How can we break the deadlock over subsidies, how do we reconcile the disparate demands of farmers in the developed and developing blocs? We have got to strike a proper balance in agriculture and then move on. People maintain ridiculous levels of demands and keep overbidding in a way that is simply committing us to failure. Similarly, if we underbid, particularly in what we are going to do on farm subsidies, then we won’t be able to succeed on that basis, either. So we have to strike the right balance. I think we can and I hope in the coming weeks we will. What kind of offers do you hope to see, let’s say from the United States and from other developed countries, on the table? In agriculture, the European Union, if I can just speak on my own behalf, want everyone prepared to move to the developing countries’ G-20 proposal on agriculture. We can’t heed precisely what the developing countries are asking but we can come very near to it. I would like to see the United States do that too on farm subsidies. They say this is quite impossible. All right. But let them go as far as they can to meet the developing countries’ demands. That’s where I think the center of gravity is. That’s where I think the line is emerging. With the strong defeat of the Republicans in the last elections, do you see any kind of political will in the current administration to take these tests, which will not be popular? Of course, it complicates the politics in the United States, but let’s be frank. Even when the Republicans were in control - both in the administration and the Congress - we weren’t seeing further movement then because farm interests prevailed in Congress. I think - and I talked to the Democrat leadership in both houses of Congress - I think they support a successful outcome. They are prepared to renew the president’s negotiating authority … that everyone should show flexibility. That’s what they said to me. So I don’t think we should view the Democrats, the change in leadership in Congress as an obstacle to a successful outcome. But how much of this is semantics and how much is there a real will to change things in the United States? I have always taken the view that a fundamental reform of the way in which the developed world subsidizes its agriculture and the way in which we protect agriculture has got to take place. We in Europe began implementing our reform some time back in 2003 and those reforms will continue. And I will add to that process in what I am offering in these talks. We must see similar reforms being made throughout the developed world. It’s not reasonable to ask the developing countries for greater access to their markets when the developed world is not prepared to take action on our trade distorting subsidies. So that’s the basic deal, but let us understand that the bulk of the gains from the successful end of this round will not come from agriculture. They will come from the boost in trade, in manufacturing and services and in trade facilitation, getting easier, cheaper, more efficient facilitation of trade. So we have to deal with agriculture but we also have to see it in perspective. But do you think that even the European Union’s position is acceptable to the G-20? Yes, I gather it is. We have now moved very much to the G-20 position. The indications I have is that the developing countries are satisfied with our outcome on what we are prepared to offer with our further flexibility in agriculture and I am very glad about it. And what do you expect developing countries to do to take the process forward? This is very important. At the core of this round, which is a development round, is a principle. The effort that we ask of developing countries must be proportionate to what they are able to do. If we ask them to go about or beyond what reasonably, economically, humanly they can do, then we are simply going to commit ourselves to failure because we will be asking the impossible of the developing countries. There are many cases in which the agriculture sectors of developing countries are not commercial, they are not competitive. They are subsistence, they are to do with people’s livelihood and what I have been trying to bring home to some of my counterparts in the developed world is that if you ask too much, you will simply lock us into a permanent stalemate. So please be reasonable, please be realistic and that goes for what you yourself are prepared to do. There is no point in asking more of developing countries if you are not prepared to take tough and radical action on your own subsidies which are distorting trade to such a degree.

   Email This Post      Print This Post