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.

Things looked rocky even before the WTO meetings began last Wednesday, and the whole thing came crashing down Sunday afternoon at 3:00, when conference chair Ernesto Derbez, the Mexican foreign minister, abruptly pulled the plug. It had become apparent -- to him at least -- that further pursuit of consensus would be futile. This time, the rich countries and the WTO itself were not to have their way.

To review briefly: The key issue to be considered here was agriculture and the tariffs and price supports that have led to the flooding of some markets with cheap surplus crops, driving local farmers in Mexico and elsewhere out of business. In exchange for reducing subsidies, the U.S. and the European Union would demand that developing nations open their markets to foreign imports.

A second big problem was the four new "Singapore issues" the U.S. and, more insistently, the E.U. wanted to launch formal negotiations on. These included agreements on investment, government procurement, and two other matters.

Just before the meetings began, the U.S. and the E.U., which have long had difficulties with each other's agriculture policies, got together and cooked up a joint proposal for this meeting. In response, a new coalition of Third World countries -- including China, India, Brazil, and 18 others that comprise more than half the population of the world -- wrote their own proposal.

So, we had two ag proposals and the Singapore issues (there were many others, but these were the most important).

After three days of debate, Derbez submitted a new draft text covering those and many other issues. This was midday Saturday. The draft was criticized by country after country at a session that lasted until 1:00 a.m. Sunday morning. Most of the criticism was directed toward the Singapore issues, which a large number of developing countries had already said they wanted to nothing to do with, at least for now. Sunday morning debate resumed. Derbez suggested a compromise whereby two of the four Singapore issues would be shelved and two put forward for formal negotiations. A number of delegates said they'd have to think it over and consult with their allies and governments back home. A recess was taken. When they returned, many delegates -- representing as many as 90 countries, according to one African delegate -- said there was no way they would agree to any of the Singapore issues (they'd been saying this most of the week, but evidently some powerful people didn't believe them). At this point, Derbez realized that consensus was impossible and declared the meeting adjourned.

Delegates from developing countries immediately descended to the pressroom one floor below, and spontaneous press conferences and interviews congealed in all corners of the room. The delegates I happened to hear -- from Uganda, Malaysia, Indonesia, Guinea -- were happy, explaining that they had been ignored for far too long and that maybe now the rich countries would take them seriously.

NGOs critical of the WTO, including many environmental organizations, were likewise celebrating the slowing, if not stopping, of a juggernaut that threatens to steamroll environmental protections the world over.

Then a string of press briefings began. First came the new Group of 21-plus. Ministers from Brazil, South Africa, Argentina, Ecuador, and Egypt took turns explaining that they had put together a well-considered and progressive agricultural alternative and had been ignored, so they had no choice but to scuttle the meetings. They were followed by the trade representative for the U.S., Robert Zoellick, who regretted what had happened but said that the U.S. would simply press forward with bilateral trade deals (14 are under negotiation, not to mention the Free Trade Area of the Americas, which would include every country in the Western Hemisphere except Cuba). Zoellick repeated the charge that while some countries came to deal (his), others came to pontificate (nearly everyone else).

Next came WTO Secretary General Supachai Panitchpakdi and conference chair Derbez. The secretary regretted the failure of the meeting, as did the chair; both pledged to press on in Geneva, the WTO's headquarters. Reporters' questions suggested that not a small number of European delegates thought that Derbez had given up too soon. Others wondered why he had chosen to have Singapore debated before agriculture. He explained that Singapore was clearly the most contentious issue and he needed to see if there was room for compromise.

Next came the E.U. and the formidable Pascal Lamy. He blamed the mess on the WTO itself: "I called it a medieval institution in Seattle and got a lot of flack then. I say the same thing now." In fact, it was Lamy and the E.U. that insisted on including the Singapore issues in the draft, which in the end doomed the meeting.

So what to make of all this? Most of the speakers in a long night of press conferences acknowledged that this is a serious setback but not a fatal one, and asserted that the WTO will regroup in Geneva and soldier on. Others think the outcome may signal something far more profound, that the balance of geopolitical power may be beginning to change, that the rest of the world is coming together to challenge the power and arrogance of the United States and the European Union.

Marcello Furtado of Greenpeace spoke for many when he said that either the WTO must change fundamentally or make way for a new and more fair and democratic organization to govern international trade.

Time will tell whether this was just a speed bump on the fast train to the money-is-everything global village or whether it was the beginning of a move toward a more sustainable system that will serve both the Earth and its inhabitants far better. Many people and organizations, inspired by what happened yesterday, will be working hard to ensure that it's the second possibility that comes true.