When you walk out of a theatre, the feeling you have of the film you have watched depends as much as the intrinsic qualities of the film as on the expectations you had on the film before the screening. Expectations based on a number of elements: the previews watched, the critics and ratings, the director, the cast, etc.

By contrast, when you are watching a serial in the comfort of your home, it is the storyline and its expected twists and turns which catch your attention more than anything else. And each episode can leave you with different feelings: disappointment, excitement, boredom? But you will still be there to watch the next episode!

The trade negotiations saga is probably the longest running serial on earth having been screened for the first time in 1947 under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) title. Between 1947 and 1994, the serial was shown under several ?seasons?, more commonly known as ?Rounds? (Dillon Round, Kennedy Round, Tokyo Round, Uruguay Round). Mind you. There were a lot of fight sequences but no one was actually knocked out. However, arm-twisting, which was not allowed according to the rules of the game, has been common practice by the stronger players.

It must be pointed out that for the major part of the GATT period, the serial was not very popular, the cast being limited to actors from a limited number of countries and the serial being followed mainly by the elite of these countries. The Uruguay Season witnessed a major expansion in the distribution of the serial and a more multinational cast (although many were mere ?extras?). Awareness of the serial was growing fast although many could still not follow the plot.

<I> ?A cynical view might be that the promises made in Hong Kong are an effort to buy them (the poorest countries) off now so that they will not block a bigger deal later.?

Then, in the late 1990s came the big shakeout. Alongside a huge rebranding exercise, the serial being renamed World Trade Organisation (WTO), the intention was to make it the most popular serial of the planet (?globalisation oblige?) by ensuring to all participating countries the opportunity to have an actor to appear in the serial (the unprecedented one country one vote rule of the WTO). The promoters of this new marketing campaign, a powerful film company called QUAD (USA, European Union, Japan and Canada) probably thought that the large number of actors will not be an issue as the long-established star system of the serial would confine most of the designated actors to mere extras.

But things did not turn out the way the QUAD and other associated studios, which can be considered as the majors of the industry, had thought of. First, the choice of the director of the serial became an issue. For 45 years under the GATT era, there had been only three directors (Eric W. White, Oliver Long and Arthur Dunkel) all sponsored by the majors. Now a loosely organised film company, whose shareholders came mainly from the new members of the club and known as Developing Countries (DC) challenged the powerful existing majors in their so far exclusive right to choose directors.

This gave rise to a bitter fight which ended in a compromise: the directorship of the serial for the 1999-2005 season was split between a candidate from the majors, Mike Moore from New Zealand (no relative of Peter Jackson, also from New Zealand, who directed the trilogy of the Lords of the Rings and the just released King Kong) and Supaichai Panitchpakdi of Thailand, (who became known to worldwide viewers almost at the same time as his fellow citizen, Prachya Pinkaew, the forerunner of the new Thai cinema and director of Ong Bak).

Last year, the designation of a new director for 2005-2010 season proved again to be contentious and pitched again the majors against the DC. You would certainly recall that former Minister Jayen Cuttaree from Mauritius was one of the three candidates fielded by the DC group. However, the majors had drawn their lessons from the 1999 fight and skillfully outmanoeuvered the DC group with the result that their candidate, Pascal Lamy, was eventually chosen as director.

As an anecdote, it is useful to recall that Pascal Lamy, then a star of the WTO serial (Trade Commissioner for Europe), blamed the flops of the Cancun episode on the fact that the setting of the serial (the WTO set-up) was too ?medieval?. The second unwelcome development for the majors was the impact of the democratisation process in the making of the serial itself. With the enlargement of the cast, the new actors were less and less prepared to be mere extras. To make things worse, their producers (member countries of the WTO) wanted to participate in the scriptwriting.

How can you have a coherent storyline with so many scriptwriters and a watchable serial with so many characters? The intense battle associated to the scriptwriting of the WTO serial has elevated this exercise to an unprecedented complexity. So much so that it has given birth to a lot of new expressions unheard of in other serials and a new generation of scriptwriters in Geneva, the new capital of the global trade serial.

