Thank goodness "others disagree that that was the consensus". But does Walden Bello believe that the "consensus" is really such a desirable end? I would have thought he knows only too well that "the preservation of the rural third world" as it is is surely a sentence to continued misery, and I find it hard to believe that it would be his own position.
On a different note. The collapse of Cancun may well have been inevitable given the positions adopted by the rich world, and may be a demonstration that the WTO is a more democratic institution than the other international economic organisations, and is to be welcome for the backbone shown by the governments. But is it really something for celebration? I fear that this will lead to more bilateral arrangements which will likely be even more disadvantageous, and will effectively function as trojan horses for the rich and powerful, with each bilateral arrangement serving as a pressure on the others to come to similar arrangements. We've seen this before in the race to individually come up with "more attractive" terms for foreign investments, leading to terms which even the IMF and World Bank acknowledged to be unnecessary. We see it in the competition to reduce corporate taxes, in countries where it is already low, lower than in the Euro-Atlantic zone.
kj khoo