“It is not the end. It’s a new beginning,” said Ivonne Baki, Ecuadorian Minister for International Trade at the final press conference given by the G-22, the group of developing and least-developed countries gathered to pressure the United States and the European Union on the issue of farm subsidies.

Baki summarized in these few words the essence of the spirit which animated not only the critics of corporate globalization, but also a large contingent of the citizens of this planet who carefully followed the proceedings of the WTO 5th Ministerial Meeting which recently ended in Cancun, Mexico.

Arrogance was on display at the final press conference of each industrialized country’s delegation, showing how the “development” objective of the Doha Round was mere smoke and mirrors. To Robert Zoellick, U.S. Trade Representative, “Whether developed or developing, there were ‘can do’ and ‘won’t do’ countries here. The rhetoric of the ‘won’t do’ overwhelmed the concerted efforts of the ‘can do’. ‘Won’t do’ led to impasse.” Pascal Lamy, of the European Union, called the WTO a medieval institution because of the consensus system that rules it which allows less powerful countries to resist the domination of the Quad, composed of the U.S., the EU, Canada and Japan.

Canada’s Trade Minister, Pierre Pettigrew, expressed in an NGO briefing that the WTO was looking more and more like a parliamentarians meeting with these countries bringing their non-trade priorities to the table.

Too bad for the priorities of these countries, which were supposedly at the heart of the development cycle. Never, at any point during the meeting, did the United States and the European Union ever offer any significant concession on the agriculture front. Furthermore, Canada joined these two countries to try to convince developing countries to launch negotiations on the liberalization of public markets and investment, as well as on rules that were to frame trade facilitation and competition policy.

Pettigrew chaired the committee on these Singapore Issues, which constituted a flagrant conflict of interest as Canada strongly held the position that negotiations had to be launched. Under anonymity, some African delegates have deplored the aggressiveness Pettigrew demonstrated towards them during committee meetings.

The so-called “green room” meetings also enraged these countries. The East African Parliamentarians’ Association denounced the tactics of the Quad, which summoned some of their ministers to secret and exclusive meetings at one a.m. in order to create divisions in the resisting bloc. Their trade advisors were excluded from these talks. The United States also tried to divide-and-conquer the G-22 by offering Costa Rica, Guatemala and El Salvador higher export quotas in bilateral trade if they agreed to leave the group. Only El Salvador agreed.

Even though agriculture and the Singapore Issues were the two issues at the heart of the controversy, activists and civil society’s role, either inside the convention centre or outside at the barricade 10 km away, shouldn’t be underestimated. A delegate from Swaziland told an Australian activist shortly after negotiations were broken off: “If we were able to resist this way, it is thanks to you from civil society and international media. The energy you brought to this meeting as well as the support you expressed through the various actions, gave us the courage to follow our convictions, despite the intense pressures we were subjected to.”

The Cancun fiasco doesn’t mean the end of the WTO. However, if it can resist the pressures that will certainly be applied in the next few months, the G-22 common front will constitute the beginning of a new dynamic within the organization.

The Seattle meeting failed because of technicalities. In Cancun, it was the whole model of corporate globalization that was at the core of the collapse.

With the upcoming November FTAA Ministerial Meeting in Miami and the American threat to use bilateral agreements rather than multilateral, the next few weeks will be crucial to ensure that the Cancun victory constitutes a starting point for a new philosophy of globalization, one that will no longer be based on the needs of large corporations, but rather on human rights, a fair trade system and a real development effort.