Brazil sees Doha deal after US, India polls

Wed Jul 30, 2008 4:22pm EDT
 
[-] Text [+]

By Fernando Exman

BRASILIA (Reuters) - Brazil's President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva said on Wednesday that a deal in global trade negotiations was still possible after elections in the United States and India this year and next.

"I still think we can do this agreement," Lula said.

"There are elections in two important countries. Still it's possible to work this agreement," he said after a ceremony with visiting Costa Rican President Oscar Arias.

The U.S. presidential election is set for November 4. The general election in India will take place by May 2009.

Lula said he would also keep fighting for freer farm trade and hoped that advances made in global trade negotiations would be preserved.

"That's what the poorest nations, who stand most to gain, expect," Lula said.

The World Trade Organization's so-called Doha round of talks to cut trade barriers and subsidies collapsed on Tuesday in Geneva, frustrating Brazil's hopes for a global deal.

"Despite the frustrations in the WTO, Costa Rica and Brazil will keep fighting for free farm trade," Lula said.

Brazil, one of the world' leading farm exporters, was a key player in the round as a leader of developing countries.

The government would also pursue stalled bilateral talks, Lula said. Negotiations between the European Union and the South American trade bloc Mercosur have been on hold for years, partly because the groups were waiting for results from the Doha round.

(Reporting by Fernando Exman, writing by Raymond Colitt, editing by Xavier Briand)

 

Featured Broker sponsored link

Editor's Choice

A selection of our best photos from the past 24 hours.   Slideshow 

Most Popular on Reuters

  • Articles
  • Video
Bernd Debusmann
America’s perennial Vietnam syndrome

History does not repeat itself, but the wartime struggles of President Obama in 2009 and President Johnson in 1963 are striking in their similarities. Does the ghost of Vietnam still hang over the White House?  Commentary