WTO AND STAND
OF INDIA-
India’s strong
stand on food security at the World Trade Organization (WTO) has threatened to
derail the first multilateral trade agreement reached in the last two decades.
Developed countries have complained that India is going back on its promise
made at Bali last December where it was agreed that the Trade Facilitation
Agreement will be made a WTO rule by 31 July, while a permanent solution to the
food security issue will be found only by 2017. India has maintained that
different timelines for various elements of the Bali package is against the WTO
rules of a single undertaking where everything need to be implemented
simultaneously.
First understand the SCENE ..thru the pics...!
 |
 |
Take a look
at the logic of India’s position:
1■ -India’s complaint is justified. According to the WTO
rule, public stockholdings must not exceed 10% of the value of foodgrains
produced and calculated at the base price of 1986-88. You cannot calculate
current food subsidy limits by 1986-88 prices. That beats all logic.
2 ■ For most of the developing countries including India,
public stockholding for food security is a livelihood issue, a matter which
should not be even debated at WTO.
3 ■ Developed countries lose nothing if they allow higher
public stockholding by developing countries after putting in place a mechanism
with reasonable limits to ensure developing countries do not dump their excess
cereals at rock bottom prices in the international market.
4■ Allowing developing countries to continue to provide price
support to their farmers will be a big confidence booster in multilateral
trade, given that the focus of the ongoing Doha round of negotiations is
supposed to be on “development”. Developed countries can claim moral victory
and fast-track the remaining issues of the Doha round once they oblige the food
security demand of the developing countries.
5■ Food security is the foundation upon which the United
Nations’ Millennium Development Goals to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger
stand. Forcing developing countries and Least Developed Countries to agree to
anything which may compromise their right to food security will not only
compromise basic human dignity but also go against the UN declaration to which
all countries are a signatory.
6■ The government support to farmers in developed countries are
way ahead of what developing countries can even afford to provide. For example,
while India provides about $12 billion farm subsidy to its 500 million farmers,
the US provides around $120 billion to its 2 million farmers. The figures could
be contested, but not the trends.
7■ Lastly, there is wide realisation in India at the state
and central government level about the rising burden of subsidies and there is
a serious move to make it more targeted through the use of technology as in the
case of the Direct Benefits Transfer programme. To expect it to happen at the
pace developed countries wish means one does not understand the complexities of
a country like India.