Commerce Minister Kamal Nath said he would attend the talks regardless of the outcome of the trust vote in Parliament, when I spoke to him on the phone from Geneva. If the government slips into caretaker status, there is no bar on it continuing with its international commitments, though a government lacking legitimacy might not consider it proper to take policy decisions. India's negotiating partners might not take it seriously either, though Indonesia, which leads the group of 33 developing countries that are defensive on opening up agricultural trade without safeguards to protect their vulnerable farmers, said the talks could still go ahead.

"It should not," affect Kamal Nath's position, said Mari Pangestu, Indonesia's Trade Minister "All of us, not just India, face different types of pressures and issues back home. The country's negotiating position has been well defined over the past few years."

Thirty ministers spoke at the opening ceremony. There are 152 WTO members. Kamal Nath has stayed behind for the confidence vote. There was no change in stated positions. Shifts, if any, will happen, as the talk progress over the next five days.

WTO Director-General Pascal Lamy said the talks must move from discussions to negotiations. He said success at these talks would give an impetus to the global economy that is facing threats in the fuel, food and financial services markets.

The mini-ministerial come after the failed talks in Cancun in 2003 and in Hongkong in December 2005. Talks were even suspended for a while after that. The deadline for concluding the current round of talks, which began in 2001, has passed. President George W Bush's fast-trade trade promotion authority, that allows Congress to said yes or no, but not make any changes to a WTO deal, has also lapsed.

The talks have narrowed down to not whether, but by how much. So the talks are about limiting US trade distorting farm subsidies to between $13- and $16 billion. This is almost double the amount that it currently provides. Similarly, on reduction of import duties on farm produce. The US wants deep cuts in such duties, saying only then will subsidy reductions be politically acceptable. But the developing countries are saying that reducing farm import duties before subsidies are removed would ruin their farmers. G K Pillai insists the developing countries have been quite generous, even in this matter. They have agreed to cap their farm import duties to 200 percent, but the rich countries want duties ranging from 200 percent to 1700 percent on select commodities.

There is no compromise on special products, on which the developing countries will not cut duties or special safeguard mechanisms to protect poor farmers in poor countries against surges in imports.

The formula that is under negotiation on reduction in import duties on manufactured products, would require developing countries to reduce their duties by an average of 64 percent over the maximum-permissible rates, while the US would cut its' by 40 percent and the EU by 28 percent. This goes against the WTO principle that the rich countries would make bigger sacrifices.

This is a time for compromise. If a Democratic government is voted to power in the US, it might want to link trade liberalization with labour issues. For example, abiding by the eight International Labour Organisation conventions, including one that allows government servants to form unions. India is not a signatory to that convention. And if the UPA government wins the trust vote it might be in stronger position for compromise.