<p>With the conclusion of the 10th Ministerial Conference of the World Trade Organisation, the moot point is: What did India get out of it? Negotiations at the WTO involve some real hard bargains and no deal can ever be reached without ‘give and take’. <br /><br /></p>.<p>There is a need to measure in a dispassionate manner whether India got the balance right at the Nairobi WTO Ministerial in so far as this ‘give and take’ is concerned. Did we ‘give’ more without the commensurate ‘take?’. <br /><br /> Ironically, India, which used to dominate the multilateral trade talks on previous occasions, notably at Doha followed by Cancun and Hong Kong, seemed to have run out of solid partners at Nairobi excepting G33 grouping, to exert a kind of counter pressure to stand up to the rich nations, led by the US and European Union.<br /><br />Brazil, for instance, despite its contrarian interests, always used to be a part of a formidable combination comprising India, South Arica and China for taking on the hegemony of the developed countries.<br /><br /> But in Nairobi, Brazil pushed aggressively for a deal on export competition under which export subsidies, including the ones for transport and marketing, will have to end in stages. <br /><br />Under the impending dispensation, India will not be able to support farm produce like onion, sugar etc. for exports even in the seasons of glut. Incidentally, Brazil has been at the forefront of dragging India to WTO along with Australia on subsidies for sugar.<br /><br />In the previous Bali Ministerial Conference, the developed world got what it wanted most: the Trade Facilitation Agreement which meant each member nation would drastically cut its ports and customs procedures to help ease global trade. <br /><br />In the bargain, India had managed to get what is known as a ‘Peace Clause’ on the issue of public stock holding of food grains by agencies like Food Corporation of India. It meant that until a permanent solution was found, no country in the WTO could challenge India or any other developing nation for stocking food for its vulnerable people. <br /><br />But it was only a temporary solution at Bali. Any expectation of a permanent solution to India’s advantage at Nairobi has been belied even as the existing ‘Peace Clause’ arrangement continues. <br /><br />Another area where India could win only half the battle related to continuation of the Doha Development Round which has uplift of the developing nations at its core. In the ‘Nairobi Package‘, a clear division is reflected as issues of interest to the rich like e-commerce, environment and labour are sought to be brought in the agenda.<br /><br /> Overall, the Nairobi Package is no great package for India while damage is limited too.</p>
<p>With the conclusion of the 10th Ministerial Conference of the World Trade Organisation, the moot point is: What did India get out of it? Negotiations at the WTO involve some real hard bargains and no deal can ever be reached without ‘give and take’. <br /><br /></p>.<p>There is a need to measure in a dispassionate manner whether India got the balance right at the Nairobi WTO Ministerial in so far as this ‘give and take’ is concerned. Did we ‘give’ more without the commensurate ‘take?’. <br /><br /> Ironically, India, which used to dominate the multilateral trade talks on previous occasions, notably at Doha followed by Cancun and Hong Kong, seemed to have run out of solid partners at Nairobi excepting G33 grouping, to exert a kind of counter pressure to stand up to the rich nations, led by the US and European Union.<br /><br />Brazil, for instance, despite its contrarian interests, always used to be a part of a formidable combination comprising India, South Arica and China for taking on the hegemony of the developed countries.<br /><br /> But in Nairobi, Brazil pushed aggressively for a deal on export competition under which export subsidies, including the ones for transport and marketing, will have to end in stages. <br /><br />Under the impending dispensation, India will not be able to support farm produce like onion, sugar etc. for exports even in the seasons of glut. Incidentally, Brazil has been at the forefront of dragging India to WTO along with Australia on subsidies for sugar.<br /><br />In the previous Bali Ministerial Conference, the developed world got what it wanted most: the Trade Facilitation Agreement which meant each member nation would drastically cut its ports and customs procedures to help ease global trade. <br /><br />In the bargain, India had managed to get what is known as a ‘Peace Clause’ on the issue of public stock holding of food grains by agencies like Food Corporation of India. It meant that until a permanent solution was found, no country in the WTO could challenge India or any other developing nation for stocking food for its vulnerable people. <br /><br />But it was only a temporary solution at Bali. Any expectation of a permanent solution to India’s advantage at Nairobi has been belied even as the existing ‘Peace Clause’ arrangement continues. <br /><br />Another area where India could win only half the battle related to continuation of the Doha Development Round which has uplift of the developing nations at its core. In the ‘Nairobi Package‘, a clear division is reflected as issues of interest to the rich like e-commerce, environment and labour are sought to be brought in the agenda.<br /><br /> Overall, the Nairobi Package is no great package for India while damage is limited too.</p>
