PETER MANDELSON, the European Trade Commissioner, has accused powerful developing countries, including Brazil and India, of jeopardising the world trade talks by their failure to lower tariff barriers to European imports.

In a hard-hitting speech in Berlin yesterday, Mr Mandelson rebuked his critics in emerging markets and among non-governmental organisations (NGOs) for demanding more concessions from the European Union on agriculture while offering nothing in return.

In an attempt to revive the Doha Round of trade talks, which suffered a major setback in the failed World Trade Organisation’s ministerial conference in Hong Kong in October, the commissioner held out the promise that Europe could offer more access to its agriculture markets, but gave warning that a deal would have to be on the basis of a quid pro quo.

He rounded on Brazil and India for failing to bring down industrial tariffs and accused NGOs of arguing that protectionism is the answer to development. He said: “I must make this clear — any developed or emerging economy that thinks it can come to the Doha table empty-handed will, I’m afraid, go home the same way.”

Mr Mandelson appeared determined to extract the European Union from its widely perceived role as chief wrecker of Doha and shift the burden of responsibility to its main trade rival, the United States, and a group of powerful emerging market nations, known collectively as the G20.

He ridiculed as “fallacy” the notion that the Doha Round of trade talks depended on better access to EU markets and argued that the G20 group, which includes Brazil, India, South Africa and Thailand, should be treated differently to the poorest countries.

“We have to break the politicially correct fallacy that developing countries are all alike and have the same interests. Some are major economic players and exporters on the world stage: others need all the help we can give them,” he said. Mr Mandelson’s attempt to redefine the Doha debate away from agriculture reflects his frustration in the Hong Kong negotiations, where he was unable to engage in any substantive deal-making because his hands were tied by prior agreements among EU member states over the Common Agricultural Policy and vigorous opposition from France and Ireland to further reforms.

His weakened position was exploited effectively by the US and the G20, which insisted that no deal could be done on industrial tariffs without first addressing agriculture.

He said: “Regrettably, too many NGOs, anti-reform ministers in developing countries and others with local vested commercial interests prefer to argue that protectionism is the answer to development. Ask India: they tried it and found out the hard way. It doesn’t work.”

Explore Economics

• Pre-Budget Report 2009

• Budget 2009

• World Economic Forum

• The Times MPC

Times Recommends

• Lies and cover-up at MG Rover exposed by report
• High oil prices push manufacturing costs up
• Primark founder steps down as chief executive