Why should developing countries compromise: Sharma

Q&A with Commerce and Industry minister

India remained firm on its stance as negotiations reached its third day here in Bali. Whispers were already being heard of a possible collapse of talks as commerce and industry minister Anand Sharma ruled any possibility of a compromise. Edited excerpts by Nayanima Basu from the minister’s press conference here that invited admiration as well as sharp criticism: 

 

India has exceeded the di-minimis requirements as per the Uruguay Round...
 

We are not in breach, I would say it emphatically. I have said the Uruguay round is inherently flawed and unfairly balanced against the poor and developing countries and that is why we want the calculation to be not dated but updated and to be brought to the 21st century. 

 

If India stands the risk of being challenged if there’s no deal in Bali? 

Why are we negotiating then? Why are we having any negotiations then? The same would apply then also to trade facilitation. Why do we have a multilateral trading organization? And should we have decisions frozen in time? We are negotiating because the food prices have gone up as I mentioned. We are negotiating because there is legal entitlement to food security. This is primarily a sovereign right and a sovereign space. 

But as a responsible nation, as a rule-based and rule-governed democracy we are discussing this G-33 proposal so that the rules as such and the agreements of the multilateral trade organisation are connected with the realities on ground of the 21st century. Unlike rich countries, our agriculture are rain-fed and average holding of land of a farmer is 1.2 acres of land in a nation of 1.25 billion people. These are the hard realities on the ground. 

 

Is India taking this position due to the upcoming elections?

I think again this is misconception, democracies do have elections but democracies also have principles and convictions. This proposal emanates from the Hong Kong Ministerial meeting in 2005. This is an old proposal. India has not suddenly remembered that there are going to be elections and pulled the rabbit out of the hat. That is not the case. This is a eight year old proposal which has been discussed and re-discussed, negotiated and re-negotiated many times and those who are in the knowledge of developments. Even after the near collapse in June 2008 the Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) continued to be negotiated and what the G33 proposal is, this is what there in the draft text. G33 lowered ambitious so that there is a consensus. 

 

India will be looked as a reason for this ministerial failing?

Frankly speaking, I find it very amusing that a country which is standing up for a right which is acknowledged by the UN under Millennium Development Goals that country should be blamed for speaking for Right to Food security for hundreds of millions or rather billions of poor people on this planet. We are not in conflict, we are urging not for a compromise but for a consensus on this fundamental issue. Should it only be for the developing and poor countries to keep on compromising and show flexibility when it is the very right to life that is the Right to Food Security is connected with that. When there are in TF, developing and poor countries, have been asked to make binding commitments, here a four-year grace period is unacceptable. It is India speaks for the vast majority of poor countries and developing countries, India is not alone.

 

How many countries agree with India on continuing with the Peace Clause till permanent solution?

We are not having a vote here. Those countries which have spoken up, I can only tell you that they are more than two-third population of the world. 

 

Who is going to make Bali collapse?

These are high-sounding words which are very frightening. There is not going to be a collapse. The WTO survives, there have been past meetings when no results were there and shall we say those who collapsed those meetings. We have not come here to collapse any meeting. India is committed to a positive outcome in Bali. India is a committed to a balanced and fair outcome, particularly, in public stockholding and food security. It is better to have a no agreement then to have a bad agreement.

 

Is US the main obstacle, are they bucking down?

I am seeking a mature understanding with the US, EU and other developed countries. 

 

Will the issues will be resolved in next 2 days?

Hear us not the words but the subject. I remain optimistic. We are being most reasonable. We are only asking please change the prices, please have an agreement which is fair, which is balanced. 

 

Some countries have complained that India is using its domestic Food Security programme to export cheaper food and thus distorting trade?

We have a public procurement of food grains using public funds for stockholding for distribution among the people entitled for food security. The stocks such procured using the public money cannot be given to trade for export purposes. If anybody ever even tries to do that, before the cargo reaches the port, the individual or individuals concerned should be in the nearest prison cell. 

 

India is world’s biggest exporter of rice and has record stocks of both rice and wheat. The government agency recently announced tenders for 2 million tonnes at a reduced price. Are these not legitimate concerns on distortions impact, particularly with Pakistan, which had raised the same concern?

This is not correct. Tenders are invited with quotation of prices. When people trade there are always rates which are quoted and there are global benchmarks. Countries will buy or import what they need. I don’t have any issues with Pakistan on this front. Pakistan exports rice, India exports rice but the Basmati rice there is not even a public procurement. That is a high-quality rice which is never procured for food security or for public distribution in a subsidised manner.  So that is not there. When it comes to stockholding it has to be put under correct perspective. 

 

When I said that under the public procurement for public stockholding it is only a percentage of the total foodgrains produced in India including rice and wheat, which is procured by the state for subsidised food distribution,  under Food Security entitlements. By all accounts it has never crossed 30% total foodgrains produced by the farmer. 70% of what India produces goes to the market, domestic market primarily for trading purposes because if we produce 160-170 million tonnes, then 30% of that you can calculate the rest is open market trading like in any country and part of it gets exported. 

 

Is India now alone in G33 with this food security issue?

That is not true. The negotiations are closed and the number of countries, I would rather update my own number because I was calculating in my head the population of the countries which have stood up and spoken. These are all big countries with huge populations and I can say that more than 70% of the population lives in those countries who standby India on this issue. 

 

What future do you see for WTO if there is no agreement here in Bali?

WTO does have a good future. How can you say that heavens will fall if out of 10 texts proposed eight are adopted and two are negotiated so that there is a correct balance. Nothing is going to happen. I do not know why a gloomy scenario is being painted? Only if I sign away as a country our principles and the right to food security of the poor people then only the WTO will be saved? Strengthening of the WTO is shared responsibility of all the members – developing and developed. Those who are speaking up for the poor and hungry people cannot be blamed.