Not unexpectedly, the Ministerial Conference in Cancun, the World Trade Organization meeting reached the conclusion proof, without any convention. The main stumbling blocks were massive subsidies to agriculture (estimated at approximately $ 300 billion a year by rich countries) and so-called “Singapore issues”.

The proceedings of the meeting was a great demonstration of power between developed countries - the USA and the European Union in particular - and developing countries, the bloc of G-22, cited by India, China and Brazil. In principle, it ended in a deadlock.

What are the main effects and consequences of the collapse of the Cancun negotiations? Firstly, by the huge subsidies that rich countries to their farmers, which would remain intact. So, farmers in many poor countries (especially in Africa) would continue to suffer unfair competition from their richer counterparts in the form of production subsidies, export subsidies and import tariffs . Developing countries were convinced to participate in negotiations on the Doha promise that their main development concerns would be accepted.

Indeed, they say that the reduction of agricultural subsidies by developed countries under the agreement of Uruguay has not been implemented and questions should focus on a priority before the news is included in the price.

The most troublesome aspects of developed countries, agricultural subsidies in Cancun was trying to change the definition of what constitutes a “trade distorting” subsidies. They were loans, export subsidies for trade. is clear policy to support home, in the form of grants entry and exit also rising costs of domestic producers an unfair advantage over their market in producing countries cheaper from other countries and must also be seen as distorting trade.

In addition, the European Union and the USA tries to block among the ranks of developing countries to give the impression that they were ready for the phasing out of export subsidies for products of particular interest to developing countries. He hoped that the existence of an influx of some developing countries, for their main products in the list of convicts and the G-22 solidarity. They even tried to attract China by suggesting that the subsidy and tariff reduction commitment would be less China, as it lies at the WTO later. So far, no developing country in the trap. But there are already sufficient indications and explicit threats of USA and the European Union’s negotiating driving licence they operate, bilateral and regional deals with a number of countries and try to a weakening of the coalition of developing countries.

At present, protection is enjoyed by Indian farmers to import duties (now that the import quotas are not more) remains intact. It would be a victory for the government before the elections. The NDA government itself of the project can also contribute to a better protection of interests that the Indian government Uruguay discussions in Congress.

The other obstacle was the Singapore issues - of multilateral rules for foreign investment, competition policy, transparency in government procurement and trade facilitation (simplification of customs procedures, and so forth). Among the latter, the most controversial of developing countries was the attempt to implement (EU-led) a multilateral agreement on investment (MAI).

Countries such as India argue that this is not a single rate of tax rules for foreign investment for all countries. Historically, countries at different development stages (including the USA, Japan, France, South Korea and so on) many species have imposed restrictions on foreign investment would promote economic development. In the future, they should also have the freedom to decide what type of foreign investments are allowed or discouraged. At best, it may insist on the fact that once a foreign investor is allowed for loading in a country, there should be no discrimination against foreign prisoners vis-a-vis a national company. But it has already been guaranteed by several provisions of the MIC (investment measures), under the agreements of the Uruguay. For example, the requirements discriminatory has no local content or export obligations can be held abroad, even longer.

Regarding the other Singapore issues, the objections were not as strong. Indeed, India can win if greater transparency is ensured in public procurement in all countries.

A number of uniform and transparent rules for fair competition should not be a bad idea either. The problem is that even the USA, unfair competition, it is easier to prove, against foreign producers. Even the practices followed by domestic producers are tolerated. It is precisely for these reasons that competition policy problem has been on the agenda of the Cancun conference, at the insistence of the USA. Among developing countries’ perspective of free movement so that foreign investment without a competition policy in the village would have been the worst scenario. Fortunately, the time has been avoided.