Tom Turner, Earthjustice

Tom Turner is senior editor at Earthjustice, a nonprofit environmental law firm based in Oakland, Calif. He edited daily newspapers at the WTO meeting in Seattle in 1999 and the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in 2002. He is the author of many books and articles on environmental subjects, most recently Justice on Earth: Earthjustice and the People It Has Served.

Agriculture still dominates the news here. The WTO spokesperson promised that there would be a new draft proposal, which would be the basis for further negotiations, given to the conference chair last evening. What's in it will tell the tale. The U.S., the E.U., the Group of 21 (now rumored to be 28 or 29), and many others have been meeting, but there's no outward sign of movement in their positions.

The U.S. mantra is, first, that the G21 doesn't represent the views of the developing countries accurately, and, second, that while the U.S. has shown willingness to compromise, the G21 has only repeated demands and that's not an acceptable position to take this late in these proceedings.

This elicited a stern statement from the Brazilian delegate, who is the principal spokesperson for the 21, rebuking the U.S. -- not by name, but the target was obvious. "It is ... important at this stage that we concentrate our efforts in trying to negotiate and not direct our energies at attacking countries or groups of countries." In a separate statement, the Brazilian minister asked for statements from NGOs around the world supporting G21 unity. A press conference on that subject is scheduled for this morning. Should be interesting. Unless U.S. arm twisting succeeds in fracturing the G21, the only concrete achievement of the week may turn out to have been Cambodia and Nepal joining the WTO. Many here -- delegates and observers alike -- would like such an outcome just fine, thank you.

You may recall that just before these meetings began, the WTO announced proudly that the organization had reached an agreement that will allow poor countries being ravaged by AIDS and other diseases to import cheap generic drugs from other developing countries, evading patents held by the Pfizers of the world. There has been much self-congratulation here on this topic from the director general of the WTO on down, and the way the negotiations are going, this may be the only good news (along with Cambodia and Nepal).

But how good is the news? Several knowledgeable sources, including the formidable Martin Khor of the Third World Network and Sharonann Lynch of Health Global Access Project, argue that there's no there there, that there are so many conditions attached to the deal that few if any generic drug makers in the Third World will be willing or able to invest the funds necessary to undertake manufacture of the medicines. The deal, they say, is in fact a cleverly disguised continuation of the status quo -- giant drug company monopolies and people all over the world needlessly suffering and dying.

There are, of course, some pro-WTO organizations here. Many are businesses here to promote their interests. Others are frankly entertaining in their flakiness. Our favorite so far is called Tech Central Station, "Where Free Markets Meet Technology." It's gung ho for unfettered free trade, claiming that the trading system is an unqualified success. It also reports that it is Europe that is drawing the ire of the rest of the world as the U.S. enjoys praise for a change. (This is not the same conference we're attending.) Europe is certainly coming in for its share of criticism, but the U.S. is the main recipient by far. A charge leveled at the E.U. by Tech Central is that it has recently enacted some 40 trade barriers that masquerade as environmental protections. Would that everyone would follow suit.