Staff Reporter | 16 May, 2008
Union Minister of Commerce and Industry, Kamal Nath has stated that the Doha Round negotiations are delicately poised currently and whether the Round reaches a conclusion by the end of 2008 or moves into its eighth year will depend on a number of factors.

A critical factor would be whether the member countries that have hitherto largely enjoyed the gains of trade liberalisation are willing to make their legitimate contributions to fulfill the core objective of the Round, which has been termed a Development Round.

If the Round fails to deliver on its development promise and gets converted into yet another market access Round for the benefit of the wealthier nations, the current efforts being made by India and many other developing countries to conclude it within the next few months, will not have much chance of success.

Focussing on Agriculture, which lies at the core of the Doha Round, Shri Nath stated that it was vital for India to first secure the livelihoods of its poor and vulnerable farmers before it could move on to any other issue.

Towards this end, it was imperative to settle the issue of Special Products and the Special Safeguard Mechanism well before the final run up to the modalities on Agriculture and NAMA, because this was a subject which was just not 'tradeable' for India.

Drawing attention to the protracted efforts being made by a group of 6 members to provide comfort to the developed importing countries on Sensitive Products, the Minister said, "While flexibilities and carve outs are sought to be obtained on Sensitive Products for some countries, on Special Products (SPs), we are seeing an attempt to derail the issue by bringing in a new concept of transparency with regard to SPs."

The US and the Cairns Group are now demanding that all developing countries availing of SPs must reveal their list of SPs even before any modality on SPs has been agreed upon, whereas the developed importing countries have flatly refused to divulge their list of Sensitive Products before the stage of scheduling. The Minister stated that the G-33 position was crystal clear on this - SPs will be driven by indicators which, in turn, are anchored in 3 criteria - livelihood security, rural development and food security. The very fact that criteria and indicators drive selection of SPs is a validation of transparency.

This is in striking contrast to the selection of Sensitive Products, which developed countries were at liberty to simply pick and choose. He remarked "this new issue of 'transparency' in SPs amounts to re-negotiation of vital parts of the mandate and this is not acceptable to developing countries."

Nath also likened the proposal of the US and 8 Cairns Group countries of 8 April 2008 on Special Products, to a "blatant attempt at shifting the goal posts."

He stated that he could not fathom the logic of these countries to drag the negotiations backward and try to reopen an issue, on which considerable progress has taken place, as amply reflected in the Chair’s revised text of February 8.

He expressed his apprehension that "if the same logic were to be followed by other countries on other issues, there may be unfortunate consequences for the negotiations." He hoped that good sense would prevail and the well known rules of the game would be followed, so as to enable the process to move forward.

Moving on to the subject of the Rules negotiations, the Minister stated that the current draft text on Rules has been severely criticized by a large number of members for the proposals on Anti-Dumping and Fisheries Subsidies.

The proposals in the Fisheries Subsidies text posed a threat to the livelihoods of millions of India’s small and artisanal fisherfolk and needed to be modified immediately. India along with China and Indonesia had recently tabled a joint proposal on Fisheries Subsidies and this required to be given the most serious consideration.

On Anti-Dumping, Nath stated that there was an obvious attempt to provide comfort to one country through the text. However, the recent findings of the Appellate Body in the "zeroing" case, had made the attempt, totally untenable. The Minister said,  "Without a revised text covering both Fisheries Subsidies and Anti-Dumping, India and many other developing countries could not countenance finalising the Agriculture and NAMA modalities."

Dwelling on the importance of Services in the Doha Round, Nath remarked that market access in Modes 1 and 4 with disciplines in domestic regulations were essential for India and a number of developing countries to strike a balance between give and take in the Round.

Discussions and negotiations thus far have tended to focus primarily on Mode 3 and on select sectors, both of which are of interest chiefly to the developed countries. In the process, India's interests in Modes 1 and 4 have been left virtually unaddressed since 1995 by its major trading partners.

In conclusion, Nath stated that major trading nations such as the US and the EC have to display leadership and not lay the onus for the Round's success only on developing Members.