Forge a 'development coalition': Maran

The Commerce and Industry Minister, Mr. Murasoli Maran, has called for forging a ``development coalition'' of developing and like-minded countries before the next ministerial conference of the World Trade Organisation.

In a wide-ranging interview to Sushma Ramachandran, he stressed that there had been a new awakening among developing countries at the WTO owing to the firm stand taken by India at the conference. In the eyeball to eyeball confrontation, he said, ``India did not blink''. This enabled India to achieve positive gains in TRIPs, agriculture and implementation issues while using concessions on textiles and environment as bargaining chips. But textile exports would not be affected at all, he said since the status quo had not been altered. As for environment, India would benefit as it would prevent trade in endangered species and bio-piracy.

Mr. Maran, who endured the rigours of 18 hours non-stop negotiations at Doha, has been lauded even by foreign media as the catalyst for the emergence of developing countries as a powerful bloc in the WTO. He said the like-minded group was with India virtually till the end but was also ultimately keen for the work programme to be launched. Excerpts from the interview:

QUESTION: What are India's achievements at the WTO's Doha ministerial conference?

Mr. Murasoli Maran: First is implementation issues which developed countries initially refused to recognise as an issue. Owing to the efforts of India and like-minded countries, these have now been taken up for negotiation.

Second, the declaration on TRIPs and public health is a landmark one. India played a crucial role along with Brazil and 55 African countries in preparing the draft and ensuring it was passed. Our stance has been that affordability and availability of public health is a human right and WTO was forced to agree due to public pressure.

Third, in agriculture we protected our interests as emphasis was given to rural development and food security where we may get a development box. We have also gained in services and industrial tariffs where we have been able to include negotiations on peak tariffs and tariff escalations. The other gain is geographical indications where we wanted to extend protection to Darjeeling tea and Basmati rice. Now it is part of the negotiating process.

Did you reject the third draft which was more favourable?

No, we accepted it with some changes in the wording. But suddenly they produced another draft in the early morning which was different. It was a fait accompli. The strategy was to change the draft and force us to accept it. That was when we asked for the clarification to be added to the draft. Negotiations on the four Singapore issues of investment, competition, trade facilitation and government procurement will begin only after ``explicit consensus'' by all members. Thereby we have restored the 1995 Singapore declaration - back to status quo.

Was India isolated by its opposition to the new round?

India was not isolated. There has been an awakening among developing countries though they could not withstand till the last. They now realise to achieve gains, they have to stick together and restore their voices (in the WTO).

But in the end they all backed out?

Yes, but to a large extent they were with us. Right to the end. Including African, Caribbean and least developing countries. Leading foreign media have written about India's leadership role in this process.

What concessions has India given on environment and textiles?

A false impression has been created that we have lost everything in textiles. In fact, three out of five issues have been agreed on. The others are growth on growth and annual increase in quota items. We wanted to advance the formula for the textiles agreement from January 1, 2000 to 2002. It has not been denied, but referred to the Council for trade and goods which will give a report by July 2002. It is not a big issue since the entire agreement comes to an end on January 1, 2005. It was a bargaining chip. It will not affect our textile exports at all as it was an additionality being sought. In fact some economists say we still need the quota system.

On environment, the statement was more at the political level. We agreed to negotiations on three items without pre-judging outcome. These were already on the agenda since Marrakesh and are being studied by the committee on trade and environment. Two items are innocuous since one is already covered by the industrial tariff negotiations and the second is procedures for information exchange with multilateral agencies.

The third will not have any impact as it covers the relationship between WTO rules and trade obligations in environmental agreements. We are already signatories to many agreements such as Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species. But under existing WTO rules, no one can prevent export of banned items such as ivory tusks. Similarly, the Convention on Bio- diversity (CBD) helps prevent bio-piracy. The scope of negotiations includes omnibus protection to ensure it should not add to or diminish rights of WTO members.

The Committee on agriculture and environment was also mandated in Marrakesh in 1995 to study three issues. These include our demands like effect of environment measures on market access and linking TRIPs to CBD. The third is eco-labelling requirements which is their (EU) demand. Basically we agreed on environment to give the EU a political statement without allowing any new issues and in turn were given concessions on agriculture.

Critics are saying you should not have agreed for the launch of the new trade round.

It's semantics. What are important are issues and content. It has been termed as a work programme but we should not bother about the term ``new round'' since there are no new issues. The four new Singapore issues have been postponed to the next conference.

We initially refused to join the consensus. The next step if no redressal comes, was to block the work programme but other countries were affected since implementation issues, declaration on TRIPs and ACP waiver would also go. The ACP waiver (on the existing ACP-EU trade agreement) is a life and death problem for the African, Caribbean and Pacific Rim (ACP) countries. We had a request from them. Our blocking would be mistaken by the least developing countries, the ACP group and the Latin Americans - we cannot declare war on all these countries. Then it would be really isolationist. We averted it by bargaining. We were eyeball to eyeball and India did not blink.

What does ``explicit consensus'' mean?

Both on proceeding with negotiations and for modalities of negotiations, explicit consensus will be required at the next conference for the Singapore issues. In simple terms, ``consensus'' is like an ordinary bomb, ``explicit consensus is like a nuclear bomb''.

You have called for deepening of reforms before the next conference. What kind of reforms are you envisaging?

India needs to be economically strong and competitive. There is no point in saying we are one billion people we become rich and strong. We will also benefit through new issues like trade facilitation by reforming areas like the customs. It will benefit us since delays will be cut down.

What should be our strategy for the next ministerial conference?

Now is the period to work on a development coalition. We must work with other developing and like-minded countries on the basis of common interests. This is the job ahead of us before the next conference. These are issues which should transcend all political considerations. India should move as a nation on stakeholders' interests including political parties, industry, agriculture and labour.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Business
Previous : Bullion rates
Next     : S&P affirms negative rating for India