The stone age Capaukoos – a Papuan people in former Netherlands New Guinea – were smart enough to fully understand the principle of one good turn deserves another. When Dutch missionaries stopped in the middle of the last century to reward the Sunday church attendance with cigarettes, the Capaukoos simply stopped coming: “No tobacco, no hallelujah.” The same mercantile spirit moved the ministers from Australia, Brazil, the European Union, India, Japan and the United States when they let the Doha Negotiation Round wreck: “No development round, no market access round.” WTO Director-General Pascal Lamy sighed at his press conference: “We have missed a very important opportunity to show that multilateralism works.” His frustration was shared at the time by member's comments blaming the inadequacy of proposals to cut in domestic support in agriculture. By accident, the WTO almost simultaneously launched the 2006 World Trade Report “Exploring the links between subsidies, trade and WTO.” According to the Report, government subsidies can be useful instruments in correcting market failures and working towards social objectives but can also distort trade and provoke strong responses from trading partners. In so doing, it left no doubt that “[F]rom an economic perspective, it is far from obvious that agriculture subsidies in rich countries are any more defensible than subsidies on manufactures in developing countries. The different treatment is therefore probably most easily understood in terms of asymmetries in negotiating power (…). A ray of hope, however, is an increasing attention in international trade law for human rights and for sustainable development in the global market.