in both agricultural and NAMA to satisifdy each other and many other WTO members, but I got the imporession that the US were indicating cocessions on Mode 4 that were demanded by India. Surely some greater recognition of the total package, involving all 3 pillars, should have been a catalyst for compromise.

As pointed out by Greg Lopez, many countries have made deals through preferential trade deals (free trade agreements?). The failure of Doha will acceletate the proliferation of FTAs with the likelihood of the smaller lesser developed countries beeing left out. I agree with Greg’ view about the shelf life of the WTO in its present form – unless it come up with better rules for its own operation. especially its principle of consenus being 100% agreement – it will find it difficult to remain relevant.