CUTS Blog on WTO Issues

In the last gasp negotiations under the Doha Round which is going on in Geneva these days in the run up to the proposed Mini-Ministerial meeting on 21 July, a so-called anti-concentration clause being debated in the industrial goods market access negotiations is a gross violation of the mandate given in the Doha Round of negotiations.

The mandate seeks adherence to less-than-full-reciprocity (LTFR), non-mandatory participation in sectoral tariff cuts and de-linking coefficients from flexibilities for developing countries. However, the latest NAMA (non-agricultural market access) modalities text goes beyond this mandate. The anti-concentration clause inter alia proposes that the flexibilities provided to developing countries shall not be used to exclude entire HS Chapters, and the second bracketed option limits flexibility even within HS Chapters at 4-digit, 6-digit or national tariff lines levels. Further, the new text is structured in such a way that developing countries may be forced to undertake binding commitments, even though conditionally, in the sectoral negotiations in order to retain the use of LTFR or seek equitable market access openings in developed countries.Again, the text links coefficients with flexibilities, which are two separate things.

In order to counter the anti-concentration proposal of developed countries, the developing countries must insist upon a parallel provision in case of sensitive products in agriculture negotiations. Against dilution of the voluntary nature of the sectoral negotiations, developing countries should ask for slotting of existing subsidy programmes in Green and Amber Boxes. Any new programme notified after the Doha Round conclusion should be accepted in either of these boxes only if specifically agreed to in the Committee on Agriculture or agreed through Article XXVIII type re-negotiations.

There will be many arguments by the developed countries, most of them facetious at best. But developing countries should not get carried away by them; they have matured into good negotiators after successfully creating groups like G-20, G-33 and G-90, and should continue to work together to protect the interests of poor of the world by similar initiatives against the anti-concentration clause.

Atul Kaushik, Director, CUTS Geneva Resource Centre (July 3, 2008)

Tags: WTO ISSUES // Add Comment »

The story is getting more confusing. Now US Under Secretary of Commerce for International Trade (as quoted in the Economic Times of 16th June, 2008) has accused India of working “behind the scenes” for the demise of the ongoing Doha Round.

“For us, the Doha Round is as important as it is to the United States or any other country. The criticism is unfair and inaccurate,” Commerce and Industry Minister Kamal Nath is reported to have said at his session with talk show host Charlie Rose in retort While it is understandable that tempers are running high with little time left to conclude the deal in the Doha Round, what is confusing is that such statements are coming from senior US officials who are presumed to be trained negotiators. It has fallen on the Indian Minister, no mean negotiator himself, to set the record straight without entering into the boxing ring being created by the US officials.

What is more important and may be missed by many is .that serious negotiations are indeed going on in Geneva. An additional secretary and India’s chief negotiator has reportedly (as mentioned in the online edition of Business Standard on 17th June, 2008) maintained at the so-called G-12 meeting of negotiations on industrial tariffs that many of the problems in these talks ought to have been properly addressed by the chair for Doha negotiations on industrial goods. He also suggested that this small group cannot be a ‘substitute’ for a genuine multilateral process. One can only hope that his comments, which are made in the democratic and participative spirit that is always professed by India, are not mistaken by some negotiators as another effort by India to seek Doha’s ‘demise’!

Atul Kaushik, Director, CUTS Geneva Resource Centre (June 17, 2008)

Tags: WTO ISSUES // Add Comment »

India is engaged in the Doha Round of negotiations by the WTO Members as much as any serious WTO well wisher would be. It has participated actively in all the negotiating groups. It has some very legitimate concerns in the area of agriculture, as it is a source of livelihood and not a business for a predominant majority of Indian farmers. Similarly, it is engaged constructively in the NAMA negotiations based on the mandate of the Doha negotiations, particularly the less-than-full-reciprocity principle for market access offers from developing countries. In this light, it is unfortunate, to say the least, that a US leader should feel that India is working for the demise of the round. Indian leaders have perhaps shown more poise and maturity in their public statements. After all, they do not doubt the US President commitment to the round and the talks, and they do not question his ability to take the US Congress along with him given that the fast track has expired.

Atul Kaushik, Director, CUTS Geneva Resource Centre (June 13, 2008)

Tags: WTO ISSUES // Add Comment »