Muchos recuerdan seguramente el cuento de H.C. Andersen “El nuevo traje del Rey”, en el cual dos estafadores le hacen creer a la gente que son tejedores, y que son capaces de fabricar la tela más fina que pudiera ser imaginada, no solo por la belleza de su color y su diseño, sino también porque la tela tenía la maravillosa cualidad de tornarse invisible ante cualquier persona que no fuera apta para su tarea o que fuera imperdonablemente estúpida.
En la fábula, el rey asigna una importante cantidad de dinero a esos tejedores-estafadores para tejer el fantástico traje. El temor de los ministros y consejeros del Rey en reconocer su estupidez o su inaptitud para sus funciones los obliga a ver una tela que no existe y a alabar durante su supuesta fabricación colores, diseños y texturas tan invisibles como irreales. Así es que llegada la fecha de entrega del traje, el Rey, que evidentemente tampoco puede ver el traje, intenta disimular su supuesta estupidez aceptando vestir el atuendo inexistente. Finalmente, el Emperador marcha en procesión desnudo, mientras de todas las ventanas se exclama su elegancia y la belleza de su traje hasta que un niño trae a la realidad al Rey y a su pueblo proclamando la desnudez del monarca.
La situación de la Ronda de Doha no es muy diferente. Mientras algunos tejedores, por sus intereses particulares, intentan hacer creer al pueblo y al Rey que están fabricando un traje cuyo diseño y colores son extremadamente bellos, ninguno de los ministros y consejeros del Rey quiere reconocer que la tela es invisible.
La tela es invisible porque difícilmente se pueda llegar a un acuerdo en las condiciones actuales, con posiciones e intereses totalmente divergentes y con el principal Miembro de la organización sin capacidad de negociar y aproximándose a una elección presidencial. Aún cuando hubiera tela, el vestido no será lo prometido en cuanto a su diseño y colores (la liberalización agrícola y el desarrollo), porque esos objetivos fueron quedando en el camino para satisfacer otros intereses. A pesar de esa evidente doble invisibilidad, nadie quiere ser sospechado de ineptitud para su función o de estupidez por reconocer la realidad y arriesgarse a perder su parte de los recursos que se siguen destinando al tejido imaginario.
Hoy el rey se pasea desnudo por Ginebra y provoca comentarios de admiración sobre sus bellas y llamativas ropas entre sus obsecuentes ministros y consejeros. Es hora de que alguien reconozca su desnudez.
lunes, 7 de abril de 2008
Salomon and the "middle-ground"
The Book of Kings tells the story of Salomon King, that having been offered by God whatever he wanted to be given, asked for a discerning heart to govern his people and to distinguish right and wrong (1 Kings 3; 1-28).
One of the best known stories about this ability of Salomon to administer justice is that of two women that dispute a baby between themselves after that the son of one of them died. Salomon suggested a purely rational solution, one that we could call “middle ground” solution: to cut the living child in two and give half to one and half to the other. Confronted to this proposal, the mother of the living baby accepts to lose his son to the other woman, so that the baby was not killed. The mother of the dead baby agrees to Salomon’s proposal. Salomon orders to give the living baby to the first woman, acknowledging that she was the real mother.
Some interesting concepts can be drawn from this story to analyze the “middle-ground” solution proposed by a few developing countries (Job(07)/106). The first one is that, as in Salomon King’s story, by making some claims and revealing certain kind of proposals, countries may reveal a position that can help to resolve the dispute. The mother of the dead baby had nothing to lose and by accepting the “middle-ground” solution revealed that she did not care about the baby, because her baby was already dead. Salomon decided to give the baby to the mother that really cared about him. In the same way, this group of countries shows with their proposal that they do not care about the result of the NAMA negotiation or the situation of NAMA tariffs after the round; because they have little to lose in terms of NAMA, as their baby is already dead. This should facilitate the decision of the Chair by making clear the scarce relevance for this negotiation of the proposal contained in Job(07)/106.
The second lesson is that rationality is not always the best guide for a decision. The “friends of Sandra’s” proposal is an example of a sheer rational solution, based on an apparently objective appreciation of a situation in which there are two positions that may seem extreme for someone that do not know their background and history. In the NAMA negotiation, however, as in Salomon’s judgment, pure rationality is not the best method to reach a fair solution. As the final Salomon’s decision was guided by a certain criteria of justice, in the NAMA negotiation there are rules that have to guide the result beyond what a candid concept of rationality may indicate. It is revealing in that sense the total absence of any reference to the mandates of Doha and Hong Kong in the Job(06)/106. The only possible result in this negotiation is one that fully complies with the mandates of less than full reciprocity in reduction commitments and an equivalent level of ambition between NAMA and AMA. These are the criteria that have to guide the outcome of this negotiation, not an aseptic average independent of the mandate.
When God gave Salomon his discerning heart, he told him that there had never been anyone as wise as him, nor would there ever be. We will see soon if our Salomon has the wisdom required to understand that the solution proposed in Job(07)/106 would only lead to the death of the NAMA baby.
One of the best known stories about this ability of Salomon to administer justice is that of two women that dispute a baby between themselves after that the son of one of them died. Salomon suggested a purely rational solution, one that we could call “middle ground” solution: to cut the living child in two and give half to one and half to the other. Confronted to this proposal, the mother of the living baby accepts to lose his son to the other woman, so that the baby was not killed. The mother of the dead baby agrees to Salomon’s proposal. Salomon orders to give the living baby to the first woman, acknowledging that she was the real mother.
Some interesting concepts can be drawn from this story to analyze the “middle-ground” solution proposed by a few developing countries (Job(07)/106). The first one is that, as in Salomon King’s story, by making some claims and revealing certain kind of proposals, countries may reveal a position that can help to resolve the dispute. The mother of the dead baby had nothing to lose and by accepting the “middle-ground” solution revealed that she did not care about the baby, because her baby was already dead. Salomon decided to give the baby to the mother that really cared about him. In the same way, this group of countries shows with their proposal that they do not care about the result of the NAMA negotiation or the situation of NAMA tariffs after the round; because they have little to lose in terms of NAMA, as their baby is already dead. This should facilitate the decision of the Chair by making clear the scarce relevance for this negotiation of the proposal contained in Job(07)/106.
The second lesson is that rationality is not always the best guide for a decision. The “friends of Sandra’s” proposal is an example of a sheer rational solution, based on an apparently objective appreciation of a situation in which there are two positions that may seem extreme for someone that do not know their background and history. In the NAMA negotiation, however, as in Salomon’s judgment, pure rationality is not the best method to reach a fair solution. As the final Salomon’s decision was guided by a certain criteria of justice, in the NAMA negotiation there are rules that have to guide the result beyond what a candid concept of rationality may indicate. It is revealing in that sense the total absence of any reference to the mandates of Doha and Hong Kong in the Job(06)/106. The only possible result in this negotiation is one that fully complies with the mandates of less than full reciprocity in reduction commitments and an equivalent level of ambition between NAMA and AMA. These are the criteria that have to guide the outcome of this negotiation, not an aseptic average independent of the mandate.
When God gave Salomon his discerning heart, he told him that there had never been anyone as wise as him, nor would there ever be. We will see soon if our Salomon has the wisdom required to understand that the solution proposed in Job(07)/106 would only lead to the death of the NAMA baby.
Suscribirse a:
Comentarios (Atom)