Reactions to Manmohan Singh’s choice for Commerce Minister: Anand Sharma
Anand Sharma is India’s new Commerce minister. How is this news being received?
Former commerce minister Kamal Nath will head the much sought after road transport and highways ministry in place of the DMK’s TR Baalu. Kamal Nath had made no secret of his desire to move out of commerce to a ministry with strong domestic content.
This infrastructure ministry forms a key part of the prime minister’s strategy to revive the economy. Under Baalu, road development did not make good progress and the prime minister wants to reverse this.Singh, however, surprised many with his choice of Sharma as the new minister for commerce. It is a huge elevation for Sharma, who was only one of two ministers of state in the external affairs ministry earlier. Jyotiraditya Scindia is the minister of state for commerce.
Swapan Dasgupta in a CNN-IBN debate:
Political heavyweights have been inducted in infrastructure and social sector, is that the tone of the governance that we will see in this new Government?
“That is difficult to say but the move of Kamal Nath away from Commerce is very interesting. He in fact did not want Road Transport and Highways, he wanted a bigger portfolio. But the fact is that he has got an important ministry which is about infrastructure. The point is that in Commerce we have Anand Sharma and there might have to be adjustments made with WTO in the international scale and that could be one of the reasons,” Adhikari said.
Is that a possible climbdown by the new Government?
“India has taken certain positions which are completely at odds with the US. Now the WTO position was equated with Kamal Nath. He was standing up to American protectionism. So it will be interesting to see what stand the Government will take,” Dasgupta said.
The Economic Times:
Commerce ministry, under Anand Sharma, has been entrusted with the task of taking urgent steps to boost exports. The minister has the dual task of giving suggestions to the finance ministry for budget formulation as well as finalising the foreign trade policy for 2009-10, a senior official in the ministry said.
The free trade agreements with Asean and South Korea are also waiting for final touches to be given by Mr Sharma, he added.
Speaking to ET, Mr Sharma said; “I am humbled by this responsibility that is entrusted upon me at this critical juncture when globally commerce and industry is challenged by the ongoing downturn.”
He also hinted that India will remain aggressive at multilateral trade negotiations. “I will look at all possible measures to ensure and enhance our commercial engagements with the world and contribute in creating a global economy which will be more trusting and not creating protectionist barriers,” he said.
NEW DELHI: It was at 9.30pm on Thursday that news finally came – the portfolios were out. At first look it seemed along expected lines, but then a few surprises surfaced: there was a new commerce minister in Anand Sharma with the previous one, Kamal Nath, being moved to surface transport. …
The delay in announcing portfolios betrayed that allocation of jobs wasn’t easy. As Sonia Gandhi said, it was a balancing act. Political considerations had to be married with merit to create a team that will deliver. And as Manmohan Singh said, people expected efficiency from the government; “business as usual” would not do.
Will the team deliver? Well, here are its key players. For a government for which rural upliftment is a stated priority, the man on the spot is newcomer C P Joshi who has been given the rural development ministry. Another priority, infrastructure, has the effective Kamal Nath in charge of surface transport (although there were whispers about him being being removed from “glamorous” commerce), and Sushil K Shinde as power minister.
…If Anand Sharma looked pleased after his elevation as cabinet minister, being named commerce and industry ministry should make him beam. He is now in the big league. Perhaps a background in international law and diplomacy weighed in his favour for a ministry where global trade talks are among top concerns.
…Jairam Ramesh, the man behind Congress’s poll campaign, is expected to play a crucial role as environment minister as important negotiations on global warming are on the agenda later this year.
…
Industry reactions as quoted in the Economic Times:
India Inc hails PM’s ministerial team
28 May 2009, 2300 hrs IST, PTINEW DELHI: India Inc on Thursday welcomed Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s new ministerial team and expressed hope that they will live up to the expectations.
“People and industry have great aspirations … We hope this team will work committedly to come up with their expectations,” Assocham Secretary General D S Rawat said.
Ficci Secretary General Amit Mitra said, “It is a team of experience, excellency and balance.”
Commenting on the new Commerce and Industry Minister Anand Sharma, Mitra said he has good international networks which will help him in dealing with the critical and important issues of the World Trade Organisation.
“He will make an excellent negotiation as he has great diplomatic experience at the global level,” Mitra added.
Confederation Of Indian Industry (CII) said: “There is a shuffle which is fine as we have worked with them earlier and looking forward to closely work with them. We are happy to see the portfolio distribution.”
“Kamal Nath is known to be a person of great skills … there are great expectations from him … highways development should be highest priority for the economy,” CII Director General Chandrajit Banerjee said.
Nath, who was previously the Commerce and Industry Minister will now hold Road Transport and Highways portfolio.
Sharma, who was the junior foreign minister in the previous government and has his roots in youth politics, has little experience of economic portfolios and is likely to toe the line set by his reformist boss, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.
Sharma is an articulate speaker and defended a controversial nuclear deal with the United States in parliament last year.
India is a leading negotiator for emerging nations in the struggling Doha round of talks, and its efforts to protect poor farmers have been one of the stumbling blocks to an agreement.
Sharma is unlikely to soften India’s pro-farmer stand at the talks but could be flexible in giving market access in other sectors, analysts said.
While the global financial crisis may have made market reforms unfashionable, it is the ruling Congress party itself that may prove a bigger obstacle to deep change.
Congress won the election not only because of four years of rapid growth but also because of a pro-farm policy that may make it difficult for the government to make a radical shift in its position at the Doha talks.
India expects the next round of negotiations at the World Trade Organisation (WTO) to start in January or February 2010.
The appointment of Kamal Nath, who is seen as pro-business, as road transport and highways minister signals the government’s intention to speed up the implementation of infrastructure projects which had slowed under the previous government.
Kamal Nath might not be commerce minister
Moneycontrol is quoting CNBC-TV18:
Will Kamal Nath get Commerce Ministry this time?
Published on Wed, May 27, 2009 at 20:48 , Updated at Wed, May 27, 2009 at 21:51
Source : CNBC-TV18Kamal Nath has been a high profile minister of Commerce and Industry, and has made a name for himself as a tough trade negotiator. But he may not return to Udyog Bhavan. CNBC-TV18‘s Economic Policy Editor Vivian Fernandes reports.
Here is a verbatim transcript of Vivian Fernandes’ comments on CNBC-TV18. Also watch the accompanying video.
We do not know where the previous Commerce Minister Kamal Nath is going but we know where he is not going. He is not going to be in Udyog Bhavan. Now Kamal Nath had made a name for himself as a tough trade negotiator. The WTO talks broke down in Geneva last July because of the tough stand he had taken to protect Indian farmers and there is a feeling that India might have to make a climb-down and Kamal Nath would not like to be that person. But more than that I think Kamal Nath is a mass leader, he would like to be recognized as a politician of consequence which is why he wants a large domestic footprint.
There was talk of the industry portfolio being carved out as a separate ministry with additional charge of small and medium enterprises and heavy industry portfolio being added to it but such a minister sounds large but it is not weighty enough. So I think Kamal Nath wanted the Rural Development Ministry but we understand that, that is going to go to CP Joshi who is the Congress President in Rajasthan.
The other ministry that Kamal Nath fancied was the Infrastructure Ministry where there is a lot of broken things to be mended, for example, surface transport or even power and he would not be averse to the idea of being HRD Minister as well.
But I spoke to him, and he played his cards very close to his chest. He said that he would be comfortable with whatever Sonia Gandhi and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh deemed suitable for him.
