The study referred to in Le Monde is from May 2005; this is a new one (November 2005).
No, I haven't read it. But here's an idea: what if the WB thought the May study was wimpish with only $18.2bn gains a year, and that world opinion might legitimately ask what all the fuss was about for so little gain? And what if the November study (with new, improved $300bn a year!!!) came out just in time to bolster the free trade case at the Hong Kong talks?
(Of course, this is just idle snark, because the World Bank is an extremely serious etc etc...)
The political agenda on the trade talks is obvious. Also obvious will be France's role as the scape goat for failure.
Tony Blair said that he would "do anything" to make the round succeed. Why isn't he then giving the silly French their stupid 2 billion euros if that's all that blocks a 300 billion per year windfall? They can then be blamed for being cheap while he is statesmanlike. Win-win... In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
In fact I think (like you) there's a lot of grandstanding going on. That includes Bush's offer, which I haven't seen much examination of (for the moment, in the real world, his record is of increasing US farm subsidies), and Bliar's attitude too. No one really believes the Doha Round will introduce global agricultural free trade. The question is what political capital can be made out of the following blame game., that's all.
