The sensitivities of the developing countries have not been taken into consideration. A new axis of developing countries has been formed but the Least Developed Group appears to have been marginalised even further.

It is understood that the Bangladesh delegation tried to push their agenda and that of the LDC in areas of duty-free and quota-free market access, special and differential treatment, capacity building and free movement of semi-skilled labour forces, but failed to register themselves effectively in the face of sustained attention by the bigger boys on issues like protectionist agricultural trade policies and associated subsidies. Then too, there was the continued insistence by the developed countries on the need to discuss further the Singapore issues -- investment, competition policies, trade facilitation measures and government procurement. The brew of contention will be discussed again in December at the Ministerial level, but right now traditional factors of dominance have prevailed.

Cancun has been a setback of sorts but this should not be construed as having undermined the WTO process. Despite this setback, WTO is essential for easing global poverty. This must be understood. There will be criticism leveraged against the World Trade Organisation, but WTO is still the most adequate format for addressing the need to ease global poverty through international trade. It would be counter-productive not to support this indispensable organisation and any other forum that allows for discussion of the sensitive but necessary issues pertaining to trade and poverty. The enthusiasm, optimism and momentum that came out of the Doha Round, needs to be upheld to ensure essential progress.

The Doha round was a major test of the commitment towards easing poverty on a global scale. To many who believe in multilateralism, the Cancun meeting has been a disappointment. To restore their confidence, the EU and other relevant powerful countries will now be obliged to prove that even a collectivity of states can find consensus.

It was the WTO's "raison d'etre" to integrate countries into an open trading system, as "an illustration of an open world." This concept not only needs to be upheld but the individual positions also need to be given due consideration. In this context it is important that we achieve a broadening of the range of issues by involving the NGO community and civil society.

Beyond the 'hard' trade issues at stake in the Doha Round, Cancun also dealt with moral and development issues and whether economic growth leads to security. We must understand that measures to enhance economic growth and prosperity have to be anchored in sound moral principles and values. People, increasingly cynical about governments' willingness to fight poverty, have pointed out in Cancun that combination of trade and development, now on the upswing, can still produce good results on a rules-based trading system. However, these have to be the right rules.

In this regard, we have seen the concerted effort on the part of Oxfam to raise public awareness of trade related issues and its work on emphasising the moral and political questions behind the liberalisation of agriculture, TRIPS, market access and the new issues in the Singapore package.

Cancun was helpful in many ways and one of them was the opportunity for participants to reiterate the adverse effects of export subsidies in obstructing free trade and development. It is unfortunate that the developed countries were not really receptive to criticism regarding the dumping policies in the EU and the US in the sugar and corn markets. African cotton farmers are among the most cost-effective cotton producers in the world and yet their products are not allowed to compete fairly on the world market, due to the four billion dollars in subsidies pumped into the cotton market by the US, bringing the overall prices down to a record low. This has threatened the survival and livelihood of African producers. If the US wants to deal with poverty and unemployment, they need to pay attention to these factors.

We all know that trade is not a panacea, but it is still very important with respect to market access. Cancun has cleared the air somewhat but most of the points made by the developing countries have been ignored. The agreement reached on TRIPS has been a step forward but there are still complications in the move toward compulsory licensing and other measurers, which will need to be ironed out. There is anxiety regarding formulation of WTO policies governing cross border investment and the possibility of existing regulations being advantageous to multinational corporations at the expense of local industries. Investment has not been approached through the right format by the WTO, particularly with regard to multilateral FDI agreements. Investment alone is not enough. It needs to be backed up by agreements that ensure a balance of investor rights and investor privileges. This is still not there.

Developing countries have also very correctly expressed their reservations about the business perspective and the elements contained in the Singapore package. Businesses need to be sensitive to the needs of developing countries. Every business must recognise the need to reconcile the proper demands of free trade with the equally proper concerns of nationhood and diversity. This has particular reference to the utility business sector. It should not be difficult to understand government concerns as they are inextricably linked in the minds of many to the powers of the state and the exercise of independent sovereignty.

After Cancun, governments and businesses need to approach the Singapore issues "in a spirit of reassurance." LDCs cannot be expected to take on new issues, while implementation is still insufficient and their resources are stretched to capacity.

One way forward in the ongoing debate on the addition of these new issues to the negotiation might be to decouple them. Trade facilitation and transparency in government procurement might be easier to tackle for developing countries than the more complex, contentious and sensitive issue of multilateral rules on competition. It must be remembered that few developing countries have the experience or the legal and administrative infrastructure to meet the obligations of tackling anti-competitive business practices and rooting out cartel formation. To demand this from countries struggling to define their market presence in a globalised world would be an immense burden if government and business in developed countries do not step up with more intensive technical assistance and resources. It also has to be understood that progress will not be speedy or uniform.

Every country needs to be sure that international standards are not merely impositions, but a necessary way to reinforcing responsible national control of the local economy. This understanding is fundamental to the success of the Singapore package issues, particularly to the development of non-discriminatory rules for investment.

Foreign direct investment (FDI) has a fundamental role to play in alleviating poverty and offering prosperity, but this implies that these funds are controlled by a set of rules or regulations, which ensures stability, transparency and equality. Sensitivity for the habits and thoughts of different societies should be the basis for business investments in developing countries within an international framework.

Participants is Cancun have underlined the necessity of achieving progress through greater understanding of the needs of developing countries on implementation, agriculture, special and differentiated treatment, trade and transport. It has also underlined that progress on non-agricultural goods have to be made, and more flexibility made available for developing countries through appropriate mechanisms pertaining to import liberalisation. Preferential treatment has also been highlighted by the ACP Group as a means to offset their loss competitiveness. One hopes that these issues will now be addressed with some degree of openness.

Four key points have now become obvious after Cancun. First, not all development is positive: resources for developing countries remain problematic and further assistance is needed. Secondly, fairness extends beyond the trade realm in open markets, for instance with respect to migration. If development and liberalisation are the basis, then human movement as an economic and social factor must also be examined. These tensions have not been resolved and need to be tackled. Third, there needs to be fairness in the results of increased development. This is currently not the case. Finally, there also needs to be even-handedness in the architecture of the system. There needs to be increased linkages established between the WTO, the WHO and a future world environmental organisation to interlink structurally the issues of trade, health, environment, labour and others. Such an inter-linkage would increase global understanding.

Muhammad Zamir is a former Secretary and Ambassador.