Media And The Three R'S

Someone I met recently told me: "I dread your pen." That flattered me. And it also made me wonder whether those who write for the media should be more responsible than others. In terms of what they write. Since a lot of people read this stuff and sometimes, even believe it. This is relevant because of the media attention that the World Trade Organisation (WTO) has got post-Seattle, especially in the context of phasing out of quantitative restrictions (QRs) on imports. If Mastercard Family Fortune has a question on which is the most hated organization in the country, WTO will head the list. Like Arthur Dunkel would have, seven years ago. Don't forget, not very long ago the media went to town about how neem had been patented in the United States.

 

How, if one broke off neem twigs and used them to brush one's teeth, royalties would have to be paid to W R Grace. Hence, some people still believe this to be the case. Admittedly, the business press is more knowledgeable and responsible. But opinions are not always formed by business press. There is the general press.

In such a general magazine, with a fairly large circulation, I recently read that India has had a deal with Susan Esserman of the WTO. Don't be aghast. I am not ignorant, nor am I being irresponsible. I know perfectly well where Esserman works, I am quoting from the magazine. True, most people will normally not know the name of the United States Trade Representative (USTR), not to speak of the names of those who are lower down the pecking order. But just before Seattle, Esserman was in town, courtesy the CII and hordes of media people turned up for the lunch. It is difficult to believe that Esserman's name was digested with the dessert.

From the same magazine I learnt that thanks to WTO, QRs have to go and the government is being secretive about the fact. The WTO was set up in January 1995 and its predecessor Gatt, of which India is a founder member, has been around since 1947. I see no reason why commerce ministry should circulate copies of the original 1947 Gatt treaty to one billion Indian citizens. The treaty is readily available in printed form and also on the net. If the person who wrote the story had bothered to look up the Gatt treaty, he would have discovered Article XI, which prohibits QRs. He would then have asked the pertinent question. If QRs have been prohibited since 1947, how come we have had them as a founder number? The answer requires no great research. He would have discovered the answer in several issues of Economic Survey.

Alternatively, the commerce ministry has a newsletter, India and the WTO. This has a hard copy and Net version, and even a Hindi incarnation. One can complain about the quality of editing (too many typos) and unattractiveness, but not secrecy. In several issues of this newsletter, the commerce ministry has mentioned Article XVIIIB and consultations and negotiations with trading partners.

The magazine also mentions that thanks to WTO, India has agreed to zero bound rates for tariffs on several products, like skimmed milk powder. The commerce ministry newsletter, and several other sources, should have informed the correspondent that this is not because of WTO, but earlier Gatt rounds, where we didn't bother about zero bound rates on the expectation that QR cover would continue. And that Article XXVIII negotiations, to renegotiate these bound rates once QRs go, have started with trading partners. The list of items on QRs, which will therefore now move to the open general licence (OGL), has also been available. So what is the secrecy about? The only information not in the public domain, yet, is about whether frozen cuts and edible offal of turkeys will move to OGL in March 2000 or March 2001, and at what duties. Surely the commerce ministry has a right to decide these issues, that's why the ministry exists. Or should there be a national referendum on turkey offal?

In the three Rs, reading comes before writing. Is it too much to ask that one reads before putting pen to paper, or fingers to keyboard?