FW: New Delhi - 3rd Sept: Join Protest March from Mandi House against WTO Ministerial
mani candan
From: Afsar H. Jafri <a.j...@focusweb.org>
Date: Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 4:53 PM
Subject: {Forum on FTAs} FW: New Delhi - 3rd Sept: Join Protest March from Mandi House against WTO Ministerial
To: forum-...@googlegroups.com, WTO-INTL <WTO-...@listserver.citizen.org>, OWIN...@listserver.citizen.org
Cc: focus-trade-team <focus-tr...@focusweb.org>, FIP Team Team <fips...@lists.riseup.net>
From: wto virodhi [mailto:wto.v...@gmail.com]
Sent: 29 August 2009 16:50
To: manjus...@gmail.com
Subject: New Delhi - 3rd Sept: Join Protest March from Mandi House
against WTO Ministerial
WTO WIRODHI BHARATIYA JAN ABHIYAN
Indian Peoples Campaign Against WTO (IPCAWTO)
JOIN PROTEST MARCH FROM MANDI HOUSE TO PARLIAMENT STREET
ON 3RD SEPTEMBER 2009
AGAINST WTO MINISTERIAL MEETING IN NEW DELHI
ASSEMBLE AT MANDI HOUSE AT 10.30 A.M.
Friends,
The Doha Round of negotiations which was dormant for about a year is now being revived at the initiative of the Indian Commerce Minister whose objective is to “break the deadlock” in the process. A ministerial meeting to which some 35 countries have been invited is scheduled for 3-4 September 2009 in New Delhi.
The Indian initiative in this regard is, to say the least, intriguing. The so-called “deadlock” in the Doha Round was cited in official circles, only a year ago, as the proof of a strong pro-farmer stance of the then Indian Commerce Minister. It was argued that the negotiations got deadlocked mainly because the minimum safeguards insisted upon by the Indian Commerce Minister for protecting the livelihood of millions of Indian farmers against the unfair competition from subsidized cheap imports from developed countries were not acceptable to the developed countries, particularly USA.
Not an iota of evidence is available to indicate that developed agriculture exporting countries, particularly USA, have since relaxed their stance to accommodate the Indian concerns. The initiative to “break the deadlock” is thus likely to boomerang. The New Delhi ministerial meeting may well turn out to be the preparation of the ground for substantial dilution of the official Indian stand in vital areas of negotiations.
IPCAWTO have consistently pressed for a strong negotiating stance, particularly in the areas of agriculture, non-agricultural market access (NAMA), intellectual property rights and services. Unfortunately the Indian position not only got diluted in the crucial areas as the negotiations progressed but India also veered away from the solidarity of the South on more than one crucial occasions.
IPCAWTO had pointed out a year ago how the “big picture” as it emerged in the middle of 2008 was definitely tilted against the interests of developing countries in general and India in particular. Since then, the WTO bureaucracy led by its director general has worked hard only to make things somewhat worse than they were. To recapitulate the state of play in the Doha Round:
In Agriculture
Ø The fundamental imbalance persists which, requires developing countries to reduce their tariffs on agricultural products by 36 percent as against the developed countries obligation to reduce them by 54 percent only, from their very high levels (some ranging as high as 700% or even more).
Ø The possible level to which USA may agree to "bring down" the narrowly defined trade distorting domestic support has been indicated at $14.5 billion. But the actual current level of such subsidies was only around $8 billion in 2007, meaning that USA can increase the actual level of subsidies in future. Worse, this “reduction” will not at all affect the burgeoning subsidies under the so-called “green box” (estimated currently at $50 billion) which constitute the bulk of the total subsidy bill of USA and which are outside the range of reduction.
Ø India (like a large number of developing countries forming G-33 led by Indonesia) has basically protective or defensive interest in these negotiations. We missed the bus by not insisting on ensuring the right to impose quantitative restrictions on imports to safeguard the livelihood of millions of small and marginal peasants. We placed our trust in the proposed instrumentalities of Special Products and Special Safeguard Mechanism. We have 715 tariff lines in agriculture. We wanted 215 tariff lines to be treated as Special Products; now the text implies that we would get only 86 tariff lines, of which only 36 lines would be subject to no tariff cut and 50 lines subject to a tariff cut of 19 percent. Considering vast multiplicity of our agricultural product range, its regional variety and the crucial importance of these products for livelihood, the range of protection available is too narrow and too weak.
Ø As regards Special Safeguard Mechanism, the criteria in the text for the price- based measures are too restrictive and ineffectual. Thus, the provision to impose additional duty to protect indigenous peasantry from sharp decline in international prices and consequent surge or threat of surge of imports can be invoked only if the import price declines to or below the designated "trigger price" which the text suggests to be 70 percent of the average import price of the preceding three years. The additional duty to be so levied cannot exceed 50 percent of the difference between the actual import price and the trigger price.