Kamal Nath on Doha round prospects, Indian reforms, export stimulus measures and more …
We still don’t know who will be given charge of India’s commerce ministry, but this announcement can be expected by Tuesday. My sense is that Mr Kamal Nath himself is keen on continuing as Commerce minister and conclude the unfinished Doha round as well as FDI and other industrial sector reforms.
In an interview to CNN-IBN (see the text here) Mr. Nath spoke about the prospects of the Doha round:
Rajdeep Sardesai: Between 2004-09, Kamal Nath came to be identified with the World Trade Organisation (WTO) talks. Do you believe that with this clear mandate you will have a freer hand in the sense negotiating at the WTO you should be the commerce minister. Do you see a quick completion of the Doha round?
Kamal Nath: I think India needs to have a rule based multilateral system, we have a big stake in that. But today I think the Western countries who are bigger proponents of this are the ones getting cold feet and not India.
Rajdeep Sardesai: Yes, exactly that is why the US democratic administration seems protectionist.
Kamal Nath: That is what I am saying, they are getting cold feet not us.
On FDI:
Rajdeep Sardesai: Just before the elections, you had amended the Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) policy through a press note. Now investments made by a company registered in India in which a foreign company has a less than 50 per cent stake will not be considered as FDI. Some believe this has allowed foreign companies to breach sectoral limits, was this the objective to open up?
Kamal Nath: When we have a global recession, we have to make India a good investment destination. I want to separate ownership and control and this seeks to do that and get more investment.
On FDI in retail:
Rajdeep Sardesai: In your first tenure, between 2004-09 there was this ghost of Left which was always haunting you. This time it doesn’t even exist, will there be FDI in the multi-sector retailing or do you believe that this might affect the kiranewalla (small grocery shop) and that might be a concern that your fellow Cabinet Ministers will against you?
Kamal Nath: It is not FDI, it is big versus small and if it is big you can have a multi-brand Indian company, you have Reliance, ITC etc.
Rajdeep Sardesai: Will you allow FDI?
Kamal Nath: No, I am not talking about retail. As long as FDI doesn’t displace existing employment it is good but talking about the retail sector it is a very grey area.
Rajdeep Sardesai: You see it as a grey area, I thought at one point of time you believed that it would help Indian agriculture.
Kamal Nath: No, we cannot generalise on retail. Retail is not cement and motor, it is technology. If we can have access to retail technology and in fact we must not be looking at man at the moment, we must be looking for the niece and the son and the daughter. And that is the key thing to look at.
On liberalisation (FDI) in education:
Rajdeep Sardesai: The Commerce Ministry had also been wanting to liberalise high education but the HRD Ministry previously under Arjun Singh was not helpful. He is no more there but the fact is that will it happen now?
Kamal Nath: I can’t say that this will happen, I can only say that we have to ensure that our youngsters have the access to the best education in India. Why are we sending thousands of youngsters abroad, why can’t they stay here and study at a fraction of the cost?
On the need for export stimulus measures:
Rajdeep Sardesai: Exports, a critical area again. The export sector has been badly hit by recession. Your (Commerce) ministry had proposed a one year exemption in the payment of the fringe tax to these export oriented companies. Will we see that?
Kamal Nath: Exemption is about competitiveness and cost. Today, if the economy is in recession we can’t plan a package for Europe or the US. We are going to ensure that all levies and taxes are refunded and are not there for export.
Rajdeep Sardesai: But the aam aadmi is the one who is being hit. Do you think the time has come for a comprehensive package for the export sector?
Kamal Nath: There is a need for a comprehensive package to refund taxes, levies on anything that is being exported. Today you go anywhere in the world and you buy something from a shop, you refund immediately. So, you must have all taxes and levies because no taxes and levies are exported.
On differences between the Commerce and the Finance ministeries (in the previous administration the Commerce and Finance ministries had differed over SEZs and over sops for exporters):
Rajdeep Sardesai: Last time there was a feeling that the Commerce Ministry and the Finance Ministry were not on the same track. Will it be different this time with Pranab Mukherjee as the Finance Minister?
Kamal Nath: Well, I think the job of the Finance Ministry is to collect the revenue and see that they do resource management so any Finance Ministry would do that. But you need to weigh it off, you may not export and you may be having an economic impact because of that.
On financial sector liberalisation:
Rajdeep Sardesai: The new Government this time is largely free of the pressures of allies and therefore you will expected to push it with reforms. Last time, every time you were asked about reform you said look my hands are tide. Your hands are no longer tide, will it be different this time?
Kamal Nath: Let’s not say that there were no reforms in the last government. There were reforms in the financial sector which we didn’t do but let us recognise this. We should remember that the reforms that were asked by those financial icons of the Western world, the ones which were wound up.
Rajdeep Sardesai: So, are you among those who think that it is good to be cautious about financial sector liberalisation?
Kamal Nath: No, it depends which reforms we are talking about. We are looking at the reforms which are India specific; we can’t be talking about reforms all over the world. Today the most important reform is the reform in the governance. Reform in our Labour Act, the labour laws must be made employment generating.
On labour law reforms:
Rajdeep Sardesai: So, you would support reforms in labour laws which allow companies to hire and fire easily?
Kamal Nath: We must recognise this that for example if a textile company wants to hire some people to complete an order in four months but they can’t take that order because he can’t hire them for four months. So at that point of time, we are losing on that amount of employment.
Rajdeep Sardesai: But will the politicians allow this kind of labour laws reform? The problem is this is where the politics seem to clash with good economics.
Kamal Nath: No, I am all for the reform in labour laws which generate employment, provide employment security. We have to have this because employment generation is our No 1 priority with the young population.
On Special Economic Zones:
Rajdeep Sardesai: But let’s look at land because there has been controversy over Kamal Nath’s policies as commerce minister when it came to the Economic Zones. You were looked at someone who was liberally granting Special Economic Zones (SEZs), some suggested that it was little more than a land scam. And now you have got Mamata Banerjee who after Nandigram and Singur is going to get tough with any attempts made to liberalise land acquisitions.
Kamal Nath: Let us not talk in the abstract. There are SEZs today on the ground, you can measure easily how much investment is coming to the nearest rupee. We can measure how much employment has been generated, how much export has happened so all that are stories of the past. There are concerns in high density states.
Rajdeep Sardesai: But after Singur and Nandigram, won’t there be pressure to sort of modify your land acquisition policies, your own minister will suggest that.
Kamal Nath: I am all for that and that is what I am suggesting that there was a Cabinet committee, there was a group of ministers selected for that. That has moved the new land acquisition rehabilitation suggestive policy and that parliament had approved that and now this Parliament will take it up.
The videos of this interview (in 5 parts) can be watched here.
Who will be India’s new commerce minister?
With Dr. Manmohan Singh’s new cabinet due to be sworn in tomorrow, speculation is on about who will get which ministry portfolio. Readers of this blog would be interested in whether Kamal Nath will continue as Commerce minister. The Commerce minister is responsible for India’s WTO and other trade negotiations.
Until yesterday, the buzz was that Mr. Nath might be promoted to external affairs minister, leaving the commerce ministry for someone else. One name being mentioned was that of Mr. Jairam Ramesh who was the junior minister for commerce under Kamal Nath.
Todays papers however seem to indicate that Mr Nath might continue with commerce and that Mr. Ramesh might become power minister.
The Hindu reports:
The Commerce Ministry is to be restructured but could well still be headed by Kamal Nath.
This is interesting news. How will the commerce ministry get restructured?
