The way U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab sees it, global trade talks have foundered once again because of "backtracking" by developing countries.
Ms. Schwab blamed persistent protectionism and a fear of China, particularly in India and Brazil.
The negotiations broke down last Thursday in Potsdam, Germany, as Ms. Schwab met with her counterparts from the European Union, India and Brazil.
It's always easier to point at the other side when negotiations falter. It may even be mandatory for political optics.
But Ms. Schwab failed to mention that, two days earlier, the powerful agriculture committee in the U.S. House of Representatives voted to keep feeding farmers a steady diet of pork for the next five years.
The White House and key members of Congress had been pushing for major reforms aimed at cutting overall subsidies, capping payouts to millionaire farmers and generally bringing the regime into line with international trade rules.
The agriculture committee chose to ignore all that.
If ever there was a sign that the United States isn't serious about reaching a global free-trade deal, there it was. Talk about backtracking and intransigence.
Canada and the Europeans don't have anything to be proud of, either. They conveniently hide behind the intransigence of the U.S. and the developing world to continue protecting their own farmers.
If the world's richest and most powerful country can't see fit to reform its system, the more fragile developing world isn't likely to dismantle its own trade barriers.
The Bush administration, many members of Congress and the United States' trading partners know that the U.S. farm subsidy regime must be overhauled. The subsidies - roughly $18-billion (U.S.) a year - badly distort global trade in key crops, encourage overproduction, condemn farmers in the developing world to poverty and benefit mainly a small elite of already wealthy farmers and landowners. Several key U.S. crop support programs are almost certainly illegal under World Trade Organization rules.
Members of Congress now drafting a new farm bill chose to ignore all that, voting to perpetuate and even enhance the status quo. The 2002 farm bill will wind up costing taxpayers $75-billion over five years. The next one could cost $88-billion.
So why point fingers at the developing world?
Recent analysis by the Washington-based Environmental Working Group, a group lobbying for subsidy reform, shows U.S. farm subsidies go to a relatively limited number of farmers, clustered in a clutch of congressional districts. Indeed, half of all farm subsidies go to just 19 of the country's 435 congressional districts.
The system is fraught with other anomalies and inequities. Billions of dollars go to agrifood conglomerates, corporate farms and millionaire landowners. In 2004, for example, 25,000 farmers who reported income of at least $200,000 were on the subsidy payroll. Two-thirds of the country's roughly two million farmers get nothing at all.
More than half the cash goes to corn and soybean farmers, despite record prices.
Perhaps most disturbing is that, by perpetuating a regime that directs rich subsidies to a small number of farmers, Congress is shutting off foreign markets to all of its producers. That's because many developing countries will keep their markets closed to U.S. products until U.S. farmers disarm.
The clock has pretty much run out on the Doha round of global trade talks. Later this week, the Bush administration's trade negotiating authority from Congress expires. Renewing that authority is considered a long shot. Without it, Ms. Schwab can't negotiate a deal Congress will approve.
But for her to put the blame for the demise of talks on the developing world while ignoring what's happening to the farm bill is disingenuous.
Indian Trade Minister Kamal Nath put it best when he declared the talks dead.
"It is not just a question of figures. It is a question of attitude," he said. "The U.S. does not realize that the world has changed."
It takes two sides to negotiate, and the powers in Congress who control U.S. farm policy have made it clear they aren't serious about doing what's right and fair.