Madam Speaker and Mr President, I wonder if I could ask you to comment on three brief aspects of this very troubled Doha Round which, as you have correctly said, has been going on for seven years. It has missed its deadline already three years ago for concluding the round.
The first is that the point has been made that in some ways the Doha Round could actually increase the volatility of food and agricultural prices, if it's concluded, on the basis that what's currently in the Doha Round proposals will further restrict the tools government might be able to use to ensure trade support for food security objectives. That, of course, is counterintuitive, but perhaps it is something that you'd like to comment on.
The second issue, as you correctly said, is that the G20 has been, in this case, a third force for the good - occasionally we find third forces for the good - and it has obviously been able to lift the weight of the developing nations. I wonder, however, if the President would care to comment on a report which came out of Geneva on 9 June. If I could just read to you from it. This deals with the Nama section of the trade round -
While some developing countries such as Brazil and South Africa argue that the controversial chair for the Doha-Nama negotiations, Ambassador Stephenson, had included some of their proposals, they reckon the text is flawed with regard to the range of cuts it has proposed in the Swiss formula.
Then it says, and this is the material point -
But Brazil is prepared to accept a low coefficient of 19 among the Nama 11 coalition of developing countries if it secures adequate flexibilities, which is not acceptable to other members such as India, Argentina and South Africa.
I mention that, President, because I think you are right. The developing world does require a unity of approach. But in view of these cracks or fissures which appear to have now emerged, is that possible going forward into the next stage of negotiations?