Meanwhile the Times of India expresses the hope that freed from the demands of the left parties, the new administration might pursue a “more reasonable line” in the Doha negotiations. An extract:
With trade, India adopted the spoiler’s role at World Trade Organisation conferences, playing the victim of rapacious developed countries. The rhetoric employed was from another era, when India played a prominent role in the Group of 77, the commercial foil of the Non-aligned Movement. Without the Left calling the shots, its acolytes in the Congress-led ruling coalition will find themselves adrift. It is likely that India will pursue a more reasonable line.
This is what Kamal Nath told the Washington Post:
“We now have the mandate for a renewed push for economic reforms,” said Kamal Nath, a senior leader of the Congress party who served as commerce minister in the previous government. “We have to open up more and take some hard steps to spur the economy because of the global recession.”
Meanwhile the Economic Times carries an article on how the Commerce ministry bureaucrats are preparing for the new minister to take charge. This is one very enthusiastic ministry. Here is the report in full:
Commerce babus just can’t wait to revive work
21 May 2009, 0236 hrs IST, Amiti Sen, ET BureauNEW DELHI: Though the last word on Kamal Nath retaining his commerce and industry portfolio is still to be heard, it seems that the bureaucracy has got down to business.
Commerce department officials are giving finishing touches to presentations on issues ranging from falling trade to the stimulus packages to the annual foreign trade policy to India’s WTO stand to free trade agreements (FTAs). The aim is to give the new minister a fair idea of the happenings in the department and the road ahead, a senior commerce ministry official said.
“All officials dealing with various issues falling under the purview of the commerce department had been asked to bring out capsules on what has been happening in various sectors and what remains to be done. The work is almost finished,” the official who did not want to be named said.
With exports falling for seven straight months and the situation not expected to improve till September, some quick decisions are called for by the new government.
“The situation is grave. We have ensured that the new minister will be updated on the global economic situation and the effect on domestic business without any loss of time, this will also enable the new minister to come up with an effective foreign trade policy,” the official added.
Issues like extension of the interest rate subvention or discount given to exporters from select labour-intensive sectors beyond September 30 and continuation of the higher reimbursements given to exporters under the DEPB (import duty reimbursement) scheme beyond June 30 need to be decided. The government also needs to take a call on whether more sectors and countries need to be covered under the focus-product and focus-market schemes, where cash incentives are given to exporters.
On the overseas front, there are two bilateral agreements that are waiting to be signed. Signing of the FTA with ten-member ASEAN, which had been pushed by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, is long overdue. The FTA with South Korea too needs to be signed without delay.
Special economic zones (SEZs) is another area that needs immediate attention. With the slowdown hitting SEZ investments, investors who have asked for more time to execute projects need to be dealt with sympathetically. There is also a need to settle issues such as giving infrastructure status to the zones.
Some international relations & political science research on India in the WTO
See:
Gupta, Surupa. "Developing Country Interests and Coalitions-Building at WTO Negotiations: Some Lessons from India’s Experience" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, Le Centre Sheraton Hotel, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, Mar 19, 2004 Online <.PDF>. 2009-04-17 <http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p73469_index.html>
Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Despite recurrent last minute defections, developing countries such as India continue to rely on forming coalitions with other like-minded countries during multilateral trade negotiations. This paper seeks to explain why they do so and to assess the extent to which such a strategy brings benefits by looking at India’s experiences during 1995-2001. It argues that in India’s case coalition formation should be seen within the context of India’s search for a new strategy for multilateral trade negotiation after the conclusion of the Uruguay Round. The impetus for the new strategy came from the perceived “selling-out” of India’s interests during the Uruguay Round. That experience also generated a negative perception in India about the World Trade Organization, a perception that was further strengthened as its agenda was sought to be expanded by the United States and the European Union beginning in 1995-96. The attempt at enlarging the agenda also strained the meager negotiating resources that India had at the time. On each of the new issues that were proposed, India’s position was farthest from that of the US and the EU. It was obvious that India would have to work hard to protect its interests and in the absence of adequate resources of its own, working in coalitions turned out to be an obvious choice. The strategy has allowed India to have a much larger voice in these negotiations than what we would expect looking at its global trade share. In the area of furthering Indian interests, the success of the strategy has been more modest. .
Friesen, Kenneth. "Understanding Globalization in India: A Flattened or a Layered World?" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association 48th Annual Convention, Hilton Chicago, CHICAGO, IL, USA, Feb 28, 2007 Online <APPLICATION/PDF>. 2009-04-17 <http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p180435_index.html>
Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Understanding the nature of globalization in India is more than just understanding an
economic definition of poverty – it includes an understanding of the culture and history of
India and ways in which globalization means adding layers of complexity within India, not
simply replacing one India (traditional) with another (modern). This paper situates the
economic liberalization policies of the Indian government from the early 1990s to the
present in the context of the larger globalization debate. The paper then puts the context
around which the economic reforms were taken within India’s recent development history.
After understanding this greater context the paper reviews several recent studies that have
examined whether the economic growth in India has come at the expense of growing
inequality.
Gupta, Surupa. "Protecting the half-billion: Domestic and international determinants of India’s agricultural trade policy at the WTO negotiations" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Political Research Online, Town & Country Resort and Convention Center, San Diego, California, USA, Mar 22, 2006 <Not Available>. 2009-04-17 <http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p99692_index.html>
Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Although economists have argued that India has a comparative advantage in several farm products, India’s position in the WTO negotiations in agriculture has been primarily defensive. This paper explains India’s defensive posture by tracing it to a new consultative mechanism for decision-making on WTO issues that explicitly recognizes the role of the agriculture ministry in agenda-setting. India’s definition of its core interests and its ability to maintain its defensive position have also been shaped by the multilateral trade regime itself and by the changing coalitions within it.
Sinha, Aseema. "Global Linkages and Domestic Politics: Trade Reform and Institution Building in India in Comparative Perspective" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Political Research Online, Town & Country Resort and Convention Center, San Diego, California, USA, Mar 22, 2006 <Not Available>. 2009-04-17 <http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p99690_index.html>
Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: This paper examines how the World Trade Organization (WTO) affects institutional development and policy responses in India. India is a country traditionally resistant to external pressures but in which participation in an international organization stimulated a transformation in trade policy processes and procedures, unleashed a new bureaucratic politics, institutional innovation, and activation of policy-expert linkages. I argue that we go beyond zero-sum assumptions in understanding the relationship between globalization and national state institutions. Key rules of international organizations increase transaction and sovereignty costs for states, which may catalyze new domestic capacities and create the impetus for new governance mechanisms. I demonstrate this argument with an analysis of India’s engagement with the WTO and with illustrative evidence of China, Brazil, Japan, and United States’s interaction with the WTO. The evidence is drawn from 18 month fieldwork in India, Washington DC, and Geneva, a newspaper database, and reliance on 100 interviews. [149 words]
Gupta, Surupa. "Tying Hands and Cutting Slack: Comparing India?s Negotiating Positions in Agriculture and Services using the Two-Level Game Framework" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Political Research Online, Hilton Chicago, CHICAGO, IL, USA, Feb 28, 2007 <Not Available>. 2009-04-17 <http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p180085_index.html>
Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: How states behave in the context of a negotiation can best be understood within a domestic-international framework such as two-level game which focuses on international and domestic-level inputs simultaneously and attempts to understand the strategic interaction between them. However, the literature on two-level games, with some exceptions, focuses primarily on bilateral negotiations between developed states. Studying developing country responses in the context of multilateral negotiations requires us to both modify certain assumptions and question some of the conclusions. The existing literature looks at cases where the negotiations are initiated by the executives of states engaged in the negotiations and thus assumes that at least at the agenda-setting phase, the executive has substantial autonomy. This paper, which compares the processes through which India?s negotiating agenda on agriculture and services were arrived at, focuses on negotiations, which were not initiated by the Indian executive but were mandated by the WTO. The very fact that the executive is responding to an international regime stirs up domestic political actors, including but not restricted to specific interest groups whose interests may be affected. India?s negotiating agenda in the two sectors were thus shaped simultaneously by international political and economic factors as well as domestic politics within India. Contrary to the literature?s finding that the executives prefer not to tie their hands, the Indian government made an explicit attempt to involve relevant stakeholders. The paper analyzes how such domestic-international interactions and the executive?s attempt at involving stakeholders have shaped India?s negotiating response and in process, suggests modifications in the two-level game framework.