The third unpredictable development of the democratisation process associated to the WTO serial is the birth of a new movement (the anti-globalisation movement) which took position against the serial. With the wide diffusion of the serial, viewers around the world have come to understand that the serial can have much more wide-ranging impact on their lives than the likes of kyon ke saas bi bahu thi or the latino soaps.

The fundamental value carried by the WTO serial is unacceptable relaxation of standards (understand unfettered free trade) which can change not only what they eat, how they dress and who entertain them; but their very livelihood was being threatened (by the disruption of production activities at home). As the movement became more structured, they did not only voice their opposition to the serial; they also tried to stop the shooting of the main episodes (the WTO Ministerial Meetings).

In 1999 in Seattle, they created havoc, compelling the crew and the whole cast to remain secluded in the main setting, living on sandwiches and pizzas. They did contribute to the flop of the Seattle episode. If in Doha in 2001, they were kept at bay, they were back with a vengeance in Cancun in 2003. And in Hong Kong, the police had to use teargas, watercannon and pepper spray against them and had to arrest some 900 protestors, the highest number since they first put up a show in Seattle. It is to be noted that the venue of the shooting of the next episode had not been announced, probably because the risks for the host country have to be properly evaluated.

The last but not the least development of the revamped WTO serial was the birth of a number of new film companies which replaced the old majors-DC divide. The most notable one was the G-20 (a group of large DC including China, India and Brazil, generally exporters of agricultural products and some members of the developed world) which came with a bang in the Doha episode and has since gone from strength to strength.

The other one, the G-90 (an alliance of the African countries, members of African, Caribbean, Pacific group and Least-Developed Countries (LCD), which also made a remarkable contribution to the Cancun episode. However, in spite of its large number of shareholders, it has been unable to command the influence it had on paper, maybe precisely because of its large constituency with diverging interests and allegiance.

Alongside these two new film companies, a number of smaller outfits, joint ventures of shareholders of the main film companies, also sought to give their own orientation to WTO serial. The MF6 which was wound up and was reborn as G-10, the G-33, the FIPS (Five Interested Parties), the C4 (the Cotton Initiative group) and others.

With all these odds against him, you can easily imagine how difficult it is for any director to keep such a serial going, let alone to make the action evolve toward a happy ending. The first two episodes of the new WTO season, shot respectively in Singapore in December 1996 and in Geneva in May 1998, met with some success not so much because of the skills of the director, Renato Ruggiero: the powerful majors did most of the scriptwriting and many actors were still learning their role (in the WTO jargon they call it ?education mode?).

Nevertheless, it is to be recalled that parts of the original scenario which were discussed in Singapore in 1997 but not agreed upon, actually caused the flop of the Cancun episode (the Ministerial Conference broke down on the ?Singapore Issues?), when the majors tried to have a showdown on it.

Since the Seattle episode in 1999, it was clear that to bring the new season to a conclusion was going to be an impossible job. The Doha episode provided a false sense of achievement. Just after the dramatic 9/11 events in the USA, everyone was convinced to cooperate to produce a new episode which could cheer up the viewers, which they did, many reluctantly. But the Cancun episode quickly pitched the majors against the new studios and produced the Cancun flop. Against such a background, it was not surprising that everyone arrived in Hong Kong with pessimism, the shadow of a new flop hanging over the heads of all actors.

After the Cancun flop, in conclusion to my analysis, I wrote the following: ?Be re-assured. The script for the next episode of the WTO saga will start to be written in Geneva as from this month. The location for shooting the next opus has already been identified: Hong Kong. Expect some karate sequences and probably a happy ending. From a latest survey that is what viewers want. The Cancun ?Soap Box? opera is behind us. Awaiting eagerly the next episode?.*

As for the karate sequences, they were aplenty. Everyone had the opportunity to watch them on TV around the world. The stunts were performed by the anti-globalisation movement, especially its South Korean team, and the Hong Kong police. But the making of these sequences did not disturb too much the filming on the main set (the Conference Centre) except that as the stunts were being performed at the main entrance of the set, the stars had at times to be brought in through back doors.

