India hints US to blame for Doha text gaps

It is well known that the United States singularly opposed the revised Rules text during several formal and informal meetings.

In the strongest criticism yet of the 232-page document issued by the chair for Doha Rules negotiations, Ambassador Guillermo Valles, on Wednesday evening, Commerce Minister Kamal Nath told Business Standard "we are deeply disappointed" with this document as it will adversely affect members' efforts to accelerate the negotiations to finalise modalities.

Nath said there was "near unanimity of the entire WTO membership to have a revised text on Rules" before starting horizontal negotiations to strike trade-offs between agriculture and market-opening for industrials.

But Ambassador Valles chose to issue a working document in order to satisfy "one major developed country" which wants to protect its WTO-inconsistent measure of zeroing in on anti-dumping measures, Nath charged.

Most developed and developing countries had made it clear to Valles and WTO chief Pascal Lamy that they would not enter into horizontal consultations and a ministerial meeting next month "without a revised Rules text", Nath added.

India, he said, was not sure if WTO officials were serious about the horizontal and ministerial meeting or falling prey "to pressure from one major country, thereby, undermining the ongoing efforts to conclude the Doha negotiations by the end of this year". A trade envoy of a leading industrialised country shared India's criticism and said "the document is not helpful for moving forward the process."

"I'm waiting for instructions from my capital but I can tell you that this document is not helpful," he added.

India has also castigated the document on fisheries subsidies, maintaining that the existing Rules draft text is "fundamentally and deeply flawed".

In the covering note to the document, the chair explained that due to "sharply conflicting views" on most issues, a final text was not possible. Ambassador Valles said he did not receive even hints on possible middle ground approaches or suggestions for compromises or trade-offs that would have enabled him to prepare a revised text.