Campos, Taiane. "Joining the Domestic and the International: Brazil and India in the Building Process of G-20" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Political Research Online, Hilton San Francisco, SAN FRANCISCO, CA, USA, Mar 26, 2008 <Not Available>. 2009-04-17 <http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p253569_index.html>
Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: The aim of this paper is to analyze the factors that determined the position of Brazil and India in the G-20 formation. In order to do so, it will be analyzed a set of factors that determined the size of the win set of both countries. The focus lays on domestic political institutions as well as on the negotiation strategies of both countries in G-20. To be able to understand the G-20, we have to consider the diversity of the economic, social and political conditions that characterizes its members and, consequently, their interests. The Brazilian and Indian positions deserve special attention either because of their political performance as interlocutors of the group or because of their difference of interests in agricultural agenda in WTO.The initial supposition is that these two countries have divergent interests on the negotiation process of agricultural trade. It would be reasonable to think that India would automatically align with USA and EU in defending mechanisms to protect this sector, which would place India in an opposite side from Brazil. However, what we see is an alignment between them and the formation of a coalition against those other proposals. The question which guides this research concerns the factors that made possible the formation and maintenance of G-20 despite the apparent conflict of interest between Brazil and India. This research is structured within an analytical framework that seeks to combine the domestic and international factors in the understanding process of formal and informal international agreements structuring.
Mukherji, Rahul. "The Politics of the Shift to Foreign Investment Friendly Regulation: The Case of Indian Telecommunications" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Political Research Online, Hilton San Francisco, SAN FRANCISCO, CA, USA, Mar 26, 2008 <Not Available>. 2009-04-17 <http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p251887_index.html>
Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: This paper explores the political economy of three significant policy decisions taken by the Congress – United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government between November 2005 and February 2006, which have improved the incentives for foreign investment in India’s telecommunications sector. This was a notable departure from the past when policies had clearly favoured domestic investment over foreign investment. The paper argues that these decisions occurred due to the increasing sensitivity of the Department of Telecommunications (DOT) to the needs of the relatively smaller Indian service providers, who were dependent on foreign capital. They were not driven by a crisis of investment or foreign pressure to change policies in India’s telecommunications sector. The paper challenges explanations for embracing globalization such as those based on economic crisis or those based on a clear technocratic consensus. The political economy of this shift to foreign investment friendly regulations in the telecommunications sector suggests that economic reforms in India can occur in normal times. They depended to a large extent on the nature of the political economy that the ruling party was willing to support.
Moore, Candice. "Multilateralism and Trilateralism in the IBSA Partnership: Tensions and Congruities" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Political Research Online, Hilton San Francisco, SAN FRANCISCO, CA, USA, Mar 26, 2008 <Not Available>. 2009-04-17 <http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p251820_index.html>
Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: This paper seeks to examine the tensions between trilateralism and multilateralism in the IBSA partnership. While one of the stated goals of the partnership is multilateralism and the reform of the United Nations (IBSA Communique, 2005), the trilateral partnership that IBSA embodies appears antithetical to the representation of broader interests in each member’s region. This issue came to a head in the months preceding the debates on UN reform in September 2005, when India, Brazil and South Africa each voiced their interest in permanent representation on the UN Security Council, but failed to win the support of their regional neighbours. More recently, it is evident in the prominence of India and Brazil in exclusive trade talks with the EU and US to save the Doha Development Round. The paper draws on the middle power literature, which sees middle powers as committed to multilateralism, but problematises this commitment by considering the growing economic and strategic significance of these states. Trilateralism is not pursued to the exclusion of North-South links, as evidenced in Brazil’s and India’s increasing closeness to the US. It is thus not an alternative to robust North-South relations, as older forms of South-South solidarity (NAM and G-77) were portrayed. The paper concludes thus that the IBSA partnership is not a successor of older forms of South-South solidarity premised on multilateralism, but rather a vehicle for the development and increased levels of participation in international affairs of its three members.
Sinha, Aseema. "Change from Inside-Out or Outside-In? Trade Reform in India’s Closed Economy" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Political Research Online, Hilton San Francisco, SAN FRANCISCO, CA, USA, Mar 26, 2008 <Not Available>. 2009-04-17 <http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p253177_index.html>
Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: What makes trade reform possible in a traditionally closed economy? Economic reform and structural adjustment have been global movements for more than a decade by now, yet trade reform remains one of the most difficult arenas of policy change in many developing countries. The distributional politics of trade, and the rise of protectionist pressures in the advanced countries of the world, have contributed to a backlash against serious trade reform in many countries. Despite countervailing pressures in favor of rising protectionism, India’s trade regime has undergone serious reform in the last decade, encompassing policy changes, outcomes, and institutional changes. During these years a party espousing economic nationalism and fear of the open economy has ruled the country. This empirical puzzle forms the starting point of this paper. I ask: how has trade reform been consolidated in a traditionally closed economy like India? I argue that crucial domestic societal changes are a necessary precondition for changes in state’s attitudes; yet, external forces may change the preferences of domestic forces, as well as change the balance of power among interest groups. These, new coalitions in favor of greater global integration, come into contact with a activated state; these intra-group/intra-class factors combine with state-class transformations to effect change in trade orientation and reform turning toward a global openness. This paper, thus, highlights important mechanisms through which global trade integration and institutions shaped the domestic politics of trade. The international trade institutions not only constrain behavior of domestic actors, but also constitute interests and identities of key domestic actors. Moreover, participation in global trade negotiations changes the preferences of some producers, and strengthens the hands of recently created, externally oriented, domestic producers by bringing them closer to the national-state actors and by encouraging collaborative strategies between business and state actors.
Alden, Christopher. and Vieira, Marco. "The New Diplomacy of the South: Brazil, South Africa, India and Trilateralism" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Political Research Online, Hilton Hawaiian Village, Honolulu, Hawaii, Mar 05, 2005 <Not Available>. 2009-04-17 <http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p69301_index.html>
Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: The failure of the negotiations at the World Trade Organisation (WTO) ministerial in Cancun in September 2003 could well have marked a turning point in the emergence of a new post-Cold War paradigm. Indeed, while much has been made of the realist ‘world restored’ (or its converse) in the aftermath of 9/11, surely of greater significance is the reassertion of the South-North divide as a defining axis of the international system. In this context, the emergence of coterie of South countries actively challenging the position and assumptions of the leading states of the North is an especially significant event. What has been missing from most of the international accounts of the Cancun meeting and its repercussions is a recognition that the positions adopted there were part of a broader strategy formulated and implemented by key states within the South. This activism on the part of three middle income developing countries in particular – Brazil, South Africa and India – has resulted in the creation of a ‘trilateralist’ diplomatic partnership, itself a reflection of broader transformations across the developing world in the wake of globalisation. The establishment of this new diplomatic partnership of the South begs a number of questions about the states involved, the nature of their co-operation and its relationship to international system as a whole. Specifically: What are the motivations and dynamics of ‘trilateralist’ co-operation amongst these middle income developing states? What role does ideology play in this process? Given the uneven record of co-operation across the South and the growing economic diversity between developing countries, how sustainable is the ‘trilateralism’ initiative? This paper will examine the rise and promulgation of the co-operative strategy known as ‘trilateralism’ by regional leaders within the South. Specifically, it will first provide an overview of the theoretical approaches to the new regionalism and the South; secondly, it will review the domestic, regional, and international factors which have traditionally conditioned the foreign policies of Brazil, South Africa and India; thirdly it will investigate the formulation and implementation of ‘trilateralism’ as a initiative framed within the context of the new regionalism; and, finally, it will conclude with an analysis of the initiative’s prospects for success in the contemporary environment.
