Source: The New Republic

Ever since its founding in January 1995, the World Trade Organization has been the focus of global protest. While its defenders claim that it is intended to spread the world's wealth through lower tariffs, its detractors insist it is a tool of the United States and other wealthy nations, serving to widen the gap between the world's rich and poor.

The Doha Round of WTO negotiations--launched in Doha, Qatar in November 2001--was supposed to answer the organization's critics, who had two years before dominated the meetings in Seattle. Doha was called a "development" round because, in the words of its ministerial declaration, it was supposed to "strengthen substantially assistance to developing countries." Its purpose was also informed by the 9-11 terrorist attacks. By aiding the "least developed countries," the Doha negotiations were intended to prevent the emergence of "failed states" that could provide a haven for international terrorists.

The negotiations, however, have produced little except acrimony. They were supposed to result in an agreement by December 2005, but the deadline has now been pushed back to April 30. And if the lack of results at a London meeting of top WTO trade negotiators last weekend are any indication, the WTO is unlikely to make that deadline either.

That may not be such a bad thing. According to "Winners and Losers," a new study by Sandra Polaski, a colleague of mine at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a glaring contradiction exists between what the negotiators claim their proposals will accomplish and what they would actually do. While the talks were officially aimed at benefiting poorer nations, the proposals being put forth would increase the gap between rich and poor. They wouldn't answer the WTO's critics, but would help make their case against the embattled institution.

To read the full text of the article and discussion in The New Republic, click here.