The three--Supachai Panitchpakdi of WTO, Rep. Sandy Levin (Democrat of Michigan) and Jagdish Bhagwati of Columbia University--had just left a workshop of the sort that one can find only at the WEF. It was a discussion of "After Doha: Now Comes the Tough Part," by a roomful of experts on the subject--trade ministers, corporate CEOs, legislators, journalists, top officials of the World Trade Organization, leading environmentalists, trade unionists, academicians.

The principal speaker at the session was Robert Zoellick, the US Trade Negotiator who is widely credited as the man responsible for the successful conclusion of the WTO Ministerial Meeting held in Doha, Qatar, which opened a new "development round" of trade talks.

Zoellick was introduced by Stuart E. Eizenstat, former US Under Secretary of State, who served as the facilitator for the workshop, leading a team of 24 "discussion leaders."

Zoellick spoke of the need for what he called "creative risk-taking" and the "absolutely critical role of the developing countries in helping set up coalitions." And he hailed the "second step" taken in Geneva to set up the next WTO Ministerial Meeting, in Mexico, and to set a three-year target for conclusion of the round. He said his optimism about the future health of the WTO system was reinforced by the outcome of the Doha meeting.

Panitchpakdi, who is slated to be the next Director General of WTO, reminded the 120-plus people in the room that past rounds of trade talks also had development elements. He said the talks cannot avoid the question of barriers to trade in agriculture and textiles. He also urged that a way be found to improve on the "green room" process in which a handful of negotiators shape the final version of the outcome.

A contrary point of view was expressed by Dani Rodrik, a professor at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government, who was given the task of "challenger." He led of by challenging the notion that the new round of trade talks can be called a"development round." He noted that there is one market that is "the most restricted in the world"--labor mobility--but he said that problem is not up for discussion at these talks. Rodrik also cited a need for action on industrial tariffs (on leather goods, among other things) that affect developing nations and on reform of anti-dumping legislation. And he pointed out that action to open markets to agricultural products will yield benefits to relatively few developing countries.

The participants, who were seated at 12 tables, were asked to discuss with their table-mates four issues related to the new round and predict what its final agreement might contain. They voiced strong optimism that it would: deal with the issue of export subsidies for agricultural products; produce a balanced approach to environmental standards and "protectionism" charges; open markets to services; and truly deserve to be considered a "development round."

Many people took part in the open discussion, among them: Sharan Burrow, President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions; Raymond V. Gilmartin, CEO of Merck and Co.; Congressman Jim Kolbe (Republican of Arizona); and Hidehiro Konno, Japan's Vice Minister for International Affairs, Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry.

And there were differences of opinion aplenty. One speaker urged that an institutional forum be set up to enable nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to share their views with the WTO. Another speaker, from Oxfam, disagreed, saying NGOs don't want to meet with the WTO and would look upon such a forum as "a sop."

The last word was given to Mike Moore, the WTO's Director General, who warned that unless development is not at the center of this new round of talks, "there will be no conclusion." For the developing countries, it's a matter of survival. He said the WTO will "have to be slightly more radical in reaching out to the wider society."

But the benefits of freer trade are certainly worth the effort, he said, noting that reform of the trade system could give developing countries three to five times as much as they receive as official development assistance (ODA)--or eight times as much as they have gotten from all the debt relief put together so far. "Why aren't those young people on the streets demanding this?" he asked.

When it was over, one of the participants, a veteran New York lawyer who specializes in negotiation and dispute resolution, turned to a table-mate and pronounced judgment: "That was a really good session," he said. There were no dissenters within the sound of his voice.