Breaking the Deadlock at Doha

The World Trade Organization's latest confab on the Doha Round didn't produce a deal, and public statements in the wake of the meeting suggested that any agreement may be a long way off. But behind closed doors, there is some cause for optimism—if political leaders among the 153 member countries, especially those in the United States, can summon the political will and courage to move forward.

After eight long years of negotiations, most WTO members think the current "package" of negotiated trade concessions is sufficient, and want to conclude the round where it stands. The economic climate has given many members a sense of urgency: A global trade deal would increase trade, discourage protectionism and do much to spur the job growth that is trailing overall renewed growth in the U.S. and elsewhere.

Yet the Obama administration still isn't onboard with a deal. Trade Representative Ron Kirk said at the Geneva WTO meeting earlier this month that the deal as it currently stands does not deliver "meaningful market access in the part of the world that will be growing and driving GDP growth over the next few years," referring to fast-growing developing countries such as China, India and Brazil.

It's difficult to sell Washington's approach to other WTO members. At this month's meeting, Brazilian Foreign Minister Celso Amorin said, "It is unreasonable to expect that concluding the round would involve additional unilateral concessions from developing countries." Many other WTO members—developing and developed countries alike—echoed Mr. Amorin's sentiments, and accused the Americans of delaying and possibly dooming the conclusion of the round.

Yet there's still reason to hope for a breakthrough. Many of the same trade diplomats who denounced the U.S. publicly in Geneva say privately that they fully understand the politics at work. President Obama is facing a Democratic Party-led Congress that wants more concessions for the U.S. than what former President Bush was able to negotiate. Mr. Obama needs to produce jobs, but also steer Democrats away from protectionism.

Most trade negotiators seek more effective U.S. engagement and want to help America's new, multilaterally minded president to succeed. For these reasons, they acknowledge privately that in the end, they would be willing to give the U.S. more on trade—but not for free, and not unilaterally. These are, after all, trade negotiators who believe in reciprocity.

The sticking points are clear. The U.S. wants more market access for agriculture, manufacturing and services, particularly in emerging markets. Developing countries want the U.S. to make additional cuts in trade-distorting agricultural subsidies, accept less latitude in applying trade restrictions on imports and accept less protection of such industries as steel and textiles.

The question now is whether Mr. Obama will assert the political will to offer additional concessions in the face of determined domestic political opposition, or not. His decision in September to impose additional tariffs on imports of Chinese tires sent the wrong signal, as did other trade disputes with Canada and Mexico.

But now the president may be changing his stance. At his recent jobs summit, he called expanding exports a "short-term imperative" for an American economy still reeling from high unemployment. On his trip to Asia last month, he inked a small trade deal with Pacific Rim nations and called for a successful conclusion of the Doha Round.

Big questions remain. To achieve additional market access for American exports, would the president be willing to take on the labor unions that oppose trade and are among his strongest supporters? Would he be willing to confront the opposition of protectionist interests that wield pivotal electoral votes in "rustbelt" states? Would he be willing to employ his considerable eloquence to make the case for freer trade to the American people?

There is no lack of politicians around the world willing to tell the voters back home that—as Mr. Kirk put it pointedly in Geneva—"the pain of trade is real." There are all too few leaders in the U.S. and everywhere else in the world with enough political courage to explain to voters that the gains from trade are equally real, and can greatly exceed the pain by creating more and better jobs with a brighter future.

It's by no means just America's fault that the Doha Round has stalled. But since the U.S. is the world's largest economy, a push from Washington to conclude a global trade deal would go a long way. In his first year in office, Mr. Obama has shown uncommon political courage on issues ranging from Afghanistan to health care to climate change. It's time to add free trade to that list.

Reprinted from The Wall Street Journal © 2009 Dow Jones & Company.  All rights reserved.