Marathon trade talks will bring few benefits — if they are ever concluded.

A PROMINENT trade economist is sceptical that the Doha trade talks will inject any meaningful impetus in international trade to boost the world economy or put the lid on rising protectionism.

The World Trade Organisation (WTO) is encouraging its members to conclude the talks, with its secretary-general Pascal Lamy arguing that this would help to oil the wheels of international trade.

The global crisis, on the other hand, has injected new urgency for the Doha talks to be completed, with large developing economies in the Group of 20 countries making some concessions to make sure that the deal — which has been seven years in the making — is concluded.

But Razeen Sally, a consultant to many governments on trade policy and a director of a Brussels-based think-tank, the European Centre for International Political Economy, says the relevance of the Doha round is overstated.

“One has to ask whether the round is really that important. Is it worth doing a deal? “Some small gains can be made on export subsidies and trade facilitation, but it will make very little difference to the world economy.

“The Doha round won’t be the solution to increased protectionism. The best it can do is lower tariff bindings, which may discipline some of the tariff increases we might see,” he said at a South African Institute of International Affairs roundtable on the global economic crisis and increased protectionism.

Sally is scathing about the way the round is playing out. The exceeding complexity of the formulas by which tariff cuts will be calculated can severely complicate their application, he says.

“Business people won’t be able to use it because of the mind-boggling complexity of it. To get an agreement, it really should have been a simple one.” Another deeper concern is the discriminatory package on the table.

“There are so many loopholes and exemptions in the current package that it compromises the system which is supposed to be nondiscriminatory.

“The round looks at the realities of a decade ago and has been progressively diluted since then. What is on the table is actually pathetic,” says Sally. He believes an argument about the inequality of the trading system — on the basis of which developing countries have been demanding more flexible treatment — was overblown.

“If you discount intra-European Union trade, then about seven countries represent 70% of world trade. That needs to be reflected in the WTO representation. But in this round the WTO has taken a holiday from reality, because about two thirds of the members, representing less than 10% of world trade have hijacked the show,” Sally says.

Most developing countries that have signed up to the WTO have conceded precious little under the Uruguay round and are now demanding a lopsided outcome, which Sally brushed off as a “very un-businesslike approach” from governments “forgetting what is in the national interest and playing macho games in Geneva”.

The WTO is at risk of losing its relevance and integrity in the eyes of “big players”, who were already not taking the system seriously, he says. “The WTO is about business and business is about reciprocity. Those players who play seriously should put something on the table. With a free ride, you can’t expect to be taken seriously.”