Sophie
in love
Introduction
World Trade Organisation delegates are due to gather in Cancun, Mexico to try to reach a deal to liberalise world trade.
In the past fifty years, the world's standard of living has risen faster than ever before as trade, finance and communications have become increasingly globalised.
First war-torn Europe, then Japan and now China have seen prosperity increase.
But the problem remains of how best to pass on the gains of trade to developing countries, and rich and poor countries are increasingly divided over the issue.
Uneven benefits
Since globalisation gathered pace in the 1980s, world inequality has also increased.
While some developing countries were able to take advantage of trade to improve their standard of living, many fell further behind as they depended on a single commodity.
Rich countries invested erratically and selectively in developing countries and continued to protect their own markets.
Interdependence seemed to be a one-way street.
WTO under fire
In the four decades after the Second World War successive trade rounds liberalised trade between industrialised countries.
But the Seattle world trade talks were derailed in 1999 by protests over globalisation.
When trade talks finally got underway in Doha in Qatar in 2001, the rich countries pledged that this would be a "development round" which aimed to share the gains of globalisation with poor countries.
Pledges were made on agriculture and sustainable development, but not on workers' rights. Rich countries also pledged to modify patent laws to help make cheap drugs available.
Pro-free trade
Pro-globalisation forces argue that everyone gains from the expansion of free trade.
Both rich and poor countries will produce more of what they are best at producing, both manufactured goods and commodities, they argue.
The extraordinary prosperity of the post-war years was driven by the expansion of trade, and trade-led growth is the best way to eliminate poverty.
The introduction of competition in developing country markets will make their own industries and services more efficient.
Anti-free trade
The anti-globalisation movement argues that the world trading system is unfair, undemocratic and unsustainable.
Far from helping poor countries develop, trade is used as a weapon to open up their markets to Western multinationals and their subsidised agriculture, they say.
The WTO is dominated by a few rich countries which use their economic leverage to force the rest of the world to agree to their agenda while protecting their own industries.
And the growth they promote is using up too much of the world's resources and ignoring environmental concerns, they argue.
Agriculture
Agriculture is the biggest sticking point in the trade talks.
Rich countries spend six times more helping their own farmers than in foreign aid.
Poor countries want greater access for their products, and an end to unfair subsidies that puts their own farmers out of business.
Rich countries want to protect their rural sectors for social and environmental reasons, but are prepared to reduce some subsidies, especially for exports.
Cheap drugs
Poor countries want the right to import cheap drugs to help fight health emergencies like HIV/Aids, TB and malaria.
They want to be able to buy these drugs - produced without patent protection - from other developing countries.
Rich countries say they need to protect their pharmaceutical industries or companies will not invest in making new drugs.
But they have finally agreed to waive patent protection, providing poor countries do not try to sell the cheap drugs to them.
Investment rules
Rich countries want rules to allow their big companies the right to invest in developing countries without limits on ownership or fears of being nationalised.
Poor countries want to retain control of their own industries and jobs. Rich countries say foreign investment will bring big benefits to workers and consumers in poor countries.
Poor countries say that trade negotiations are the wrong place to consider this.
Unions say rules which benefit foreign multinationals should also protect workers' rights.
World Trade Organisation delegates are due to gather in Cancun, Mexico to try to reach a deal to liberalise world trade.
In the past fifty years, the world's standard of living has risen faster than ever before as trade, finance and communications have become increasingly globalised.
First war-torn Europe, then Japan and now China have seen prosperity increase.
But the problem remains of how best to pass on the gains of trade to developing countries, and rich and poor countries are increasingly divided over the issue.
Uneven benefits
Since globalisation gathered pace in the 1980s, world inequality has also increased.
While some developing countries were able to take advantage of trade to improve their standard of living, many fell further behind as they depended on a single commodity.
Rich countries invested erratically and selectively in developing countries and continued to protect their own markets.
Interdependence seemed to be a one-way street.
WTO under fire
In the four decades after the Second World War successive trade rounds liberalised trade between industrialised countries.
But the Seattle world trade talks were derailed in 1999 by protests over globalisation.
When trade talks finally got underway in Doha in Qatar in 2001, the rich countries pledged that this would be a "development round" which aimed to share the gains of globalisation with poor countries.
Pledges were made on agriculture and sustainable development, but not on workers' rights. Rich countries also pledged to modify patent laws to help make cheap drugs available.
Pro-free trade
Pro-globalisation forces argue that everyone gains from the expansion of free trade.
Both rich and poor countries will produce more of what they are best at producing, both manufactured goods and commodities, they argue.
The extraordinary prosperity of the post-war years was driven by the expansion of trade, and trade-led growth is the best way to eliminate poverty.
The introduction of competition in developing country markets will make their own industries and services more efficient.
Anti-free trade
The anti-globalisation movement argues that the world trading system is unfair, undemocratic and unsustainable.
Far from helping poor countries develop, trade is used as a weapon to open up their markets to Western multinationals and their subsidised agriculture, they say.
The WTO is dominated by a few rich countries which use their economic leverage to force the rest of the world to agree to their agenda while protecting their own industries.
And the growth they promote is using up too much of the world's resources and ignoring environmental concerns, they argue.
Agriculture
Agriculture is the biggest sticking point in the trade talks.
Rich countries spend six times more helping their own farmers than in foreign aid.
Poor countries want greater access for their products, and an end to unfair subsidies that puts their own farmers out of business.
Rich countries want to protect their rural sectors for social and environmental reasons, but are prepared to reduce some subsidies, especially for exports.
Cheap drugs
Poor countries want the right to import cheap drugs to help fight health emergencies like HIV/Aids, TB and malaria.
They want to be able to buy these drugs - produced without patent protection - from other developing countries.
Rich countries say they need to protect their pharmaceutical industries or companies will not invest in making new drugs.
But they have finally agreed to waive patent protection, providing poor countries do not try to sell the cheap drugs to them.
Investment rules
Rich countries want rules to allow their big companies the right to invest in developing countries without limits on ownership or fears of being nationalised.
Poor countries want to retain control of their own industries and jobs. Rich countries say foreign investment will bring big benefits to workers and consumers in poor countries.
Poor countries say that trade negotiations are the wrong place to consider this.
Unions say rules which benefit foreign multinationals should also protect workers' rights.