Kastner, Scott. "The Domestic Politics of Trade with Adversaries" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the ISA’s 49th ANNUAL CONVENTION, BRIDGING MULTIPLE DIVIDES, Hilton San Francisco, SAN FRANCISCO, CA, USA, Mar 26, 2008 Online <APPLICATION/PDF>. 2009-04-17 <http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p251262_index.html>
Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Many recent studies find that international political conflict—operationalized in a variety of ways—harms trade. Well-known cases help to underscore these general findings. For example, Cold War tensions helped to undermine East-West trade, and trade between India and Pakistan slowed sharply in the years after partition. On the other hand, however, trade between adversaries also appears to vary substantially across cases. Indeed, trade can sometimes flourish despite intense political rivalry. In the current relationship between mainland China and Taiwan, for example, China has become Taiwan’s largest trading partner despite persistent political tension across the Taiwan Strait.How can we explain variation in the extent to which states trade with their adversaries? Building on existing literature, I develop a framework through which to understand how domestic coalitions concerning trade with an adversary are likely to form. While some actors are likely to favor or oppose trade for purely economic reasons, those without a direct economic stake in the relationship are likely to focus more on the political and security consequences of trade with the adversary. In this framework, two variables emerge as central in determining a country’s trade policy with an adversary: the relative political strength of internationalist versus protectionist economic interests, and whether those concerned primarily with politics believe trade will have positive or negative political and security externalities. I use the framework to develop several testable hypotheses, and evaluate them via short case studies of three contemporary rivalries: China/Taiwan; India/Pakistan; and North Korea/South Korea
Campos, Taiane. and Las Casas, Luciana. "Similar roles, different strategies: Brazil, India and South Africa trade policies" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the ISA’s 50th ANNUAL CONVENTION "EXPLORING THE PAST, ANTICIPATING THE FUTURE", New York Marriott Marquis, NEW YORK CITY, NY, USA, Feb 15, 2009 Online <PDF>. 2009-04-17 <http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p313872_index.html>
Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: The trade policies of Brazil, India and South Africa have significant historical similarities: these countries are original WTO members; they adopted import-substitution industrialization; promoted neoliberal reforms; have been playing important roles in their regional contexts; and, more recently, they have also formed alliances and coalitions (IBSA, G20) in order to increase their capacity to influence the trade regime. At the same time, they are intensifying bilateral and regional ties which are different in scope and degrees of institutionalization. The result is that, despite of having similar roles which are derived from their status as middle powers, these three countries have developed different strategies concerning their trade policy. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to analyze comparatively the trade policies of Brazil, India and South Africa in the multilateral and regional environments. Our contention is that there are significant differences in their conduct on those two levels, in such a way that it is not possible to establish a fixed pattern of trade policy amongst middle powers, at least not amongst these three.
Sondhi, Sunil. "India’s big leap forward: Capacity and Preference" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, Hilton Hawaiian Village, Honolulu, Hawaii, Mar 05, 2005 Online <.PDF>. 2009-04-17 <http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p70644_index.html>
Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: India has changed dramatically in recent years. This paper examines India’s winning strategies-liberalization, a focus on high technology, and its resolve to become a regional leader- as well as its challenges- the wide gap between its urban and rural populations, growing unemploymeny, and the challenge posed by extremist ideologies and organisations. It also considers the effects that India’s success has had both at home and abroad. India’s progress has unnerved some of its neighbours and trading partners. South Asian countries worry about India’s economic dominance, in the US concern has been mounting over loss of jobs in the service sector. India has tried to soften its neighbours concerns by spearheading regional free trade zone. It continues to signal its desire to integrate into the world economy by pursuing liberalization and encouraging trade. It is argued in this paper that an economically strengthened India will increasingly regard itself as a great ppower and expect more deference from other countries. There is little doubt that India’s emergence as an economic power will rank as one of the principal issues confronting world leaders in next few decades and that its role demands careful analysis.
Pigman, Geoffrey. "Economic and Security Convergence: Governments and Firms in U.S.-India Diplomacy from Super 301 to the 2002 Kashmir Crisis" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, Le Centre Sheraton Hotel, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, Mar 17, 2004 Online <.PDF>. 2009-04-17 <http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p72364_index.html>
Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: U.S.-India economic relations evolved substantially between the 1989 Super 301 trade dispute and the 2002 India-Pakistan crisis over Kashmir. Traditional models of economic diplomacy focusing on the leading role of governments and their relevant ministries, in which business had a subordinate lobbying role in the decisionmaking process, could be used to describe the low-level U.S.-India economic and security relationship that prevailed in the 1980s. However, the conclusion of the GATT Uruguay Round, the technology boom of the 1990s and other structural factors have intensified the economic relationship between the two countries significantly. The attacks on New York, Washington and New Delhi in 2001 culminated a process of convergence of the two countries’ security interests. A complex network of diplomatic interactions between governments, U.S. and Indian global firms, and the U.S.-Indian business and cultural diaspora contributed to convincing the Indian Government to defuse tension with Pakistan in summer 2002. Understanding this process requires an updated model of economic diplomacy that incorporates the role of non-state actors, multiple channels of communication and integration of domestic and international politics. Neo-Gramscian notions of hegemonic power structures integrating political leadership, transnational capital and civil society contribute to explaining the exercise of power in these newer, complex business-government diplomatic networks
Brookes, Marissa. "Toward Transnationalism: Comparative Insights on Organized Labor’s Strategic Responses to Offshore Outsourcing in the Telecommunications Industry" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association 67th Annual National Conference, The Palmer House Hilton, Chicago, IL, <Not Available>. 2009-04-17 <http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p362173_index.html>
Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Why do some unions confront global capital through transnational action, while others act only nationally? I address this question through the lens of union responses to offshoring in the telecommunications industry in Australia, the US, and the UK. Union strategies vary both across and within these countries, despite their institutional similarities as liberal market economies. While some unions pursue solidaristic partnerships with their labor counterparts abroad, others restrict action to pressuring governments and mobilizing domestic coalitions. The joint project of the Communications Workers of America (U.S.) and the New Trade Union Initiative (India) contrasts sharply with the Communication Workers Union’s (UK) nationalist anti-offshoring campaign. Most other cases fall in between. For example, the Australian Services Union focuses on government action and consumer mobilization yet is actively involved in several Global Union Federations and international campaigns. I argue that this variation is due to three factors: the union’s ability to adjust to historical changes in the telecom industry; employers’ actions affecting unions’ mobilization of domestic coalitions; and the viability of potential labor partners abroad.
