 I'm embarrassed to say that I haven't been here before at the UN University, so great pleasure to to be here and also to share the platform with Rodin Wilkinson, who by the way is my supervisor of my PhD, which I was able to do while I was an ambassador of South Africa in Geneva. So it does speak a bit to the how busy we were in the round in Geneva. So I'm now, I did work for just over 10 years in Geneva, working for South Africa and negotiating the World Trade Organization and I'm now back home and teaching at the University of Cape Town. So I thought what I'd do is really reflect a bit on my experience in the WTO and reflect also on the reasons for the collapse of the WTO negotiations, the Doha negotiations and the crisis that seems to be the theme of this this conference, the crisis of multilateralism as we understand it today and where should we be going in the future. So a few words about my my own experience and as South Africa as we came in into the the new world after the release of Nelson Mandela and the new democracy. We were very committed to building multilateralism and it speaks a bit to our own idealism and our commitment that we against the advice of many of our fellow developing countries, we worked hard to launch the WTO Doha round of negotiations and I must say at that time we we understood some of the concerns of many of those who were skeptical about the round, but we we were convinced that through a process of negotiations we could address some of the imbalances and asymmetries that existed in the multilateral trading system and so South Africa played an important role in launching the round and indeed in ensuring that the mandate of the Doha round spoke of the need to address these imbalances and so at the very heart of the Doha round is paragraph 2 which speaks of the need to address the needs and interests of developing countries and then in every paragraph of the Doha round mandate the need for this round the Doha round to incorporate the development or special and differential treatment provisions where we're included Now very soon after the round had had had been initiated True trends began to emerge in my view. The one spoke To the inability of the the major developed countries the European Union in the first instance and then the United States to actually Fulfill those promises that were made in the Doha mandate within months the EU was You know seemed unable to commit to reducing substantially subsidies in agriculture and to support the The this commitment in a methodology for negotiations in agriculture The United States to had a number of other concerns in a number of other areas And by the time we got to the first ministerial meeting in Cancun The whole ministerial meeting collapsed Because of this inability of the developed countries to commit to making substantial reductions in agricultural subsidies specific concerns of countries like the cotton for spoke to the The the injustice the inequity in the trading system where you know for cotton producers in Africa where The livelihoods were undermined by US subsidies Also the LDCs raised issues about duty fee code of free and the United States was unable to address this So that was one trend that emerged and it was to continue Not just Cancun, but to the next ministerial meeting Hong Kong and then of course the collapse of the whole dough around in July 2008 That was one trend the other trend. I thought Was very interesting for me personally as I saw myself as a young activist at the time The emergence of an Powerful alliance of developing countries in Cancun as them around collapsed Out of that came the birth of perhaps the most powerful developing country alliance The world has ever seen the creation of the G20 group of developing countries in agriculture led by Brazil and of course India and China played a key role in that South Africa was in immediately Argentina and a number of others including some of the bigger countries in Africa Nigeria Egypt Argentina and Uruguay So the the most significant countries in the world in the developing world in one alliance This was a unique phenomena we saw that Building of alliances and this process continued from Cancun Throughout the next conference by the time we got to Hong Kong, you know, we had a we had an alliance of about a hundred and ten countries adding included the least developed countries very organized Worked together to negotiate and fight for duty free code if you market access G33 countries in developing countries concerned about food security led by India in Indonesia These countries, you know, we're active in the process African countries were united as ever So this was a Amazing phenomenon what was also interesting for me as a trade negotiator And I was deeply involved in the trade negotiations not only on agriculture also on industrial products There we formed an alliance called the Nama 11 countries who were interested in ensuring that there was some policy space for developing countries as they were Industrializing South Africa was the coordinator of that group and throughout this process What we had was a real engagement. So these were alliances not Just built to oppose there were not NGOs fighting on the streets to protest they were to organize and mobilize People both inside and outside the room as we did because many of the NGOs supported the concerns and demands say of the cotton for for example and others But we were engaged in the details of the negotiations and we did negotiate constructively and we did strike deals and compromises with the United States with the European Union on very complex issues on agricultural subsidies on, you know co-tas on safeguards all of these things Where the US needed more flexibility where they united where the the European Union needed some assistance and support for its farmers these compromises were made and given to them in exchange for some flexibility also for Developing countries and so by 2008 there was a whole big package the ref 3 and ref 4 so-called texts of negotiations which Included a number of compromises, but it also contained in my view a number of significant advances that the developing countries made So for the first time S&D was not just a You know a special differential treatment wasn't just a rhetorical statement That was like a promise It had some teeth because we negotiated it we negotiated it in each of the provisions of the new agreements of the Doha round We we made advances even on duty free code of free although the United States didn't get agreed to a hundred percent But we got 97 percent for for for LDCs a Number of small and vulnerable economies they were recognized as a group their particular flexibilities We included in a number of these provisions But by 2008 the United States couldn't move on a number of issues the ministerial meeting collapsed and It's now I think a historical fact Although some people may have different views But the round is now dead the door around for all intents and purposes The first round ever in the history of the GAT there were eight rounds before since 1947 many had Traveils and challenges they took longer than they were intended from the beginning, but they succeeded at the end This time it failed and I think some of the reasons my colleague has mentioned and one of those reasons Of course, I think is the rise of developing countries They were not there in the Uruguay round in such a significant way. They didn't play such an important role and if they're the in each in each round since 1947 it was really the EU and the US that closed the deals and This time round the EU and the US they had to negotiate with the major developing countries and Of course the demands of a number of smaller countries to close the deal and they couldn't do that So I think that was one of the reasons for as as my colleague has mentioned correctly But what did they say? So the United States at that time the USTR as