The world needs a strong internationalist Scotland

After the spectacular result in Glasgow East the dust is settling, for the SNP, the seismic waves are still being felt for our opponents. And back to parliamentary work with a vengeance for me, as the WTO talks collapse demonstrate why we need to be independent. I have written this for the Sunday Herald tomorrow, and think it does put in context the "why" we need to be independent, not just for Scotland, but for the world as well.

WTO talks collapse

Everyone in our interconnected world lost out in Geneva this week when the WTO talks collapsed, but the deal on the table was neither in the interests of the developing world nor Scotland’s farmers, so better no deal, yet, than this bad one. But the world needs a deal. Pressure is now on to ensure a just deal for the world and make sure a real global solution is found before world trade breaks into warring blocs. We need a strong internationalist Scots voice on the world stage more than ever.

Back in 2001 when the Doha round of trade negotiations was launched in the sandy glitz and glamour of oil rich Qatar it was presented as an effort to focus on the needs of the world’s poorer nations. Done right, they have most to gain from global trade liberalisation, and we in the developed world win too. From Scotland’s very own Adam Smith onwards economists are united that liberalising international trade from national protection generates gains for all, rich and poor countries alike. Long term. And there’s the rub.

What happened last week was that the pro-developing world rhetoric was not matched by the mercantilist reality. The crux of the eventual impasse was the extent to which developing countries, led by India, were willing to compromise on lowering tariff barriers (Special Safeguard Measures) to Western goods, especially agricultural ones. On one side, countries such as India and China wanted to hang onto a flexible SSM regime to protect subsistence farmers from large influxes of imports from highly competitive, or highly subsidised, agricultural exporters. On the other side, the USA, backed by some major developing country exporters, especially in South America, wanted the SSM regime to be more disciplined to allow them access to these markets.

The EU, speaking for us, was actually not a key part of that dispute, though that is not to say I think the EU policy was on the right lines. The EU has been championing Economic Partnership Agreements between individual countries and the EU, which will open up mutual market access. I was in Zambia and Ethiopia last year to see what Africa thinks of them. The verdict was unanimously negative. The EU-Zambia agreement opens up the EU market to Zambian goods, so on the face of it good news for Zambia. However, it also opens up the Zambian market to EU companies, and I do not believe that it is equitable or in the interests of Zambia’s painfully fragile economy to allow EU access without adequate control by the Zambian national interest. It would be like opening the door between the rhino enclosure and a petting zoo. Both sides may well have access to each other’s patch, but only one side can enjoy it.

Economic Partnership Agreements have been vocally opposed by Scots MEPs, NGOs, Churches and others. A million people marched through Edinburgh for Trade Justice and to Make Poverty History. We are an internationalist nation and we recognise the fraud inherent in pretending that developing economies are as robust as ours.

The collapsed WTO deal, the only deal on offer, would have opened up the developing world to inappropriate competition, but there would have been implications closer to home as well. Scotland’s dairy, beef, pig and poultry sectors were also at risk of substandard imports. As Scotland’s only full member of the Agriculture Committee I am proud of our high standards, and to contemplate one standard for domestic produce but another for imports was a concession too far. Given all the downsides to the deal now going cold in Geneva, better no deal than this bad one.

So what now? The timing is not good. Elections loom in the US and India later this year, as well as Europe in June next year. With negotiation fatigue well entrenched in Geneva and political attention, especially in the US, wavering it seems unlikely that a major deal will be done soon. The Doha round is not quite dead yet, but it is cooling rapidly.

But all is not lost. Some issues were agreed, and will be banked for the next round of talks, whenever they start. Perhaps a face saving agreement will be cobbled together from these points and we can look towards a new round.

This is important, because the WTO, with all its faults, is the only organisation that is looking for a global solution. The alternative is a million EPAs, and then the poor really will lose out, and fast. Globalisation has been, and can continue to be, a positive force for all trading nations, but only if world trade talks are open to all countries participating as equals before international law, rich and poor. Idealistic yes, but if you think the US is powerful against India in the WTO, imagine if the negotiation was just the two of them without any wider considerations.

The Doha round has disappointed, but we can, we must, begin again. A new round, with Trade Justice at the heart of it and people in charge rather than companies with no loyalty to nobody. We’ll need to kick it off somewhere, how about in the country that gave the world economics, a country with proven internationalist credentials, a country well liked and well thought of. The Gleneagles Round has a ring to it.