Mishra, Pramod. "China-India Bonhomie: A Harbinger of Multilateralism" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, Hilton Hawaiian Village, Honolulu, Hawaii, Mar 05, 2005 Online <.PDF>. 2009-04-17 <http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p69909_index.html>
Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: CHINA-INDIA BONHOMIE: AN HARBINGER OF MULTILATERALISM By Dr Pramod Mishra Associate Professor in Politics, University of Delhi, New Delhi, India China and India have emerged as important global players at the dawn of the twentieth century. The former by discarding its isolationism and closed-door policy in the early 1980s took a number of corrective measures under Deng Xiaping’s stewardship and integrated its economy to the developed western world. As a result of that by the mid-1990s, China achieved a high growth rate of 9 to 10 per cent per annum. Its political process has not been an obstacle to the expansion of its diplomatic and commercial links with the rest of the world. In fact, its civil service has been surprisingly very resilient. India on the other hand has been a late starter to globalization and the restructuring of its hitherto mixed economy. Although the background to India’s modernization was provided by the Raja Gandhi government (1985-89), it was left to the Narasimha Rao government to integrate India to the global economy. The bold initiative taken by the-then Finance Minister Man Mohan Singh brought healthy dividends and India’s rate of growth remained steady at 7 to 8 per cent per annum during the 1990s. The NDA government headed by Atal Bihari Vajpayee has continued that initiative and as a result of that India at present maintains one of the highest growth rates in the world. The proposed paper will closely examine the nuances of mutual economic and political interactions between China and India. Although their present trade turnover is place at $5 billion only it has a potentiality to triple by the end of 2010. The leadership in both the countries have ignored the past decades of mistrust after a limited border war in 1962.It is quite possible that the two nations may amicably sort put their border demarcation problem and go ahead to make a concerted effort to establish a more democratic and humane world order. They can also systematically neutralize the unhealthy unilateralism which has heightened the global insecurity in various regions leading to immense sufferings to large part of humanity.
Moore, Candice. "Multilateralism and Trilateralism in the IBSA Partnership: Tensions and Congruities" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the ISA’s 49th ANNUAL CONVENTION, BRIDGING MULTIPLE DIVIDES, Hilton San Francisco, SAN FRANCISCO, CA, USA, Mar 26, 2008 <Not Available>. 2009-04-17 <http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p251820_index.html>
Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: This paper seeks to examine the tensions between trilateralism and multilateralism in the IBSA partnership. While one of the stated goals of the partnership is multilateralism and the reform of the United Nations (IBSA Communique, 2005), the trilateral partnership that IBSA embodies appears antithetical to the representation of broader interests in each member’s region. This issue came to a head in the months preceding the debates on UN reform in September 2005, when India, Brazil and South Africa each voiced their interest in permanent representation on the UN Security Council, but failed to win the support of their regional neighbours. More recently, it is evident in the prominence of India and Brazil in exclusive trade talks with the EU and US to save the Doha Development Round. The paper draws on the middle power literature, which sees middle powers as committed to multilateralism, but problematises this commitment by considering the growing economic and strategic significance of these states. Trilateralism is not pursued to the exclusion of North-South links, as evidenced in Brazil’s and India’s increasing closeness to the US. It is thus not an alternative to robust North-South relations, as older forms of South-South solidarity (NAM and G-77) were portrayed. The paper concludes thus that the IBSA partnership is not a successor of older forms of South-South solidarity premised on multilateralism, but rather a vehicle for the development and increased levels of participation in international affairs of its three members.
Turner, Robin. "Liberalization and Domestic Politics: The Case of Livestock Policy Reform in India" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Hilton Chicago and the Palmer House Hilton, Chicago, IL, Sep 02, 2004 Online <.PDF>. 2009-04-17 <http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p59903_index.html>
Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: This paper explores the dynamics of livestock policy reforms in two Indian states, Andhra Pradesh and Orissa. Livestock policy reforms have been shaped by the intersection of domestic politics and power relations, international actors—especially foreign governments and development organizations, and international trade regimes. The international policy environment and global trade regime has set the context for India’s market-oriented reforms, but it is largely domestic political leaders, institutions, bureaucratic structures, and organized interests that have shaped the form and extent of reform in this sector. Marked differences in the reform trajectory of different livestock sectors in the neighboring states of Andhra Pradesh and Orissa show how domestic politics can shape the implementation of global reforms. This paper focuses on the politics of reform in the large ruminant (cattle, buffalo) and animal health and breeding subsectors.
Singh, J.P.. "Culture or Commerce? A Comparative Assessment of International Negotiations and Developing Countries at UNESCO and WTO" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association 48th Annual Convention, Hilton Chicago, CHICAGO, IL, USA, Feb 28, 2007 Online <APPLICATION/PDF>. 2009-04-17 <http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p178918_index.html>
Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: The proposed paper will depart from ominous warnings regarding globalization in arguing that international trade and cultural diversity can co-exist. The study will show that while negotiating trade issues, increasing international and domestic coalition building in cultural issues leads to preservation of policy autonomy for addressing cultural identity and diversity concerns. Two important international negotiations on cultural issues ? one at the World Trade Organization and the other in UNESCO — will be examined for empirical substantiation. A comparative assessment of the way these negotiations balanced culture and trade issues will be undertaken for a set of developed countries (particularly US and EU) followed by a set of developing countries representing those remaining fearful or confident of the impact of international trade on cultural diversity. Developing countries analyzed will be India, China, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Senegal, and South Africa. We would expect developed countries most likely to preserve cultural policy autonomy and the developing countries least likely to do so. The empirical evidence collected so far seems to show that depending on their coalition-building efforts, both sets of countries can preserve cultural policy autonomy.
Arnold, Caroline. "Late Industrialization in International Perspective: Historical Reflections on Turkish and Indian Industrialization" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association 67th Annual National Conference, The Palmer House Hilton, Chicago, IL, <Not Available>. 2009-04-17 <http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p363074_index.html>
Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: This claim is surprising given that India and Turkey are portrayed in both robust area studies and the wider development literatures as the prototypes of state-led industrialization. I argue that links between local industries and international markets have diverged to create three phases of industrialization in India and Turkey as technologies and the character of international trade and production have shifted. They have done so in ways that influenced the very patterns of capital accumulation and technological acquisition that are central to traditional accounts of late industrialization. Contra the entire lineage of development theorizing, from Gerschenkron to the developmental statists, that views the state as the defining factor in the character of national industrialization patterns, Turkish and Indian cities that industrialized in the same international and historical context exhibit greater similarities with each other than they do with other Turkish or Indian cases that industrialized at other times. This paper demonstrates that international factors, rather than the role of the national state, determined the sources of capital, role of technology, and the role of labor in Turkish and Indian industrialization.
Guisinger, Alexandra. "Who Liberalizes? Explaining Cross-Country Variations in Trade Protection Though International Networks" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, Hilton Hawaiian Village, Honolulu, Hawaii, Mar 05, 2005 <Not Available>. 2009-04-17 <http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p71395_index.html>
Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Despite the theoretical benefits of zero-tariff trade and a recent trend towards trade protection liberalization, large cross-national variations in trade policy endure. What determines countries’ trade policy choices? Traditional comparative politics explanations have focused primarily on domestic determinants: the economic constraints faced by leaders as determined both by domestic resource endowments and previous policy choices and/or the effects of domestic political institutions (for example: Magee et al, 1989; Mansfield and Busch, 1993; Nielson, 2003). However, while support for such arguments is evident in studies of OECD behavior, they lack explanatory power for a broader class of countries (Guisinger, m.s. 2003). More recently, alternative explanations based on membership in the GATT/WTO have received at best inconclusive support (for example: Rose, forthcoming). Breaking from the traditional comparative research agenda on trade and its focus on decision-theoretic models, I posit a set of diffusion hypotheses in which a country’s decision to liberalize is conditioned on its network of trading partners and peers. Levels of protection at the country-wide level converge upon those of trading partners and of peers. Not only do these networks permit the identification of likely liberalizers and non-liberalizers, but also they allow more precise determination within these groups as to the source of a country’s behavior. Expanding upon previous quantitative analysis of the trade tariffs of 60 developing countries from 1988 to 1998 (Guisinger, m.s. 2003), four qualitative case studies drawn from this analysis are presented: Brazil, Argentina, India, and Nepal.