Thus, one of the stars, Peter Mandelson, (Trade Commissioner for Europe) had to use a speed boat to reach the location in a James Bond style, as all road accesses were blocked by his fans chanting ?Mandelson! Mandelson!?. on a tune of Jingle Bell!

Christmas being then a few days away, one can understand the festive mood of the fans. However, the security services opted not to take any risk. Similarly, the fans of the Director, Pascal Lamy, had to be contained when the first shot of the Hong Kong episode was being made (the opening ceremony of the Ministerial Conference). They were chanting so loudly that Pascal Lamy had some difficulty to put his act together. So much about the folklore of the WTO serial in Hong Kong. Let us now consider how the scenario evolved in Hong Kong.

After Cancun, I wrote that there could be a happy ending in Hong Kong. The reason for that feeling was that there was so much blame-game (especially directed against actors coming from G-90 and their associated studios) and self-affliction, with the risks that the serial could be stopped (the demise of the WTO was being mentioned). So actors, producers and the studios supporting them had to do something to keep the serial alive.

In fact, that collective reaction did come. In a mini-episode in Geneva in July 2005 (with a restricted cast which made things easier ? but with all the stars on board) the scenario did move. That episode dubbed the ?31 July Framework? (in Geneva they are not only good at scriptwriting; they are also very creative in finding titles that appeal to viewers ) did contribute towards a happy ending.

The two main elements of the scenario which caused the flop of the Cancun episode, ?Singapore Issues? and the ?Cotton Initiative? were satisfactorily addressed. Three out of the four ?Singapore Issues? (Trade and Investment, Public Procurement, Trade and Competition) were scrapped from the scenario while for the remaining one, ?Trade Facilitation?, the scenario was re-written to give comfort to those actors who had difficulty to play that part.

As for the ?Cotton Initiative?, the most emotional part of the Cancun script, although the demand of the C4 to have a sequence all for themselves in the next episode (?standalone? treatment for cotton in the agriculture package plus ?early harvest? in applying the decisions ? please note ?en passant? the skills of the scriptwriting!) could not be accommodated, they did manage to have a special role in a bigger sequence (the agriculture chapter).

There was also some consensus built to water down some other contentious elements of the scenario (implementation issues, geographical indications environment, etc.) so that the plot can become more fluid. Of course, progress was minimal on the two main elements of the scenario, played by the stars of the serial and supported by the majors and the G-20, that is a very complicated plot in the countryside (the agriculture negotiations) and an action sequence located in a modern industrial environment (negotiations on market access for industrial products, or NAMA in the Geneva jargon). But the ?July Framework? offered a fair roadmap to a happy ending .

But in the months following the ?July Framework? episode, the discussions became more and more polarised (a popular expression in Geneva) on the countryside plot ? downtown sequences (agriculture-NAMA), each proponent, the majors and the G-20, unwilling to make concessions to the other side. And it was clear to everyone that without a proper resolution of this issue there could not be a happy ending to the Doha season.

In addition, the lack of flexibility of the main proponents encouraged the smaller players to raise the stakes. That is why the outlook for the Hong Kong episode seemed so bleak. But two elements prevented another flop.

First, no producer, and specially no actor, wanted to bear the responsibility for another flop. So at the end of the day, everyone had to give in. Second, there was a new director for the Hong Kong episode, Pascal Lamy, who had been a star of the WTO serial, as mentioned earlier. Good actors do not necessarily make good directors. The opposite is probably the rule. But some good actors can be excellent directors. The one who immediately crosses our mind is Clint Eastwood, who after a successful acting career, directed some excellent films and reaped many awards.

The action of Pascal Lamy, since he has taken over the WTO serial and his direction of the Hong Kong episode (although certainly not worthy of any Oscar or Emmy Award), has clearly demonstrated that he is an excellent director. Like Clint Eastwood, he likes to play in his films (although in the WTO serial he is not supposed to do so ? but he did) and capitalise on his physical strength.

