Speech by the Foreign Minister of Brazil, Ambassador Celso Amorim, at the WTO Trade Negotiations Committee — Geneva, 24 July 2006.

Mr. President,

A week ago in St Petersburg, the leaders of the G-8 countries met with the heads of state and government of five developing countries, as well as the president of the African Union. In that meeting, the G-6 leaders stressed their commitment to a successful conclusion to the Doha Development Round. Subsequently, the ministers of the G-6 countries flew to Geneva with mandates that should have been capable of bridging the negotiating gap.

The G-6 ministers met yesterday. We all know now what the result of that meeting was. This development is deeply disturbing. The flexibility announced by the leaders in St. Petersburg did not materialize. In less than 24 hours the G-6 discussions ended with an impasse.

Such failure is perplexing to say the least. There is only one possible explanation for such a swift and categorical breakdown: the political will was not there.

President Lula pointed out in St. Petersburg that leadership is not required in quiet times. Leadership is needed at times of crisis. We have a fully-fledged crisis before us and we have no clear leadership.

At this time, it is not enough to say that we don’t like what we see on the negotiating table. It is not enough to cut losses and backpedal. It is not enough to blame others, accusing them of inflexibility and hiding behind our own political constraints. It is time for true leadership to emerge, devising creative solutions, accepting the pain of reform, and engaging in the negotiating process.

The WTO multilateral trading system is facing the gravest crisis since its creation. We could sit back and watch as its credibility and legitimacy are progressively eroded. Equally, however, we could decide to persist, not accepting failure. We could recognize that millions of lives around the world, especially in the developing countries, can be improved as a consequence of this Development Round. Brazil, for one, certainly chooses the second option.

It took almost 60 years for the term "Development" to appear in the title of a Round. The GATT 1947 does not even contain the word "development" in its preamble. We must take up the challenge of reforming the multilateral trading system, making it more responsive to the needs of the poor and removing distortions that end up exporting misery and hopelessness.

But to persist, to keep the Doha Agenda alive, we must carefully choose the path forward. First, we must set our sights on the resumption of negotiations in the near, rather than remote, future. Time is not on our side.

Second, we cannot retreat. This must be a pause to reflect on creative approaches and on how to build up the necessary political impetus to move forward. Above all, this must not be used as an excuse to lower the level of ambition of the Development Agenda. Any deceptive "easy way out" can only happen at the expense of the developing countries. Brazil and its G-20 partners will not follow this path, and will remain vigilant so as to make sure that others do not feel that this is a viable option.

We must retain the current texts and mandates, and what is on the table. They are the result of hard and painful work and constitute a sound basis for future negotiations. What we need is flexibility within the existing framework; we do not need to negotiate an entirely new foundation for negotiations.

Members must continue to engage in talks about how to move the process forward. Such talks may take place in several different formats and shapes: bilaterals, plurilaterals, and multilaterals, in Geneva or elsewhere. We must consider possible negotiating avenues and breakthroughs. Incremental approaches will not suffice, but neither do we have room for unreasonable demands that entirely disregard the realities of the other players.

Members must continue work at all levels. Brazil, for example, will continue to stimulate discussions within the G-20, NAMA-11, Cairns Group, and any other forum in which we participate. We wouldn’t have come so far in this Development Agenda without the contribution of groups like the G-20, which always tabled proposals that were technically sound, politically realistic, and legitimate. The work of the G-20 will continue to be in the direction of a possible convergence that is balanced, ambitious, and development oriented.

The Director-General has a crucial role in keeping the process moving, but so do we. This is a member-driven process in a member-driven organization. The survival of the Development Agenda depends on us.

The Development Agenda is not limited to trade issues. It also incorporates issues like the fight against hunger and poverty, political governance, world security, and economic development with social justice. These are essential elements for peace, they transcend the ambit of the WTO, and they are of direct interest to other organizations, particularly the UN. Perhaps we could consider engaging Secretary-General Kofi Annan in the effort to accumulate the political momentum necessary in order to overcome the challenges we now face.

Thank you.