Keenum said the US offered to cut farm subsidies more than in previous offers but could not agree to demands that threatened key US exports.
"We're not going to sacrifice the trade interests of American agriculture just for the sake of getting a deal," Keenum said.
Both China and India demanded they be able to raise import tariffs above current caps on commodities such as soy and chicken in the event of an influx of imports from countries like the US.
If Keenum and other US representatives had given in to some demands, China would have been allowed to raise its tariffs on US soy by 15 percent - from a cap of 3 percent to 18 percent - if it saw even an increase in imports.
The proposal, which Keenum called "ridiculous," would have allowed China and India to raise import tariffs if there's a 15 percent increase above normal import levels.
China would have been allowed to raise its tariffs on US soy shipments in each of the last 10 years if such a policy had been in effect, according to USDA data prepared for the Doha talks in Geneva.
US soy exports to China have recently been on the rise. USDA data show about 11.5 million tonnes were exported in the 2006-07 marketing year. The 2007-08 marketing year isn't over yet, and the US has already shipped nearly 13 million tonnes to China.
Keenum, US Trade Representative Susan Schwab and other US officials in Geneva were dead set against this kind of "special safeguard mechanism" being proposed, but agreed to negotiate, Keenum said. They were there "to reduce tariffs - not to let countries increase their tariffs," Keenum said. "That didn't make any sense to us."
But as a compromise, the US agreed to allow China and India to raise tariffs if those countries registered a 55 percent increase in imports from a three-year average, Keenum said. A World Trade Organization arbitrator then proposed 40 percent and US negotiators agreed to 45 percent.
India, though, stuck to the 15 percent threshold and refused to budge, Keenum said.
After five days of fruitless negotiations over the special safeguard mechanism, WTO Director General Pascal Lamy announced an impasse, and negotiators returned home.
Several key agriculture issues remain unresolved because of the dispute over the special safeguard mechanism, including the level at which the US would agree to cap its farm subsidies.
Early in the Geneva talks, on July 22, the US agreed to lower its overall cap on "trade distorting" subsidies to US$15 billion annually, down from the US$22 billion offered at a previous Doha round meeting. The current cap on the US is US$48 billion.
Later in the Geneva talks, US negotiators agreed to lower the cap even further to US$14.5 billion.
That was a substantial offer, Keenum said. It would have forced the US to cut off payments to US farmers in seven of the last 10 years.
Agriculture subsidies that rise and fall in relation to commodity prices are regarded as trade distorting. Prices were high in 2007, bringing the US payout to farmers down to about US$8.5 billion, but in 2005 the USDA paid producers roughly US$19 billion.
"If prices are up high now, when they come down we have to have realistic protection," Keenum said. "Prices aren't necessarily going to stay at these high levels. Who knows? No one knows."
