Robert Kuttner from the Boston Globe, pointed to the world's resentment of America's efforts to force its own economic system on other nations. "Argentina scrupulously followed US advice and embraced an austerity program to reassure international investors," he wrote in an editorial on Sunday. "It was rewarded by economic free-fall. Investors fled, and Argentina is now about to default on its debt. The US-dominated International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank, which hastily bent the rules to bail out America's newest ally, Pakistan, are shedding no tears for Argentina. The rest of the world notices these hypocrisies."

"In East Asia, currency speculators, newly liberated by a model imposed by the United States and the IMF, wrecked several economies in 1998. Some, like Indonesia, are predominantly Muslim. They had no particular prior sympathy for Islamist radicals but, not surprisingly, have little charity for the United States."

"In the Middle East, Islamic fundamentalism is energized by resentment at American alliance with corrupt regimes that bring huge gaps between wealth and poverty. Free commerce and democratization are said to march hand in hand. But the location of this year's trade talks in despotic Qatar vividly underscores that when push comes to shove, commerce trumps democracy."

"Supposedly, the post-September 11 world has thrown globalization protesters into disarray. Some American commentators have depicted them as little better than bin Laden. Trade Ambassador Zoellick has even demanded that Congress grant the president new trade liberalization authority as part of the war on terrorism. But this rationale has it exactly backwards. Dictating rules of global commence to benefit US business is not winning friends or improving lives. America's new global challenges suggest a very different approach to global trade, less beholden to private investors and more respectful of human needs both in America and in the Third World."

The Christian Science Monitor in its editorial on Tuesday stated that economic progress is inevitable but trade barriers should be lowered. But this transition, should be managed in a way to allow workers and firms to adjust "Instead of being protected forever," it stated.

"In Qatar so far, each nation's delegation appears to be defending special interests rather than doing the horse-trading necessary to strike a deal that will help all nations, rich and poor. Ending trade barriers would hike the income of developing countries by between $200 billion and $500 billion a year, according to the World Bank. That alone is worth making a deal. The United States is defending textile workers, steel companies, and others, while its big developed-nation trading partners, the European Union and Japan, have their own feisty fiefdoms demanding special breaks.

The war on terrorism hangs over the talks in the Gulf, forcing tighter security. But the war's larger meaning is that now is the time to expand freedom, not keep it in check. Just as the US and its Western allies used open trade during the cold war as a diplomatic tool to oppose communism, they should now expand trade to end the poverty that drives many nations and people to support terrorism against rich nations.

China's People Daily on Tuesday contained a lengthy editorial outlining the country's "dos" and "don'ts." "China is a large responsible country, the promise we made during negotiations are part of the rights and duties for entry into the WTO. China will earnestly honor these commitments. The urgent task at the moment is to lose no time to sort out, revise and perfect foreign-related economic laws and regulations, maintain the consistency and authority of related policies; accelerate the change of government functions, and raise the administrative level according to law; energetically strengthen the work of rectifying and standardizing the market economic order; continue to expand the opening of the service market in a systematic way; extensively carry out multilateral and bilateral economic and trade cooperation; strengthen the coordination between government departments after entry into the WTO, and accelerate the training of professionals."

India's Hindustan Times editorial on Tuesday analyzed the meaning of China's accession to the WTO and its effect on India. "For the world, it would mean that China will not be able to devalue the Yuan without a warning. This will be reassuring for China neighbors, including India, who fear that the giant competitiveness may be enhanced by a cheaper currency. India can sell more consumer goods and services to China. Agricultural products like cotton, rice, maize, Soya, vegetables and mangoes can be exported to our neighbor in the north, provided the rules of entry conform to the phyto-sanitary standards stipulated by the WTO. Already, our trade with China amounts to $2.9 billion.

There is scope for expansion which will also lead to better political relations. However, India will face greater competition from Chinese and Taiwanese goods in the markets abroad. Their entry into the multilateral organization should guarantee more transparency in their costing and pricing methods. As a member, Beijing would have to implement economic reforms more rapidly. With its high labor productivity, modern road-networks and huge foreign investment inflows, China may well become the manufacturing center of the world in the days to come."

The Korea Times on Tuesday said that "in a sense, the developing nations, including Korea, were obliged to join in the New Round of trade negotiations in order to avoid disadvantages that might be generated from their refusal to participate. And despite the push by advanced nations toward a new type of protectionism, the world moved to neutralize conflicting interests through negotiations and compromise that are indispensable for the creation of a new international trade order. As for Korea, a nation placed between the developed and developing countries, is sure to gain both advantages and disadvantages from the forthcoming new round of trade talks. Outstanding problems facing the nation include the further opening of its agro-fisheries market to exporting countries like the U. S., in addition to such questions as services, communications and policies regarding investment and competition."

Yusuf Mansour, from the Jordan Times, believes that terrorism and recession has united developed countries like never before. "This round of negotiations has two powerful weapons on hand: the war on terrorism and a global recession. The developed countries, united in the war against terrorism so easily by the viciousness of the attack on Sept. 11, 2001, are currently moving within a more common framework and mindset than in Seattle. Their differences can wait until the North-South debate subsides," he wrote. "Thus, they speak with one voice as they see themselves united against the other. In addition, as donors, the developed countries will easily use the lack of funds to squeeze whatever benefits they desire from the developing world under the implicit threat of decreased aid. The poor will, naturally, succumb or become less vehement in their protest. Moreover, the poor, fragmented and scared by the war on terrorism, of whose onslaught they will be the most likely recipients, will want to please the North at all costs. Globalization is thus saved."

The United Arab Emirate Gulf News newspaper hailed the decision to hold the WTO conference in Qatar. "It is also important that the meeting of the 142 member states of the WTO is being held in an Arab or a Gulf state for the first time. It is a confident affirmation of the interest of the Gulf in global matters, and it is a success for the region that the conference has gone ahead. The Gulf States have a lot to contribute to this debate since they are by nature more inclined to free trade. The UAE and others have built the majority of their non-oil economies on free trade and being ready to meet the global competition head on and win. This attitude is vital for long term success, and contrasts with some countries which are still trying to defend their tariff barriers, or pour government money into making the country's products cheaper to sell to its residents and on the global market."