Celso Amorim.(Interview)

Angry words are still flying over who wrecked the World Trade Organization meeting in Mexico last month. The debacle in Cancun had many fathers, but much of the fury has fallen on Brazil, which marshaled a dissenting bloc of 22 developing nations that demanded concessions on Western farm subsidies before moving forward with other issues. Chief U.S. negotiator Robert Zoellick dubbed them the "won't-do nations." But don't tell that to Brazilian Foreign Minister Celso Amorim, 61. One of Latin America's most experienced diplomats, he denies that Brazil was a spoiler or even that Cancun was a failure. Last week he spoke to NEWSWEEK's Mac Margolis in Brasilia.

MARGOLIS: Robert Zoellick recently singled out Brazil for the collapse of the World Trade Organization meeting. Were you surprised?

AMORIM: Yes, I confess I was. During the meeting he had told me he thought our agenda was "businesslike." I understand the frustration. Everyone left [Cancun] frustrated. But in negotiations we all need to keep a cool head.

Why did the talks break down?

Not because of agriculture. The meeting broke down over the late-in-the game insistence by Western nations on discussing the "Singapore agenda"--rules for government procurement, trade financing and competitiveness. Up to then we were making progress and ready to negotiate amendments on agricultural subsidies. We are still eager to continue at the next meeting in Geneva. No one wins if we all stamp our feet and decide to take the ball home. No one benefits by saying, "OK, now we will only pursue bilateral trade agreements." There is no substitute for the WTO.

You returned from Cancun a hero, drawing a standing ovation in Congress. What did Brazil gain?

We were able to cut our losses. What was originally on the table, the proposal by the United States and European Union, would have meant greatly scaling back expectations from previous talks in Doha. The Brazilian delegation decided that the limited gains that were on the table in Cancun were not worth it. This was not obstruction. It was a deliberate position. And if we all take care not to let ourselves get carried away by emotions, we have the basis to continue negotiating. We achieved a political victory. Despite the initial resistance, we were treated as a legitimate negotiating party, not as a grouplet of countries over in the corner shouting and creating obstacles.