Is India a “dissident,” “spoiler,” and an “obstructionist” in the dying global trade negotiations? Yes, if one were to go by  the US Trade Representative Ambassador Susan Schwab’s statements at different meetings.

At the just-concluded APEC (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation) heads of nations meeting, the USTR described India as a dissident along with South Africa, Argentina, and Brazil. Later, when she reached Washington after her hectic meeting in Sydney she went on to say “there have been quite frankly some obstructionist members of the WTO (World Trade Organisation) who don’t want the talks to succeed and who don’t want to negotiate on the basis of these texts.”

Resistance
The texts she was referring to were the drafts presented by the chairs of Doha agriculture and market-opening for industrial negotiations two months ago. While the agriculture draft was widely welcomed as a basis for further improvement, several developing countries including India, Argentina, South Africa, Venezuela, and even Brazil warned of dire consequences if the non-agricultural market access draft was pushed ahead.

The developing countries were angry over the proposals presented by the Canadian chair Ambassador Don Stephenson because of what they perceived as lack of balance and equity.

“It will be very clear who the spoilers are,” said Ambassador Schwab. 

At a time when George W Bush, the US President, and Manmohan Singh, the Indian Prime Minister, struck a chord about their strategic concerns, especially over wriggling out India from international nuclear isolation, it may sound bizarre that the top US trade official is hitting out at New Delhi as a dissident and an obstructionist.

After all, the two administrations swam together by successfully resolving their age-old differences in the nuclear field. But when it comes to global trade issues in which they should be joining hands as they did in the international nuclear arena, Washington continues to see India as a difficult obstructionist. Obviously, there is something more than meets the eye.

In fact, US - India trade dialogue is on a downward slope. Despite back-to-back state visits in July 2005 and March 2006, the two sides are not able to reconcile their positions in the arena of global trade negotiations. Last week, a US trade official Doug Hartwick, an assistant trade representative, told the US-India Business Council that with national elections on the horizon, both countries are turning public opinion inward.

He suggested that the pace of bilateral trade and investment improvements will slow in the coming months and protectionism would take hold of the public in both countries. The US will go to polls next year while India could also have elections well before the due date in 2009.

The domestic stalemate on India’s 123 Agreement with the US is a testimony to the difficulties faced by the UPA government.

In US, the Bush administration following the humiliating defeat of the Republicans in both the Senate and the House of Representatives, has become a lame-duck government. The 123 Agreement is still alive in Congress because of the pure “tenacity” on the part of the administration but public opinion in India is split on the issue – enough to spark an early election.

The debate
Once the national debate starts, issues will revolve around inflation and jobs, said an Indian parliamentarian. Perhaps, the nuclear agreement will get back on track after the elections – no matter who takes over in New Delhi. Like India, the US too is facing rough weather in its Congress on the pending trade bills that include bilateral trade agreements with Korea, Peru, Colombia, and Panama as well as on the trade-promotion authority.
Further, the Bush administration has almost lost the battle on how to reform its farm subsidies with the pending legislation seeking much more than what is being currently provided in the present farm bill.

And to shift the blame for its helplessness to present a meaningful offer on the table, the US officials are calling India and others  obstructionists.