Herring, Ronald. "Politics of Transgenic Property in India: Biopiracy, Monopoly Power or Cottage Industry?" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association 48th Annual Convention, Hilton Chicago, CHICAGO, IL, USA, Feb 28, 2007 Online <PDF>. 2009-04-17 <http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p180347_index.html>
Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: The genomics revolution in biology has spawned a new politics, with strikingly similar themes from California to Gujarat. The spread of biotechnology internationally continues on an accelerating curve upwards. Developmental states in China, India and Brazil promote the technology to make their agriculture competitive with that of richer nations. Equally, resistance in an international civil society escalates with the increasing number of crops, acres and farmers involved with genetically engineered organisms. Property is one strand of this contentious politics. Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) have become a flash point of mobilization of civil society against corporate globalization. Concentration of property rights in powerful multinational firms with no incentive to find solutions to problems of poor farmers in poor countries and potential for monopoly profits at the expense of poor farmers both figure prominently in the critique of genetic engineering in developmental terms. Worse, appropriation of intellectual property in biota of the global South is held to threaten poor societies for the profit of firms in the global North. This paper explores the ground realities related to these political claims. It argues that the oppositional critique reifies intellectual property ? in the form of ?patents? ? in a way that has proved inconsistent with behavior of actors on the ground in India and other countries. Property is here conceptualized as a relationship between actors; the outcome cannot be derived logically but must be investigated empirically. In the absence of the much critiqued ?terminator technology,? reverse ?biopiracy? seems not only fairly easy to accomplish, but popular in farming communities. This move by farmers puts them in conflict, objectively, with some, but not all, NGOs that claim to represent their interests. The paper will discuss outcomes from a national case study in terms of differentiations of property that make sense theoretically, from hard to soft and from common to private. It will conclude with suggestions about what the divergence of interests between farmers and NGOs means for representation and political power in rural areas.
Sequeira, Vikrum. "IBSA, International Relations Theories, and Changes in the Global Architecture" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Political Research Online, Palmer House Hotel, Hilton, Chicago, IL, Apr 03, 2008 <Not Available>. 2009-04-17 <http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p267593_index.html>
Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: In June 2003, India, Brazil, and South Africa inaugurated the IBSA Alliance, which aimed to become what South African President Thabo Mbeki hailed as a "G-8 of the South." The three nations would try to expand the permanent membership of the UN Security Council, modify the TRIPS laws, and impel the US and EU to eliminate agricultural subsidies. The countries also agreed to cooperate in agricultural research, IT, trade, and defense (among other issues). This paper asks four broad questions: 1. Can the paradigms of international relations (e.g., realism, pluralism, Marxism, etc.) explain the IBSA alliance? 2. Will IBSA be able to accomplish its stated goals? 3. Has the IBSA alliance modified the foreign policies of the participant states? 4. Is the creation of IBSA emblematic of a new global architecture? I argue that none of the IR paradigms alone can explain IBSA; IBSA may achieve success in its clearly stated goals but will be unsuccessful in its other goals; the alliance has slightly modified the countries’ foreign policies; the creation of IBSA does indeed represent a change in the world political-economic system.
Oliveira, Amancio. and Onuki, Janina. "South-South Cooperation: Coalitions and Multilateral Negotiations. The Case of IBSA (Brazil, India and South Africa)" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Political Research Online, Town & Country Resort and Convention Center, San Diego, California, USA, Mar 22, 2006 <Not Available>. 2009-04-17 <http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p99910_index.html>
Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: The international coalition formation process has played a central role in the dynamics of multilateral and regional trade negotiations, particularly as concerns the outlook for the re-balance of central-peripheral forces of the international system. The reopening of a new round of multilateral negotiations, focusing precisely on new thematic challenges regarding international trade and routes to development, reintroduces the centrality of the role of South-South alliances.In practice, cooperative efforts of this nature are already making themselves felt with the formation of a series of coalitions, whereas emphasis must be placed on G-20 and G-3 (IBSA). The essential aspect to be retained is that, taking into consideration the dimension of the convergence of international business interests strictly speaking, the partnership between India and Brazil, at the starting point of efforts to build international coalitions, is clearly counterintuitive.With a basis on the Compared Foreign Policy Analysis, the objective of this paper is to contribute towards a more comprehensive understanding of the bases (domestic and international) of the formation of international coalitions, of the South-South type in the new context of the multilateral agenda. A comparative matrix will be built as an analytical instrument. Based on databased with variables, the compared analysis of these variables will permit the itemization of vectors of convergence and divergence among the countries capable of indicating the stability and effectiveness of the coalition.
de Mello Souza, André. "Global Governance, Developing Countries and Advocacy Networks: The Struggle over Pharmaceutical Patent Rights" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Political Research Online, Hilton San Francisco, SAN FRANCISCO, CA, USA, Mar 26, 2008 <Not Available>. 2009-04-17 <http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p251818_index.html>
Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) has challenged developing countries in issue-areas as diverse and important as public health and agriculture. Most notably, these countries have often contended that patents block access to essential medicines, and opposed strict rules of patentability for genetic resources which encourage biopiracy and fail to protect traditional knowledge. Whereas developing countries have become increasingly assertive in multilateral forums, their capacity to successfully negotiate with the countries that champion intellectual property protection and especially the US has varied considerably across issue-areas. Developing countries have succeeded in amending TRIPS to allow greater international trade of patented medicines, but have failed to resist the patenting of genetic resources and to create effective rules for benefit sharing. The paper argues that the negotiating capacity of developing countries with regard to pharmaceutical patent rights has been largely determined by the strength of their alliances with transnational advocacy networks, as well as by these networks’ strategic use of science and human rights discourse. Field work has been conducted in South Africa, Brazil and India as well as in Geneva, consisting mostly of interviews with government officials, company executives and representatives of the non-governmental sector, as well as analysis of policy documents.
Kastner, Scott. "How International Conflict Affects Commerce: Domestic Interests and Institutions as Intervening Variables" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Political Research Online, Hilton Chicago and the Palmer House Hilton, Chicago, IL, Sep 02, 2004 <Not Available>. 2009-04-17 <http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p61628_index.html>
Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Limited commercial integration between India and Pakistan, or within much of the Middle East, suggests that conflicting political interests between countries can have a detrimental effect on their economic relations. Indeed, a number of empirical studies have shown that tension or conflict between countries tends to be associated with lower levels of commerce. Yet rapidly growing economic ties between Mainland China and Taiwan shows that commerce can also flourish even in the presence of severe political tension and a potential for military conflict. In this paper, I develop an argument that accounts for variation in the relationship between conflict and commerce. Defining conflict as the level of underlying preference dissimilarity between countries, I argue that conflict’s effects on trade are contingent on the types of governing coalitions and political institutions within the states enmeshed in a conflictual relationship. Specifically, if free-trade interests are relatively strong politically, the independent effects of conflict on trade are less severe; conflict’s effects on trade are also less severe when conflict involves at least one democracy. I test my argument quantitatively on a large sample over the years 1960-1992, and find robust support for my hypotheses.
