[It's just a canard that the stand of the Modi government this time in Geneva, at the WTO negotiations, is a departure from that of the preceding UPA II.
Even at Bali last December, Anand Sharma, the then Indian Commerce Minister, fought long and hard to the very last, on the issue of subsidy linked to food security, and steadfastly refused to give in. At the same time, he also avoided being painted as the (sole) deal-breaker. So eventually a compromise was arrived at (see.: < https://mc9.wto.org/system/files/documents/w10_1.pdf>). (Many of the Indian NGOs present at the site were diligently working towards and fervently hoping for the *collapse*. So they were quite bitter about the final outcome. And, reacted likewise.) "Negotiations on *agriculture, *(emphasis in original) more specifically on food-stock holding*,* presented the main action in Bali. There were two viewpoints on the price benchmark for the valuation of the volume of food stocks countries can legally hold. India's position was to use current prices, which would mean amending the agriculture agreement of the Uruguay Round <http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wto.org%2Fenglish%2Fthewto_e%2Fwhatis_e%2Ftif_e%2Ffact5_e.htm&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNHgxKQervU6yUTcmMhrV84GbBhlAQ> and would not be acceptable to other members. Alternatively, India proposed an interim arrangement until a more permanent solution is found. Here,* the United States proposed a 'sunset clause' of four years - a time-line that India did not accept* (emphasis added). A final deal was struck to have an interim mechanism <https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fmc9.wto.org%2Fsystem%2Ffiles%2Fdocuments%2Fw10_1.pdf&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNH5Wfafd0_n4SkTRFhZFrC4Tu0KWQ> until a permanent solution is found, *which means that more negotiation is still required to find a permanent solution* (emphasis added)." [Source: < http://www.odi.org.uk/opinion/8056-wto-bali-declaration-least-development-countries-trade-facilitation-agriculture-doha-round <http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.odi.org.uk%2Fopinion%2F8056-wto-bali-declaration-least-development-countries-trade-facilitation-agriculture-doha-round&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNHP78qdS5MlA43jjDo46dbAbuTChw> >.] This time, Nirmala Sitharaman took off exactly from where Anand Sharma had left off. *The surprising, and frustrating for some, element is that she chose to do so instead of noiselessly giving in (by effectively accepting the sunset clause which had been rejected by Sharma)*. To be sure, right at the moment, a tussle is going on; and the contending parties are expected to bargain hard, as hard as possible. (The real disconcerting element is that, at the moment, India is, apparently, having too few backers - only Cuba, Venezuela and Bolivia, and none from the BRICS.) At the end of the day, they'll also have to have their own comparative cost-benefit analyses of the available options. Despite rhetorical flourishes and grave threatening postures, things do not yet appear to have reached anywhere near the final breaking point.] I/III. http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-08-02/news/52356517_1_bali-package-external-reference-prices-cotton-producers World Trade Organisation bigwigs blocking bid for a balanced deal Aug 2, 2014, 03.33AM IST *By Biswajit Dhar, Professor, Jawaharlal Nehru University* Just when it had appeared that the World Trade Organization (WTO) was getting rid of a label put by its former Director General that the organization is incapable of taking decisions, this old failing has come back to haunt it once again. The decisions taken at the conclusion of the Ninth Ministerial Conference in Bali to put in place a work programme for the organization came unstuck as the WTO was unable to make progress in a manner that would have satisfied a majority of the member countries. After the "Bali Package" was delivered, the WTO Director General Roberto Azevedo had declared that "people all around the world will benefit from the package", which, according to him, included "the businesses community; the unemployed and the underemployed; the poor; those who rely on food security schemes; developing country farmers; developing country cotton growers; and the least-developed economies as a whole". Azevedo's assessment had a strong basis: the "Bali Package" was not only about trade facilitation, which, according to its strong votary, the International Chamber of Commerce would add $ 1 trillion to global trade. The "Bali Package" also made promises to the cotton producers, including four of the poorest countries, and the least developed countries (LDCs), the two groups that were unable to secure any benefits from trade liberalisation. While the cotton producers lost their export market as the United States dumped subsidised cotton in the global markets, the LDCs found to their dismay that the web of high tariffs and other non-tariff barriers were preventing them from securing additional market access. Then there was the issue that the G-33 (a group of 46 developing countries, including India) had raised regarding the problem they were up against while meeting the food security needs of their populations through public stockholding because of a provision included in the Agreement on Agriculture (AoA). This provision stated that when the developing country governments were procuring foodstuffs to meet the food security needs, the difference between the price at which the foodstuffs