Stumped

At the the 10th ministerial conference of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) in Nairobi on December 19, trade ministers from 162 countries were left disappointed by the one-upmanship of the US and European Union (EU). The latter were assisted by Brazil, as they set about forging a new global trade agenda.

They succeeded in bypassing crucial aspects of the Doha Development Agenda (DDA) launched 14 years ago, for a level playing field for all member countries. In the run-up to the Nairobi meeting, a large majority of developing countries led by India, China, South Africa, Indonesia, Ecuador, and Venezuela prepared the ground to ensure that the Doha Round of negotiations were not closed. They also tabled proposals for a permanent solution for public stockholding programmes for food security and a special safeguard mechanism (SSM) to protect millions of resource-poor and low-income farmers from the import surges. The SSM proposal by India, along with the G-33 farm coalition led by Indonesia, set forth a transparent instrument based on price and volume triggers to impose special duties.

In the run-up to Nairobi, the two proposals were opposed by the US and the EU, who led a campaign to ensure that there was neither an outcome on continuing DDA negotiations nor a deal on SSM and public stockholdings for food security.

In doing so, there were, however, pushing for an outcome on export competition. India and the G-33 were interested in a permanent solution to public stockholding programmes, and a reaffirmation to continue the DDA negotiations beyond Nairobi.

Commerce minister Nirmala Sitharaman did not mince her words in making out India’s case. However, what is inexplicable is that the commerce minister omitted mentioning India’s demand for a permanent solution for public stockholding programmes for food. She skipped the meeting convened by the facilitator at her request to discuss the SSM.

The minister has also missed out on an opportunity to make it clear that India would not sign on to any draft that ignored the agenda it had proposed which happens to be a serious deficiency at the negotiating table. The facilitator offered vague language on both the SSM and public stockholding programmes for food security without proposing any time frame for their resolution.

Sitharaman duly protested and submitted two proposals together with China and Turkey to ensure that there are clear outcomes at the 11th ministerial meeting in 2017.India apparently, and strangely, yielded ground during the marathon negotiations when the US, the EU and Brazil refused to accommodate any language on the SSM.

Finally, it has agreed on export competition or reduction of export subsidies securing getting any of its demands — a definite time frame on the SSM and public stockholding programmes. China joined India in fighting another battle on the post-Nairobi work programme for reaffirming to continue the DDA negotiations. The US and the EU vehemently opposed it and only agreed to insert the term “Doha” instead of DDA negotiations.

In the process, the US and the EU managed to secure language on new approaches and new issues with few caveats.Perhaps, this is the first time that India left a WTO ministerial meeting so disappointed.

The writer is author of World Trade Organisation: Implications on Indian Economy

COMMENT NOW