Ø All in all, the protection regime visualized in the text is too limited and ineffectual to protect the livelihood of millions of small and marginal farmers against the surge or threat of surge of cheap imports of products the bulk of which would continue to be heavily subsidized.
Ø The logic of integration of Indian peasant agriculture with the global agri-business dominated agriculture is deeply flawed and fraught with incalculably dangerous consequences. The free trade agreement with the ASEAN has evoked spontaneous resistance in Kerala and other states where the livelihood of small peasantry dependent on plantation crops is threatened. We are witnessing a severe countrywide drought, which is already threatening the livelihood of millions of small and marginal peasants. It would be nothing short of suicidal to aggravate such disastrous situations today or in future by accepting or preparing the ground for a trade policy that poses a systemic threat to the livelihood of our peasantry.
In Non-agricultural Market Access (NAMA)
Ø The tilt against the developing countries here is even more blatant. The universal binding of tariffs, the line-by-line tariff cutting instead of the average reduction target (which was the rule in all the previous rounds), and more than proportionate reduction in the tariffs of developing countries under the “Swiss Formula” continue to govern the approach in the latest text.
Ø Our current level of applied tariff is, on average, 10 percent, and the bound level average is 34 percent. The cut, which the Swiss formula would entail, will require drastic reduction of bound level of tariff. Higher the coefficients for cuts, the lower is the number of lines that can be protected from the formula cut. Assuming that India accepts the median coefficient of 22, we would be obliged to reduce tariff by about 60 percent with only 10 percent of tariff lines open for less than formula cut. If this is accepted, the door to de-industrialisation will be wide open.
Ø We are experiencing a severe contraction of exports, particularly in the labour- intensive sectors of textiles and garments, leather and leather goods, gems and jewellery, handicrafts. Large-scale lay-offs are taking place. Of late, industrial sector had witnessed stagnation or very low growth. Employment is not keeping pace with the additions to labour force, not to speak of the vast backlog of under and unemployment. In such a situation, it would be nothing short of courting a disaster to open doors to de-industrialisation through trade policies imposed by lopsided and unequal negotiations.
In Services
Developed countries are keen to give a push to the negotiations in the area of Services to obtain new commitments. They are building up pressures to integrate particularly the financial services markets with the global market. This has a sinister implication at the present times. The “toxic waste” of the financial services market, which brought the global financial crisis and recession, needs to be dumped somewhere. And the burgeoning financial services sector in emerging economies like ours would be a good destination. The US would, therefore, knowingly enhance their pressure in this regard. Besides opening up of insurance and banking, pressure is likely to be built on India to allow FDI in areas like retail trade, higher education etc.
In TRIPS
When the Doha Round was launched, developing countries including India had emphasized the importance of introducing into the TRIPs Agreement a mandatory requirement for the disclosure of origin of biological resources and/or associated traditional knowledge used in inventions for which property rights are applied for. Although more than two years have elapsed after the text was proposed for negotiations, there has been no progress whatsoever. The latest twist is that India is reportedly diluting its position in this regard and is ready to accept that the observance of the proposed amendment be only voluntary and not mandatory. Thus a priority area of high importance for developing countries will very likely go by default or lose its steam altogether.
Resist the Sinister Compromise
The current initiative of the Indian Commerce Minister took shape after his visit to Washington and his confabulations with the director general of WTO. However, his keenness to kick-start the Doha Round negotiations are not in India’s interest and we have much more to lose than gain in these negotiations. It is clear that this is an outcome of the deepening strategic relations between India and the US, which is inimical to our national interest. The ministerial meeting in New Delhi on 3-4 September 2009 is the first step towards the formal ministerial meeting of all country members of WTO, scheduled to be held in Geneva in November-December 2009. The compromises struck in New Delhi will be formalised in Geneva.
IPCAWTO appeals to the India peasantry, the workers, the craftsmen, all patriotic elements and particularly the youth, committed to self-reliant, just, prosperous and egalitarian India, to join the campaign to not only thwart the present initiative to revive the WTO negotiations but also to compel the Indian Government to thoroughly reorient its stand in international negotiations so that it fully accords with the interest of working people.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
S. P. Shukla
Indian People’s Campaign Against WTO
C/o, The Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA);
E-1, 2nd Floor, Green Park Extension,
New Delhi – 110 016, INDIA
Email: manjus...@gmail.com;
wto.v...@gmail.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--
Manicandan
Programme Officer, Trade and Labour Rights
Centre for Education and Communication
173-A Khirki Village, Malviya Nagar,
New Delhi - 110017
Phone: 00 91 11 29541858 / 29542473 / 29543084 / 29545442
Fax: 00 91 29542464/29545442
Cell Phone: 09868319261
Website: www.cec-india.org