INDEED, the World Trade Organisation agreement last week in Bali, Indonesia, is hardly representative of all the issues that the stalled Doha Round has unsuccessfully attempted to tackle for the last 12 years to dismantle the fetters hampering freer global trade. Yet the pact is significant because it is expected to save the Geneva-based arbiter of global trade from becoming irrelevant at a time when most WTO members, particularly rich countries blocking the free access of exports from developing nations to their markets, appear to favour bilateral or regional arrangements. Hence, a jubilant WTO chief Roberto Azevedo described the agreement as an important stepping stone towards the completion of the Doha Round. The Bali package is the first global trade deal clinched under the umbrella of the WTO since the organisation’s foundation in 1995 and is estimated to have paved the way for the addition of $1tr to global economic activity and 21m jobs by removing bureaucratic hurdles and simplifying customs procedures. Besides, it will help improve the access of exports from the Least Developed Countries to the markets of wealthy nations. Getting the Bali deal done meant that the 159 members of the world trade body had to agree to more flexible rules on farm subsidies, an issue that has divided developing countries for far too long. India, for example, insists on subsidising its farmers for the crops it buys for the government’s domestic food security programme. Countries like Thailand, Pakistan and Uruguay, major producers of rice like India, say that the subsidised Indian farmers could negatively impact producers in their own countries. At the end of the day, India got what it wanted as others didn’t want negotiations to break down. A ‘peace clause’ was agreed upon to preclude any legal WTO challenge for four years against the countries breaching the farm subsidy limits as part of their food security programmes so long as the practice doesn’t distort trade.

Regrettably, the absence of a federal commerce minister in the country shows the lack of seriousness on Pakistan’s part towards global issues. Apart from writing a protest note to the WTO secretariat, the country’s trade officials haven’t done anything to block India’s move. Perhaps, they didn’t expect much support from other WTO members. This approach towards the multilateral trade negotiations betrays a lack of confidence and the absence of skills and competence for international trade diplomacy. It would have been much better had the country’s trade authorities been prepared to project Pakistan’s interest and used the forum to voice their concerns even if their viewpoint was rejected.