the round collapsed was led by Susan Schwab She wrote an article so her whole reasoning is is written in foreign affairs an article in foreign affairs in which You know, she stated very clearly what the reasons were for the US Deciding to conclude the round or to to collapse around as she she in her view It was it had collapsed and she said the main reason was the rise of developing countries She said the world had changed since the year 2001 when the round was launched She said that countries like China India Brazil and others had now become Not just emerging countries, but they had emerged. They become significant players. They needed to take more responsibility But there were other players You know as we got there was interestingly, you know about US there are few issues in this Congress and I've been watching it over the last You know Decade and a half or so there are few issues on which there has been bipartisan support On trade, you know the one issue on which there is bipartisan support between the Republicans and the Democrats Is that the round is dead and they both colluded with each other So Susan Schwab passed the baton to Ron Kirk seamlessly, you know between 2008 and 2009 and Ron Kirk simply took over Continued the same rhetoric and the business community, you know worked together with both of them Susan and and then with Ron Kirk And interestingly when you dissect, you know, what actually was going on in the business community They actually was there was a fracturing between those businesses who were the winners of the new globalization and those Businesses in the United States that couldn't move So protectionism was on the rise as still is in the United States and in Europe and in agriculture and in manufacturing The those business interests dying their heels. They refused to move. They didn't make concessions and They were one of the reasons for the collapse of the round But the other part of the business community the businesses that were flourishing in the new global globalization Phase of globalization these businesses form themselves into a number of coalitions one of which is led by the the CSI the coalition of services industries and they argued that The door around is obsolete. They said because the globalization has taken a new form and It has deepened and this form is called Global value chains and they said based on this new reality the old ways of doing business The old issues that were relevant at the time of Doha are now obsolete Agriculture is not important trade a tariffs are no more important. It's it's all about Value chains and trade facilitation and this is what We should concentrate on now Of course global value chains the old concept But it was now brought in into the trade narrative argued by the United States as being a new basis for us to analyze the global economy and therefore the need to revise the whole mandate of the door around and The United States then also said That the way the way in which the whole door around was constructed needs to be revised and It called us a new pathway. He said we need new pathways to do business this whole issue of Negotiating things as a round with all issues together, you know in one basket doesn't work anymore There are too many people in the room We need to isolate the issues Prioritize them and we need to work with those who are willing to work and Negotiate and those who are you know not willing and we're not ready. They should wait and This was What they started they started a something called plurilateral's so they isolated the issue that was important to the United States services And they created a services plurilateral and they said well, this is the new way of doing business Right So what we saw in the in this in the in the new way of doing business we began to think about this and When you look at this what rodent taught me at When I was doing a PhD That actually You know a very interesting book that throws some light on this behavior of the United States written by Mark Mazzua called governing the world and what he says is that actually what this behavior of the United States is not strange at all it's actually Exactly what the US has been doing since 1947 and he says that the US has a very interesting way of combining Universalism and exceptionalism Writing the rules in a way that mostly served its core interests and Generally exempting itself from those rules that its legislators disliked So at the very beginning, you know remember when the GATT was created it was actually the Havana Charter That was negotiated and agreed and the United States threw it out in 1950 because it didn't like it and Throughout the GATT every round They were initiated by the United States and when the United States didn't agree The issue was not included So 1956 my own country South Africa wanted to discuss will the US didn't agree so the South Africa pulled out but this was the way in which the US behaved and in in the GATT throughout and So the behavior of the United States today the move to mega regionals You know moving taking its energy out of the United States. So the ambassador of the United States in in Geneva Is now also responsible for the TTIP negotiations So he spends clearly spends more time on the TTIP than in the door around of negotiations So the energy of the US is taken out of the multilateral into bilateral Negotiations This is not this is not new. This is a trend which you know, they have they have you know used previously and It seems to me that the other concern with Global value chains is that it takes us back to the Washington consensus the idea that in order to develop The argument is that you need to go along with value chains. You need to participate. You need to join these value chains because Free a trade Deregulation of the border removing barriers of the border is better for you and is good for development And it seems that this idea is you know was critiqued a long ago by a Fellow called Carl Poliani when he said that self-regulating markets, you know, they they don't exist in reality only in theory They have to be you know markets are embedded in the social so you have to look at the development issues and you have to look at the environmental issues and You can't divorce the WTO around from the SDGs and it is for this reason that in a book that I wrote some years ago Called reforming the WTO. I argue that the WTO has to have norms it has to have values and principles and this has to be the underlying logic of the rest of the Negotiations in the WTO and that and those norms must start from the need to put development in the center of the WTO negotiations. So what of the future? It seems to me that Until we are able to look at the WTO as part of the Multilateral system as a whole and I was very pleased today to listen to the minister of the ex-minister of Finland speak about stability and Peace because it would seem to me that without Situating the WTO in a broader global context of peace and security and the need for solidarity and This is what this is what is Going to be the main loss for developing countries the smallest ones from Africa From the loss of from the collapse of the Doha round What they had in the Doha round was solidarity We all supported the cause of the poorest countries and we leverage the their participation To get to make gains so the cotton for to put their issues the duty free coat of free issue many other issues We leverage that to you know As part of the bargain the grand bargain in the WTO Now the round has collapsed and they out and they marginalized and it would seem to me that to to ensure stability and peace and to ensure Development we need to bring back For all the reasons we started and we created the double the United Nations. We need to go back to the basic Notion and the basic principles of multilateralism and it would seem to me that this is the only way Out of the the current impasse in the WTO. Thank you