India generally
supports proposals for freer and more transparent trade.[1]
However it is clear that in the past such proposals have been heavily weighted
to favor the interests of the developed world while handicapping the progress
of developing countries. This set of negotiations is an encouraging opportunity
to take steps forward toward truly free trade that benefits the developed and
developing world.
The agenda on
the table here is an excellent starting point that contains many essential
areas of interests. The elimination of Non-Tariff Barriers is an important
issue in world trade and an issue dear to the Indian economy. Onerous labeling
and technical requirements hamper the growth of both the Indian economy and
mutually beneficially business relationships.[2]
However the elimination of the NTBs should not be limited to agriculture,
automobile production, and finance. NTBs on key products of developing
countries such as textiles and metallurgical products should also be included. It
is important that the reforms contemplated here reflect the interests of both
the developed and the developing world. [3]
However safety
is still an important concern. It is not the role of this organization to
prevent sovereign nations from exercising their right to protect the health and
welfare of their people. As such, India stands with a growing group of nations
who maintain that in the wake of uncertainty and evolving and emerging
scientific evidence assert that countries have the right to regulate and limit
the the import of GMOs.[4]
[5]
The elimination
of agricultural subsidies by the developed world would be a significant step
toward trade equality. This is an excellent starting point for discussion, though some level of agricultural subsidy should be discussed on an equal level between developed and developing countries. With the current Uruguay Round state of affairs developed
countries can provide unlimited amounts of certain types of support to their
farmers while developing countries, already more vulnerable to food security issues,
must stay within a de minims cap. If not rectified, this fixed percentage cap currently
operational for the developing world will become an increasingly difficult to
manage problem as developing countries attempt to enlarge their food aid
programs.[6]
Increased equality in the agricultural market between developed and developing
countries would be an important and encouraging step and is on that is
necessary to the future prosperity of free trade.
However it is also important
that such steps take into account the particular challenges faced by developing
countries. Progress in equalizing the landscape on agricultural subsidies must
not wipe out the significant recent steps taken in bilateral agreement between
India and the US on with regards to extending agreement on the “peace clause”
that came out of the Bali negotiations. The indefinite extension of exceptions
for food security programs is an important acknowledgement by the United States
of the importance that these programs play in the nutrition of the poorer
members of the population in developing countries.[7]
Until the issue of public
stockholding for food security purposes is resolved this “peace clause” should
remain in place and this extension should be recognized by the WTO as a whole.[8]
Currently such stock holding is limited to ten percent. However for developing countries this forms
an essential component of helping to provide food security to poorer citizens.
These programs often result in developing countries governments being hard
pressed against the ten percent limit. LDCs should be allowed to use an
unlimited standard, when using public stocks for these purposes.
India would like
to and indeed will insist on seeing progress toward a freer and more equal
trade landscape. This will mean both general progress and leveling the playing
field between developed and developing countries. These negotiations are an
opportunity for everyone to benefit from truly free and equal trade.
[1] "Background Note 12th August 2014 on the WTO
Negotiations." Government of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry,
Department of Commerce. August 12, 2014. Accessed December 1, 2014.
http://commerce.nic.in/trade/Background_note_WTO_Negotiations_12-Aug_2014.pdf.
[4] Bello, Walden. "Twenty-Six
Countries Ban GMOs—Why Won’t the US?" The Nation, October 29, 2013.
http://www.thenation.com/blog/176863/twenty-six-countries-ban-gmos-why-wont-us#.
[7] "India and US Reach WTO
Breakthrough over Food." BBC, November 13, 2014.
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-30033130.
No comments:
Post a Comment