| dc.description.abstract | The title of the Trilogy on the Doha Round, of which this article is Part Two, connotes the general argument: the Round is a failed instrument of counter-terrorism. The Round, launched in November 2001, was supposed to make the world safe for free trade, and in doing so, give hope and a stake in the global trading system to hundreds of millions of poor people, particularly in Islamic communities, who might otherwise be vulnerable to pernicious, ostensibly religious, ideologies. But as the decade-long negotiations of the Round progressed, commercial self-interest of World Trade Organization (WTO) Members dwarfed their shared interest, and thus the common good, in fighting poverty, thereby attacking one factor related to the spread of violent extremist organizations (VEOs) in the name (but, in fact, abuse) of Islam.
Part One of the Trilogy advanced this argument in the context of trade liberalization in agriculture, namely, efforts to reduce agricultural tariffs, discipline domestic support, and eliminate export subsidies. Part Two does so in the contexts of trade liberalization in industrial products, so-called “non-agricultural market access” (NAMA) negotiations, and services trade. As with Part One, the context of Part Two is technical. The “devil,” in the sense of straying far away from the initial purpose of the Doha Round, is in the “details” of lengthy, mind-numbing draft modalities texts. The texts critically analyzed here are the December 2008 Draft NAMA Modalities Agreement, the April 2011 NAMA Document, and April 2011 Services Document.
Part One concluded with observations on how the WTO and its Members artificially created a new logic for the Doha Round, namely, to fight the global economic slump, so as to justify their collective but flagging endeavor. Part Two concludes with observations about the role the People’s Republic of China has played in the Round. It proposes China has not lived up to its ballyhooed promise on the eve of its accession to the WTO, which occurred on December 11, 2001: to act with statesmanship and be a problem-solver. Failing to rise above the mercantilist fray, it has been a player along with the U.S., EU, and other significant powers. Gripped by fear of losing power amidst socioeconomic distress, ethnic tensions, and rising expectations about democracy and human rights, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has backed rules in the negotiating texts that incline more toward managed than free trade and have no link, or are even orthogonal, to the interest of the common good in counter-terrorism. These observations, like those of Part One, support the overall Trilogy argument that the Round is not about trade liberalization, poverty alleviation, or reducing threats from VEOs. | |