On this last count, the Financial Times of 19 December 2005 wrote: ?Pascal Lamy (...) used his stamina, honed by years of marathon running and tortuous international negotiations, to wear down ministers in a series of late and all-night sessions. As tired and factious ministers complained they were being made to work too hard, the seemingly inexhaustible Pascal Lamy found time before bed to write a conference blog.?

Without these two factors, the Hong Kong episode would have probably been a failure like the Cancun episode. This does not mean that it had been a success. Far from it. In fact, the specialised film critics have been very negative. The Financial Times, paraphrasing Winston Churchill wrote: ?Rarely in the history of international negotiations have so many laboured so long to produce so little?. The Economist (24th December issue) was of the view that

?The Ministerial meeting of the WTO Hong Kong in December 13th ? 18th counted to little more than an expensive experiment in sleep deprivation? As everyone left, there was not much to show for all their efforts?. And Le Monde of 20 December concluded: ?L?accord trouvé in fine est minimal?.

The frustration and disappointment of these critics translate their false expectations with respect to the WTO serial. As mentioned in the opening paragraph of this article, one cannot have the same expectations from a movie and a serial. And the, WTO serial is not a movie, which has to come to some sort of conclusion at the end. This is a serial in which the action moves much more slowly, often not in a linear way and each episode can end in the most unexpected manner.

There has been some movement in the Hong Kong episode, commensurate with a serial. We know that one of bad guys of the countryside plot is going to die in 2013 (export subsidies on farm goods will be eliminated by that date). One of the majors (the EU) wanted to keep the suspense alive where most other producers wanted him out by 2010.

So the compromise has given some element of certainty to the scenario. Another very contentious character in the countryside plot which the C4 did not want to see at all, will disappear from the serial before the end of 2006 (export subsides on cotton). Many contend that the progress is small. But it is progress, nonetheless. There was uncertainty on the main character in the downtown action sequence. Now we know he is going to be a Swiss national (the Swiss formula for the NAMA negotiations has been agreed, although its variations have still to be discussed).

Many of the actors who were threatening to boycott the serial (the C4, the LCD and other DC were contemplating to withhold consensus if their demands were not met) have become less confrontational after the new conditions of work extended to them (duty-free and quota free access for 97 % of all products originating from LDC plus an aid package designated as ?Aid for Trade?). Some may argue like The Economist that ?a cynical view might be that the promises made in Hong Kong are an effort to buy them (the poorest countries) off now so that they will not block a bigger deal later?. The serial is regaining some momentum.

<I> ?Demands of some actors who have been benefiting from special allowances, which could be stopped, have been given some assurances that their demands will be considered.?

Finally, and this is important for Mauritius, the specific demands of some actors who have been benefiting from special allowances, which could be stopped, have been given some assurances that their demands will be considered (explicit mention of the need to address the problem of preference beneficiary countries and small economies). Some will argue that the language is too vague. But it is still a movement forward.

But do all these movements indicate that we are on the road to a happy ending of the serial? Certainly not. A new element introduced in the scenario indicates that the deadlock between proponents of the countryside plot and those of the downtown action sequence is unchanged (paragraph 24 of the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration entitled Balance between agriculture and NAMA reads as follows: ??we instruct our negotiations to ensure that there is a comparably high level of ambition in market access for Agriculture and NAMA. This ambition is to be achieved in a balanced and proportionate manner consistent with the principle of special and differential treatment?).

The scriptwriters in Geneva have been given the task to write a new scenario for the next episode. Their deadline is April 2006. What would come out of it? As conceded by the Financial Times (?The biggest achievement was just to keep the talks alive?) and the The Economis? (?The meeting?s most notable accomplishment was that it did not collapse as previous gatherings in Seattle, in 1999, and Cancun, in 2003), making the Hong Kong episode an achievement in itself. Keep watching for the next episode!

<B>Mahmood CHEEROO

Secretary General of the Mauritius Chamber fo Commerce & Industry

*ancun revisited: The Soap Box Opera in L?Express Economie of 15 October 2003. </B>