were acquired and their average international prices during 1986-88 (called the "external reference prices" in the AoA) was to be included in their subsidies' bill. Architects of the AoA, who had negotiated the key elements of the agreement in the late-1980s, used the logic that the acquisition prices should be compared with a "competitive price", the closest approximation of which was the international price. It's a no-brainer that after more than quarter of a century, these external reference prices (ERP) cannot be taken as the "competitive prices" and that the 1986-88 base period needs to be revised. This revision becomes imperative in light of the fact that the AoA does not allow developing countries to subsidise their agriculproture in excess of 10% of the value of agricultural production. And, if they are found to be in violation of this commitment, they can be dragged to the Dispute Settlement Body of the WTO. This, in other words, implies that if India is to implement the Food Security Act without the AoA stipulations coming in the way, there must be a change in the ERP for the calculating agricultural subsidy. This was one of the key issues included in the so-called "permanent solution" on public stockholding for food security purposes which the G-33 countries has been seeking in the post-Bali deliberations. Contrary to the spirit of the "Bali Package", the deliberations over the past few months have focused solely on the trade facilitation issue, ignoring the other elements almost entirely. It was clear that the demandeurs of trade facilitation agreement (TFA) wanted to get this agreement through without allowing the other potential beneficiaries of the "Bali Package" that the Director General had identified to get any benefits. This feature of the post-Bali deliberations is not a new development: the history of the GATT/WTO is littered with innumerable instances where the dominant interests have secured disproportionate gains from the trade negotiations, often at the expense of the lesser players in the global trading system. It is hardly surprising therefore that India's attempt to secure a more balanced outcome by ensuring that all the key decisions of the Bali-package are negotiated on parallel tracks is bandied as an "obstruction" by the dominant trading interests for they have been unable to formalise only the TFA, which was their sole objective. II/III. https://in.finance.yahoo.com/news/nine-reasons-why-indias-wto-081730068.html Nine reasons why India's WTO veto shocked the world Reuters - Fri 1 Aug, 2014 1:47 PM IST By Tom Miles GENEVA (Reuters) - India's tough diplomacy blocked a landmark world trade treaty late on Thursday, despite last-ditch talks to rescue what would have been the first global trade reform since the creation of the World Trade Organization 19 years ago. Trade diplomats in Geneva have said they are "flabbergasted", "astonished" and "dismayed" and described India's position as "hostage-taking" and "suicidal". Here are nine reasons why they say India's stance made no sense. 1. India has been a vocal backer of world trade reform. It has criticised the small clubs of countries, led by the United States and European Union, that lost patience with the slow pace of global reforms and started to discuss faster liberalising of trade in certain areas, such as services and information technology products. India is not in any of these groups. But Thursday's veto is likely to give them even more momentum as hope of a global trade pact, long in doubt, appears to be over. 2. India's veto may be the beginning of the end for the WTO. Trade experts say that if the WTO's 20-year-old rulebook does not evolve, more and more trade will be governed by new regional agreements such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which will have their own rules and systems of resolving disputes. That could lead to a fragmented world of separate trade blocs. 3.* India's new government was widely seen as being pro-business. And yet it blocked a deal on "trade facilitation"* (emphasis added), a worldwide streamlining of customs rules that would cut container handling times, guarantee standard procedures for getting goods to and from their destinations and kill off vast amounts of paperwork at borders around the world. Some estimates said it would add $1 trillion to the world economy as well as 21 million jobs, 18 million of them in developing countries. 4. Nobody else was negotiating. Thursday's meeting was simply supposed to formally adopt the final trade negotiation text into the WTO rulebook, following its agreement by ministers at a meeting in Bali last December. India's then Trade Minister Anand Sharma hailed the Bali deal as a landmark in the history of the WTO. "We were able to arrive at a balanced outcome which secures our supreme national interest," Sharma said at the time. India did not hint at any further objection until days before it wielded its veto, and even then it made no concrete demands until the WTO meeting to adopt the new rules was in progress. 5. India did not object to the deal it vetoed. Its objections were unconnected to trade facilitation. It blocked the trade facilitation deal to try to get what it wanted on something else: food security. 6. India had already got what it wanted on food security. At Bali, it forced a big concession from the United States and European Union, which initially strongly opposed its demands, but agreed that India could stockpile food at subsidised prices, reversing the trend of trying to reduce and remove trade-distorting food subsidies globally. The arrangement was temporary, but the WTO agreed to work towards a permanent solution within four years, by the end of 2017. 