Open Forum
New Delhi, 11 September 2009
Delhi To Geneva
MIXED SUCCESS IN WTO TALKS
By
Dr P K Vasudeva
The recently-concluded World Trade
Organisation mini-ministerial meeting in Delhi
early this month has raised two questions: One, has India been able to re-energize the Doha
Round? Two, has the mini-ministerial provided the 'value-addition'?
Well, the answer to both these
questions is yes/no. It was a pyrrhic victory for India
as it succeeded in getting the trade ministers of 35 countries to agree to resume
negotiations in Geneva
later this month. But the main stumbling block — the opening of developing
countries’ agriculture and services sectors to exports from developed
countries, keeping the flexibility of imposing duties when the need arises, and
the issue of the huge hidden subsidies provided to American and European
farmers — still remains.
However, the silver lining is that the trade ministers representing the
broader membership of the WTO are said to have lifted the logjam in the Doha
Round of talks to clinch a global free trade agreement on goods and services.
The two-day meet got a unanimous affirmation that chief negotiators and senior
officials should restart the entire process as there was need to conclude the
Doha Round within 2010. It was decided that the work agenda for the least
developed countries (LDCs) covering all specific issues across the spectrum
should be put on a fast-track for negotiating convergence with the WTO chief,
Pascal Lamy, and Chairs of Negotiating Groups taking the lead in this process.
This was possible as the mini-ministerial group clearly recognized that
differences subsist on issues and intensifying the negotiations was the first
step towards bridging the gaps. The Doha Round, which began in 2001 in the
Qatari capital, has been stalled on differences between the rich and poor
countries over agricultural subsidies and non-agricultural market access (NAMA)
i.e., industrial goods and the last ministerial meet floundered in July 2008.
Farmers in India are convinced that their produce could
become competitive if both the US
and Europe did not fund their farmers with
huge hidden subsidies. The two worlds remain as divided as they were, and
nothing has really changed since July 2008. India, for instance, has very
little options. If it opens its agricultural sector to the developed world, it
would be a betrayal of its farmers and of rural India, already facing the impact of
some other free trade agreements signed earlier. Farmers’ suicides continue
till this day, the recent being in the Vidarbha region of Maharashtra, despite
the loan waivers and other welfare schemes, showing the tremendous distress,
particularly in the non-irrigated farmland areas, which form the bulk of rural India.
There are even fears in certain quarters that the Government might
relent on reducing or doing away with tariffs on NAMA as a trade-off to get
more HI-B1 visas from America for the high-profile information technology
sector. The US is extremely
unlikely to change its stand on the basics, and in fact its trade
representative Ron Kirk made it known in Delhi
that rich developing nations such as India,
Brazil and China had the
added responsibility of making tough decisions in order to make the Doha Round
successful.
However, he drew an instant retort from Brazil’s
feisty external affairs minister Celso Amorim that developing countries had
already made significant concessions while the rich nations only paid lip
service to the development dimensions of Doha’s
agenda. They had brought nothing substantive to the table. Worse, the recent
global economic crisis, had affected both developed and developing countries,
wherein the two had difficulties in living up to the reforms and commitments
the new Doha
round would require.
Indeed, much has changed across the world since July last year due to
the deepening economic crisis and the scars it left, particularly in the rich nations.
As a result, they have become even more
protectionist. For example, if the US makes any commitment it would
have to pass the scrutiny of its Senate, which will not be easy given the
rising American unemployment figures. France, usually far more liberal and
internationalist in matters of trade, has also turned more protectionists due
to pressure from its trade unions.
Thus, the undercurrents at the New Delhi
meeting and the official summary issued at its end, in fact, clearly
demonstrate that none of the substantive issues had moved an inch towards
resolution since the Doha
round. From the Indian perspective, the fact that we were able to place our
concerns--the need to move forward on services negotiations along with
agriculture and industry rather than leave opening up of services for later --is
however, a plus.
Realistically speaking it is unlikely that the round will conclude by
December 2010. But then, trade negotiations involving more than 153 countries
are bound to be a torturous process. Stumbling blocks are inevitable. But a
'development round' that fails to take on board the concerns of developing
countries is a non-starter. It is time the developed world woke up to that.
Recall that the special safeguard
measure (SSM) was one of the issues, which led to the collapse of the talks
last year. While the US,
backed by some agriculture exporting developing countries, was pushing for a
less effective SSM (with high trigger points and a ceiling on the increase in
import duties), India and China wanted
the mechanism to be easier to operationalise.
Another area of disagreement was the issue of sectoral negotiations for
reducing duties to zero on select industrial goods. India
wants that the sectoral negotiations should be purely voluntary, while the US wants they
should be linked to flexibilities in other areas like a lower reduction
obligation in average tariffs. The issue related to the freedom of using the
flexibility for keeping some items out of reduction commitment
(anti-concentration) also needs to be settled. India should make efforts to work
on informal timelines for sorting these out. ---INFA
(Copyright, India
News and Feature Alliance)
|