Bush's yes and Doha's no: convergence of pragmatism and rhetoric

President Bush's speech on American trade openness – at the United Nations General Assembly in 14/09 – despite having had a positive effect on the international community, apparently nothing more than an exercise in rhetoric.

On the eve of the end of the Doha Round – in December, with the WTO Ministerial meeting in Hong Kong – talking about reducing subsidies and removing trade barriers is trying to take the blame for the defeat off oneself, in the final five minutes.

Since the beginning of the Doha Round, The European Union and the United States were the two representatives with the biggest reservations regarding trade barriers and mainly the reduction of subsidies. The increase in benefits granted to the cotton sectors, corn and soybeans in the USA, at the beginning of 2005, of 344%, 327% e 246%[1] respectively, make it clear that the US is not willing to compromise the competitiveness and profitability of its agriculture.

It is known that the American agricultural sector maintains its high productivity through government incentives for production and exports and through trade barriers for imports.. Any minimum opening of the American market to other locations – such as the case of Caribbean sugar in CAFTA-DR – already cause controversy and mobilize senators in Congress as well as interest groups.

Also, President Bush's speech is supported by the European Union, because American openness is directly conditioned to Europe. In this way, Bush further removes the possibility of the Doha Round actually being implemented, since the volume of agricultural incentives in the European Union is greater and their withdrawal (or even decrease) involves regional policies with national impacts.

In this way, the US takes the blame for an inefficient Doha Round off its shoulders, because there is a commitment (verbal) of the country[2] with the implementation of the required commercial agenda, but only if the other previous opponents do the same.

Even though the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (PAC) is already programmed – with the reduction of subsidies from 2007 – she is still quite controversial, with many countries against its validity (like France and Portugal), and does not cover the requirements of the group of developing countries (G-20).  Besides that, on the institution's own website, is also linked to the reduction of European subsidies to other countries: “(…) preparing the EU for the Doha cycle of international trade liberalization, an EU proposal has already been presented to eliminate export subsidies as a whole; The success of this proposal will depend on an identical attitude on the part of other countries (…)”[3].

In this sense, there is no way to consider President Bush's speech as possible or even plausible, Given the imminent closure of the Round and the American conditioning towards European opening, it turns into empty rhetoric, which rescues the always common values ​​of poverty reduction and free trade.

Also considering the importance of agriculture for the formation of the European Union, it is unlikely that in, short or medium term, the bloc's commercial scenario changes substantially. Thus, the US does not make any commitment, except with its domestic agricultural sector, which is guaranteed to maintain subsidies, are the counter-cyclicals (permitted by law) or those for export or ecological adaptation of production; and in the end these subsidies will be reversed in votes, money for campaign and political support in the next elections, so much for republicans, as for the Democrats.

President Bush's aforementioned speech is not just a piece of rhetoric or false testimony, is the result of the current phase of international trade negotiations that we are experiencing today. The complexity of the points does not allow the establishment of simple cross-bargains, as occurred in some rounds of the GATT or even the WTO.

We are at a time when commitment to the continuity of negotiations is essential, including to avoid a possible setback in what has already been negotiated.. On the other hand, the quantity and intensity of the interests involved requires a negotiation dynamic that does not yet exist, involving the mutual commitment of actors operating at sub-national levels.

Understand the importance of words, at that time, is an important way of understanding international reality.