These concerns of the developing countries would be completely ignored if the US drive for a new round of trade negotiations is accepted. Unfortunately, the US is supported by the Cairns group of agricultural exporters, which includes Australia and Argentina, which wants a substantial reduction in barriers to trade in agricultural goods. This has made the EU, supported by Japan, which want to maintain the protection afforded to their agricultural sectors, the real stumbling block at the top.
 
As a filibustering measure, the EU and Japan have decided to bring in other issues into the pictsssure. The new round, they argue, should be a comprehensive one that includes issues such as multilateral investment rules, competition policy and the environment. An earlier effort to push through a multilateral agreement on investment, that sought to tie the hand of nations when dealing with foreign investors investing in their soil, had led to such an acrimonious debate that it had to be shelved. Advocating the inclusion of investment as one of the subjects that must enter the agenda for a new round, is to rake up an issue that could prove controversial.
 
A similar controversial issue is the environment, with the focus of attention now on genetically modified (GM) foods. Partly under pressure from consumers, the EU has come up with proposals for labelling of GM foods. The proposals would introduce a system for tracing genetically modified organisms (GMOs) from the farm to the supermarket; a requirement to label all foods derived from GM ingredients; and a 1 per cent limit on the amount of GM material that finds its way accidentally into food or feed. This has already angered American farmers who currently grow GM foods like corn varieties, which are currently not authorised in the EU. Others, like the Cairns group countries are worried about the impact this can have on agricultural trade in the future. And developing countries as a group are concerned that the environment issue is being raised by the EU as a means of using environmental regulations as protectionist devices.
 
Despite these divisions, there is growing optimism that a deal can be struck between the EU and the US brokered by two friends, Pascal Lamy, the EU trade commissioner, and Robert Zoellick, the US trade representative, who are working overtime to convince the governments they represent that concessions leading to agreement are a must. In their effort they are being backed by arguments that a new round is the best medicine to combat the recession that looms large over the developed world. Even the ''narrow agenda'' being advocated by the US would deliver hugely positive results argue some. One study by Drusilla Brown of Tufts University and Alan Deardorff and Robert Stern of the University of Michigan estimates that a reduction in tariffs on agricultural and industrial products and services by 33% would deliver a one-off increase in global welfare of over $600 billion, as compared with a $75 billion increase garnered from the Uruguay Round.
 
Developing countries are unlikely to be taken in by such rosy estimates of the welfare benefits of a new round. A GATT study (1994) estimated that merchandise exports of developing countries will increase by about 37 per cent in real terms after the Uruguay Round benefits are fully phased in. This figure was much higher than that for developed countries and economic groupings such as the US (8.2 per cent) and the European Union (7.8 per cent). Exports of developing countries of manufactured goods amounted to $700 billion in 1992 and when estimated to grow at a "normal" rate of 6 per cent per annum were expected to touch $1,500 billion by the year 2005. This implies that the Uruguay Round was estimated to contribute to an additional increase in the manufactured exports of developing countries of $560 billion (37 per cent of $1,500 billion). In addition, GATT estimated static and dynamic income gains of $116 billion for developing countries from three sources: gains from the reduction of tariffs on industrial goods ($33 billion); the elimination of non-tariff barriers on industrial goods ($68 billion); and the reduction of agricultural barriers ($14 billion). The most important gains were expected from the elimination of industrial non-tariff barriers, especially those of quotas under the Multi-fibre Arrangement. Suffice it to say, current prognoses about trends in world trade are far less optimistic. In fact, the evidence seems to indicate that developing countries have been major losers. If the Brown, Deardorff, Stern study quoted above is considered, even their optimistic methods estimate total gains from the Uruguay Round at just $75 billion; given their uneven distribution, this would make developing country gains, if any, well short of the $116 billion promised by GATT in 1994.
 
This makes the position, taken by the "like-minded group" of developing countries, led by India, Pakistan, Egypt and Malaysia, that implementation issues and a review of impact are crucial, extremely strong. But dissensions between the 142 members in general and the developing countries themselves in particular, makes their case weak in practice, even if not in theory. There are reportedly 30-40 members, including the US, which are willing to go along with the EU on including investment in the agenda. This provides a major weapon for working a compromise, even if at the expense of the developing countries. And within the developing countries, there are some who have reportedly expressed their willingness to divide implementation issues into those that need to be addressed before a new round and those that can be considered as part of the round. This could help postpone discussion of the most controversial issues like textiles and agricultural support.

Once the developing camp is divided, pressure exerted by using mechanisms outside the terrain of the WTO can force developing countries fall in line. This is precisely what happened in the Uruguay Round, where the original negotiating position of countries like India had little to do with what they settled for finally. It is therefore ominous that the Financial Times reported that besides Brazil, Mexico and South Africa, "that favour a round, as does China, which is poised to enter the WTO", "even India, which has long led the opposition to new global negotiations, seems to be wavering."

If this tendency is visible so early in the negotiations, the likelihood is that the developing countries would be forced to go along with any agreement on the agenda for a new round thrashed out between the US, on the one hand, and the EU and Japan on the other. If, therefore, any equity has to be introduced into the system of world trade that is being institutionalised through repeated trade negotiations, those joining the growing opposition to globalisation within civil society must deliver it. No wonder, the G-10 has been forced to sit up and take note of this opposition, even if it is with the aim of suppressing it.