Developed countries should eliminate the escalation of tariffs in product chains of interest to developing countries. Unfortunately, important issues for developing countries have been ignored on the WTO agenda. Instead, the United States urged members to “quickly” follow the conclusion of new topics based on the emerging interests of U.S. companies. In order to preserve market access in developing countries, they have managed in record time to conclude agreements in the fields of telecommunications, information technology, financial services, and the WTO has failed to deliver on its promises over the past decade, revealing a broader systemic problem in the global community. Real and sustainable solutions to global economic problems can only be found if the model of global competitiveness between countries becomes a model of true cooperation. Historically, GATT has gradually imposed tariff reductions around the world. Their coverage was also limited to non-agricultural goods such as the United States until Uruguay`s last cycle was about to protect their agricultural sector. Over the years, as the interests of developed countries have increased, developed countries have also insisted that more areas be included in the GATT/WTO. Agriculture, services (finance, telecommunications, information technology, etc.), intellectual property rights, e-commerce and possibly the next round of negotiations, investment, public procurement and competition policy are now on the agenda. Ultimately, countries that use the WTO to protect their own industries can only hurt themselves if they drive their own industries to become more inefficient without genuine international competition. According to economic theory, a lack of competition reduces incentives to invest in new technologies, control costs and continuously improve production, because the domestic company will simply be able to raise prices at fair levels of the conventional price of foreign goods. 3.
Trade agreement: The WTO has also failed to specify the deliberately ambiguous rules for concluding trade agreements that allow the poorest countries to be manipulated by rich countries. In Africa, during negotiations with the EU, countries were forced to eliminate tariffs of up to 90% of their trade, for lack of clear rules to protect them. The Trade-Related Investment Measures Agreement (TRIMS) addresses policies considered incompatible with the GATT. A clear list contains measures such as local minimum content and trade compensation requirements. Developing countries must eliminate inconsistent measures by 1 January 2000 and least developed countries by 1 January 2002. Given the major structural changes that the WTO has made with mandates such as the AOA, it is clear that it “could certainly reform the privileges of the richest peasants in the North in favour of the poor peasants of the South”.”  This could be done by “push[ing] for more poor country farm and food tariff cuts done as these products loom large in the household budgets of the poor [and] giving the latter access to food at world market prices (adjusted for marketing margins).”  Indeed, many developing countries, from South America (Argentina, Chile, Ecuador, Peru) to Asia (China, India, Philippines, Thailand), have pushed precisely to this policy, except that the WTO rejects it, as was the case during the catastrophic failure of trade negotiations at the 2003 Doha Development Round meetings in Cancun.  This backgrounder examines the problems faced by developing countries in implementing the Uruguay Round agreements and the provisions for special and differentiated treatment.