Professor Alan Winters (University of Sussex) stated that small, vulnerable economies (SVEs) and least developed countries (LDCs) asked for special treatment, but that they did not require this within the context of the WTO. He stated that while the international community must ponder on how to help SVEs become less vulnerable, he disagreed that protectionist policies helped. He stated that the Doha Round was not promising for SVEs and LDCs and that it was a “Round for free”, but that multilateralism was worth preserving.

Junior Lodge (CARICOM) contested this view as unjust simply because these countries have nothing more to give. Professor Winters said the rise of BRIC countries within the system changes interests, but the underlying principles of Doha remain and there was no need to rethink engagements.

Ambassador Singh Bahtia (Permanent Representative of India to the WTO) stated that the deadlock in the DDA victimised LDCs and SVEs. He claimed the “multilateral process can function as an antidote to the failures of globalisation” and said that Aid for Trade and the Enhanced Integrated Framework played a role in the impotence of LDCs and SVEs. He stated that abandoning the Doha Agenda would create a climate of distrust. He commented that LDCs and SVEs need trade liberalization policies and trade capacity building in order to develop.

Bonapas Onguglo from UNCTAD said there was a need for a “development audit” at a national level. Furthermore, the most important cost of failure of the DDA would be the loss of the development dimension on the multilateral trading system. He said that “trade liberalization is a tool used but not a panacea for development”.