the summit of major industrialized countries kicks off in July, one of the things the world will be waiting to see is whether the leaders of these nations will be able to launch a new round of multilateral trade liberalization talks under the World Trade Organization.

Needless to say, the leaders will have to overcome a number of obstacles if they are to be successful.

Let us try to examine some of the key points here: First, it seems necessary to review the causes of the miserable failure of the Third Ministerial Conference of the WTO held in Seattle last December.

One thing that made the start of a new round impossible was the severity of the conflicts among the major advanced nations. Japan and the European Union were emphasizing the "multilateral role" of agriculture. They insisted the sector should not be treated or liberalized to the same extent that other sectors would — a position that was opposed by the United States and other exporters of agricultural goods.

On the other hand, the U.S. refused to renegotiate the issue of antidumping duties, the application of which Japan and many developing countries deemed arbitrary and thus a protectionist measure in disguise.

The second problem is related to the WTO's decision-making process. In the past, including the period covered by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the WTO's predecessor, most decisions on trade liberalization were made by major industrialized countries, who naturally seemed opaque to the smaller or less developed nations. The number of WTO members now exceeds 130, most of them developing countries. We must keep in mind that at the Seattle conference, those less developed nations claimed they could play, and wanted to play, a more active role in the decision-making process needed to construct a new global trading system.

The third issue is the dialogue exchanged between the WTO and civil society, including nongovernmental organizations, on the possible effects of globalized trade. As is well known, the NGOs have expressed numerous opinions on globalization. In short, they fear the negative influence that progress in liberalization will have on, say, income diversity, human health, the environment, or even human rights.

On the basis of this analysis, we now must examine how we can successfully launch a new multilateral negotiation session so that a more open world trade system can be constructed.

First, major advanced nations should agree to start the new round of negotiations by taking advantage of, for example, the upcoming G8 summit. To do so, both Japan and the EU have to accept further reforms of their agricultural systems. We should note that it does not seem to be reasonable to treat a specific sector, such as agriculture, exceptionally. It is true that the sector has multifunctional roles. However, it is also true that even other industrial sectors have multiple functions.

On the other hand, the U.S. should accept discussions on the antidumping duty as long as many developing countries regard its imposition as protectionism in disguise.

Second, we must separate foreign trade liberalization from other trade-related issues. It might be true that some developing nations try to expand exports by using, for example, child labor. However, the share of such goods from developing countries' total exports would presumably be 5 percent, maybe less. Therefore, such issues should be discussed not at the WTO but at the International Labor Organization, which specializes in labor standards issues.

Similarly, environmental issues should be discussed at special frameworks for each specific subject. It does not seem productive to discuss several issues related to foreign trade if we want to deal with all of them effectively and efficiently.

The third point is the realm of economists. They, or we, have to demonstrate repeatedly that liberalized trade will improve economic welfare, even in importing countries.

We know that in the past, many economists — especially those specialized in pure economic theory — have made enormous attempts to illustrate the "merits of trade." Most of their work, however, is written and explained in economic jargon that can hardly be understood by policy planners, civil society and the general public.

In other words, if people in developed nations and policy planners in developing countries understood the advantages of trade liberalization, they would have more confidence in the new round and in the WTO, quelling their dissatisfaction with the decision-making process.

If political leaders agree to declare the launch of a new round of negotiations during the G8 summit in Okinawa, a good starting point will have been reached for further liberalization of the world trade system. What is more important, however, is that leaders in advanced nations recognize they can no longer decide trade issues by themselves if they want to successfully conclude such negotiations.