We dont want to go into a new chase,discuss new approaches

interview with Celso Amorim

While the debate raged on whether the WTO discussions had entered the endgame,a candid Celso Amorim,Brazilian External Affairs Minister and Chair of G-20,emphasised that the endgame could take longer than preliminary discussions. Panning developed nations in a media interaction,he said their demands were contrary to the context of the development agenda and they were merely doing lip service. Excerpts:

On being in the endgame:

This is a metaphor,I suppose mainly from the game of chess which came from India. In the game of chess,sometimes the endgame is much longer than the overture and the middle game. So the fact that we are in the middle game does not mean that we will finish tomorrow. What we are saying is we are in the endgame that we dont want to go into a new chase in which new subjects or new approaches are going to be discussed.

On whether 2010 is a realistic deadline:

We have missed so many realistic targets that I will not give a precise answer on this. What I could say is that it all depends on one rather simple thing in my opinion,simple in terms of technicality,but complex maybe in politics. It depends basically on all the players wishing to finalise,if they wish to finalise. So the simple question is is this the package and then we are going to fix whatever are the loose ends of this package or do you want to change this package.

On Indias proposal for introducing services modalities simultaneously with agriculture and Nama:

India has always stressed the importance of services. We dont have any problem in continuing discussing services but the sequence established is that we should come to an agreement on agri and Nama,of course if discussing services will help no problem for us.

On the double standards of the developed countries:

In abstract all of them are in agreement,you can sign hundred documents that these are the development rounds,question is when you come to concrete aspects then of course the attitude is different. Studies done by WTO and Washington-based Peterson Institute show that developing countries are at least in some cases,certainly in the case of Brazil,doing more.

On the Special Safeguard Mechanism:

SSM is clearly a point that is not settled. Nobody can pretend that it is settled. We understand that there must be a negotiation on that. There was an evolving process before December going into the right direction in my opinion and it was stopped because other things came about new demands by rich countries which made it innocuous to continue the discussion but SSM has to be negotiated.