7. India's demands reversed its previous position. India blocked the trade facilitation deal because it wanted the WTO to move to a permanent solution more quickly than the four-year timeline. But diplomats say that India was offered a two-year timeframe before Bali but it insisted on four. 8. India's veto could put it in legal danger. As part of the Bali deal, India won a pledge that nobody would bring a trade dispute to challenge its food stockpiling programme, which is widely thought to have broken the WTO rules. However, diplomats say that Bali was a "package" of 10 agreements, and the only legally binding part was trade facilitation. If that fails, the package unravels, and India may lose its protection. 9. *India was isolated. Cuba, Venezuela and Bolivia voiced support, but diplomats say other big developing countries such as Russia, China and Brazil, as well as India's neighbour Pakistan, were among the chief opponents of its veto*. (Emphasis added.) Poorer countries stand to lose most, WTO chief Roberto Azevedo told the WTO meeting after the deal collapsed. "They're the ones with fewer options, who are at risk of being left behind. They're the ones that may no longer have a seat at the table." III. http://ibnlive.in.com/news/india-ready-to-reengage-with-wto-members-in-september/489739-3.html India ready to re-engage with WTO members in SeptemberPress Trust of India <http://ibnlive.in.com/agency/Press-Trust-of-India.html> Aug 01, 2014 at 09:46pm IST *New Delhi:* With its stand on food security leading to a stalemate at the WTO talks in Geneva, India on Friday said it is committed to the global trade deal without compromising on its interest, and will re-engage with members when talks resume a month from now. "WTO will open in September. We are prepared to engage on day one with a clear understanding that our position with regard to food security and our commitment to Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA) is 100 per cent firm," said a highly placed source in the government. *India, the source said, wants TFA and food security issues pass the muster together and "we will work towards that". The World Trade Organization (WTO) will resume work from September 1. "We look forward to receive support from our other member friends in the WTO and we will start the negotiation process again," the source said, adding that the refusal of the developed world to accept Bali's proposal as a package led to the failure of talks at the General Council meeting in Geneva on Thursday. *(Emphasis added.) Rejecting the accusations that India is a deal breaker, sources said that Bali is alive as the General Council cannot go beyond the mandate agreed to by the Ministerial Meeting in Bali last year. "The interest of more than a billion poor farmers can not be compromised for a deadline (July 31). This position, we maintained in the past and today also. We are still committed to TFA," the source added. Commerce Secretary Rajeev Kher said the WTO will be on vacation for a month and during this time India will focus on follow up action. "This is a good enough time to think about our follow up action. Obviously, our proposal is there on the table and we will pursue our proposal," he said. India has suggested to establish special sessions to resolve its food security related issues and has proposed the deadline of December 31. The Geneva meeting failed because the developed world neither agreed to extend the 'peace clause' until a permanent solution was found to the public stock-holding issues for food security purposes nor to club the TFA issues with the food security. *"We would be satisfied if we got a peace clause till a permanent solution was negotiated and adopted. It means, we could have been allowed TFA to happen by July 31 provided we got a peace clause till a permanent solution was adopted," the source said.*(Emphasis added.) The peace clause offers immunity from penalties imposed for breaching the farm subsidy cap of 10 per cent under the WTO Agreement on Agriculture. After more than a week of hectic deliberations, WTO chief Roberto Azevêdo reported to WTO ambassadors last night that despite intensive consultations "we have not been able to find a solution that would allow us to bridge the gap" on the adoption of the protocol on the TFA. New Delhi is pressing for an amendment to WTO norms regarding stockpile of food grains, an issue critical to India's food security programme. The current WTO norms limit the value of food subsidies at 10 per cent of the total value of food grain production. However, the support is calculated at the prices that are over two-decade old. India is asking for a change in the base year (1986-88) for calculating the food subsidies. India wants a change taking into account inflation and currency fluctuation. *India has proposed two options in front of the General Council meeting in Geneva. "The first was that there could be a linkage between TFA and food security. The second option is that India would not push for a linkage but would be satisfied if it got a peace clause till a permanent solution was negotiated and adopted," the source said*.(Emphasis added.) India has suggested to link the calculation of food subsidies to the excessive rate of inflation or revision of external reference price which is today pegged at 1986-88 price. -- Peace Is Doable -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send an email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
