Still one day to go before the WTO ministerial officially starts, but there's no shortage of preparatory meetings and briefings to attend, writes Caroline Lucas.
Today kicked off with a meeting of the WTO parliamentary assembly. The idea of greater parliamentary scrutiny of world trade talks is theoretically a very good one, even more so if MPs have the power to formulate rigorous proposals for appropriate policy changes as a result.
Sadly, the reality of the current assembly, set up a few years ago, is that it is little more than a talking shop, and ironically replicates many of the undemocratic practices which are rightly criticised of the WTO.
The European trade commissioner, Peter Mandelson, in his early morning address to the meeting, was flatteringly complimentary about the role of the assembly, greeting us with the words: "You provide a vital element of the democratic control which gives our work legitimacy."
The trouble is that we don't, and so it isn't: the parliamentary assembly has no authority to exercise democratic "control" – only the opportunity to raise questions and debate issues – and as a result, the trade negotiation performed by the European Commission in particular is profoundly undemocratic.
The European parliament has no "co-decision" on international trade issues; in other words, we have no legislative powers.
Our role is an entirely consultative one, and since the council in practice seems to have little influence either, it leaves the commission with extensive powers to do pretty much as they like.
Following a range of further set piece speeches, including one from the new WTO director, Pascal Lamy, it was the turn of the parliamentary delegates to speak.
I was struck by the number of interventions from developing country representatives, which made it very clear that current trade rules are destroying the livelihoods of their people.
It reminded me of a recent opinion poll which reveals that 90% of African delegates questioned do not believe the rhetoric about this being a "development round", and two thirds of them believe their economies would suffer if they accepted the proposals which are currently on the table.
It was damning stuff, and I wished that Mandelson and Lamy were still in the room to hear it.
Towards the end of the day, it was a relief to get out of the ferociously over air-conditioned conference room (where I had spent most of the day shivering) and into the warmer night air of Hong Kong, glittering with the lights from the skyscrapers towering all around us.
Next stop was a reception co-hosted by the British presidency and the European Commission. Peter Mandelson was there again, this time proudly declaring his intention to address the three Ds – deadlocks, which need to be broken; deadlines, which need to be kept; and development, on which there has apparently been much recent progress.
This will come as news to the majority of developing countries who are increasingly angry that development issues are being sidelined.
Although much is being made of a new so-called "development package" currently being promoted by the EU among others, there is concern that it will simply be used as a bargaining chip in exchange for further demands for liberalisation in key sectors of developing country economies.
There is every likelihood that it will be used not as part of a bigger deal that addresses the significant harm caused by existing WTO rules, but as a "sweetener" to disguise the bitter taste of a bad deal overall.
Finally, an article in the Independent from the three British ministers at Hong Kong, Hilary Benn, Margaret Beckett, and Alan Johnson - discovered as I logged onto the internet before going to bed – kept me up into the small hours as I penned an angry response.
According to the ministers, "developing countries must retain the right to design their trade reforms in a way that suits them".
Absolutely right – but exactly the opposite position to that taken in reality by Commissioner Mandelson.
Which leads to an interesting question: is there a deliberate tactic of good cop/bad cop going on, or is it really the case that the British presidency has no control over the negotiating strategy of the commission?
Unfortunately, one of these two scenarios has to be right, since it is patently clear that Commissioner Mandelson shares none of the ministers' apparent concerns and aspirations.
I go to bed, pondering which is worse – either our government is being absolutely disingenuous or the commission is completely out of control.
Caroline Lucas is the Green party MEP for south-east England