Biermann, Frank. and Sohn, Hans-Dieter. "Multipolar Global Governance: India and East Asia as New Partners for Europe" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Political Research Online, Le Centre Sheraton Hotel, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, Mar 17, 2004 <Not Available>. 2009-04-17 <http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p74421_index.html>
Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Whereas European foreign policy used to be defined through the alliance with the United States, it is now clear that this one-sided orientation is no longer sufficient. This is especially the case for global environmental governance, where Europe stands in most negotiations, almost by default, against the United States. The core examples are the almost universally recognised biodiversity convention of 1992, its Cartagena protocol on safety in the trade of genetically modified organisms, the Basel agreement on the transboundary shipment of hazardous waste and their disposal, and, most crucially, the Kyoto protocol to the UN framework convention on climate change. All these agreements have been rejected by the United States of America. In this situation, we argue that if Europe wants to make progress in environmental and other issue areas, it needs new and stable alliances, in addition to the old transatlantic linkage. We will direct attention towards possible partners in Asia and primarily address the great powers of Asia: Japan, China and, in particular, the world’s largest democracy, India. We argue for a twofold strategy. Internally, Europe must unite more strongly. The old Kissinger question still has to be answered: which phone number does the US president—or the prime minister of India—have to call if he or she wants to get Europe’s opinion? The European Union must improve the coherence of its foreign policy, primarily through becoming further communitised. The office of a EU president could take joint responsibility for foreign and security policy in the medium term. Externally, Europe needs to reform its foreign policy and rethink well-trodden paths. This applies in particular to redefining the traditional North-South antagonism in international negotiations, which hardly corresponds any longer to the reality of the international system in many policy areas. New international partnerships between the European Union and the large Southern democracies could redress the traditional confrontation between the group of Western industrialised countries and the ‘Group of 77′, possibly pointing out solutions if global governance projects should threaten to fail because of unilateral rejection by the USA. The political drifting apart of the ‘First World’, the dissolution of the ‘Second World’ and the political, economic and social differentiation of the ‘Third World’ thus offer scope for the recharting of world politics. The development of a multilateral global governance structure requires a strong global alliance of democratic players: many recent environmental treaties—but also the international criminal court, the anti-landmine treaty and other examples—show that Europe and the Bush administration often no longer act together but rather against each other. The European Union must therefore look for other partners—to complement rather than replace the United States of America. We argue that increased dialogue and more intensive political co-operation on the part of Europe with the world’s biggest democracy, India, could be one element of such a reorientation.
Wolfe, Robert. "Power and Institutional Structure in Global Governance: The Changing Dynamics of Agricultural Trade Negotiations" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Political Research Online, Town & Country Resort and Convention Center, San Diego, California, USA, Mar 22, 2006 <Not Available>. 2009-04-17 <http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p98022_index.html>
Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: This paper will present work from a larger project on institutional dynamics and power in the WTO based on an analysis of the evolution of the negotiating process on agriculture since the Tokyo Round. I am selecting for variation on aspects of process, expecting to see variation in outcome. When we are interested in processes more than structures, qualitative case studies can be more useful than large n statistical studies. I propose to use the ?method of difference? to examine a set of apparently similar cases in which key aspects of the process differ to see if the outcomes differ. The outcome variable will assessments in the press, the academic and policy literature, and participant interviews, of the success or failure of the agriculture component of successive GATT and WTO ministerial meetings. The explanatory variables are A) institutional structure (nature of the committee structure, repertoire of formal and informal techniques used by the chair to build consensus) and B) the nature and role of negotiating coalitions that reflect different constellations of material interests and diplomatic skill. The role of coalitions in the trading system appears to be changing with the emergence of the G-20 group of leading developing countries interested in agriculture. Regional groups of developing countries, and the LDC group, now coordinate among Geneva ambassadors, they have ministerial meetings, and since Cancun they are working together at ministerial level as the G-90 grouping of the African, ACP, and Least-developed countries. And there are separate groups for agriculture including the Cairns Group (exporters), and the G-10 and the G-33 of developed and developing importers. At the heart of the negotiations on agriculture is a ?non-group? (because not like-minded) of ?Five Interested Parties?, EU, USA, Brazil, India and Australia. Can we explain outcomes on the basis of process or the power of the leading participants?
Saksena, Jyotika. "International Organizations and Erosion of State Sovereignty" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the ISA’s 49th ANNUAL CONVENTION, BRIDGING MULTIPLE DIVIDES, Hilton San Francisco, SAN FRANCISCO, CA, USA, Mar 26, 2008 <Not Available>. 2009-04-17 <http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p251222_index.html>
Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Since the end of the Second World War, the international system has seen the multiplication of international organizations that have made inter-state cooperation a sustainable reality. In doing so states have agreed to give up part of their decision-making authority to international organizations leading to a growing concern that in the process states are losing their sovereignty, namely their right to make decisions on behalf of their people. This paper uses John Ruggie’s definition of sovereignty, defined as “the institutionalization of public authority within mutually exclusive jurisdictional domainsâ€. This study will attempt an examination of the impact of international organizations in eroding state sovereignty. After an initial discussion of what constitutes a loss of sovereignty, the study will focus on the impact of a specific international organization – the WTO – in eroding state sovereignty. Finally, in order to achieve a comparative dimension, the study will investigate the impact on the state at two levels – great/super power level and middle power level by examining the response of the United States and India to the dictates of the WTO.
Sinha, Aseema. "Global Trade Rules and India: Modifying Putnam?s Two-Level Framework" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association 48th Annual Convention, Hilton Chicago, CHICAGO, IL, USA, Feb 28, 2007 <Not Available>. 2009-04-17 <http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p180081_index.html>
Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Putnam outlined a powerful metaphor for understanding domestic-international interactions in his two-level framework. In his analysis domestic politics drives international negotiations. Negotiators must make their international actions consistent with domestic support and policy: leaders respond to international obligation to the extent that these commitments are domestically viable. Aseema Sinha offers a modification to this framework in two important respects. First, she shows how the specific negotiation structure of the international context shapes the domestic win set. Global rules need to be disaggregated and their variable effects analyzed more carefully than has been done from within the terms of the two-level model. Further, India?s experience with GATT and WTO offers the opportunity to exploit within case variation across time to analyze how global rules of the game affect and change domestic imperatives and interests.
Souza, Manoela. "India’s Accession to TRIPS: The IP Legislation Reform (2005) and its Reflections on India’s Foreign Policy on HIV/AIDS Matters" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the ISA’s 49th ANNUAL CONVENTION, BRIDGING MULTIPLE DIVIDES, Hilton San Francisco, SAN FRANCISCO, CA, USA, Mar 26, 2008 Online <APPLICATION/PDF>. 2009-04-17 <http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p252134_index.html>
Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: This paper will discuss the relevance of India’s accession to the TRIPS-mandated regime for its foreign policy on HIV/AIDS matters. This study will investigate whether the formal accession to WTO’s norms regarding patents, through 2005′s third amendment, eventually brought about a new background for its foreign policy on HIV/AIDS. With concern for Doha’s flexibilities, this work intends to show how India’s pharma industry and local/global activism might have influenced, respectively, a watershed on the country’s advocacy on international health (especially with regard to anti-retroviral drugs).
Indian WTO envoy challenges Lamy on Doha round benefit figures
The Business Standard has this rather wonderful report about the Indian Ambassador to the WTO, Ujal Singh Bhatia, asking Lamy and the WTO economists for an explanation on how they arrived at the prediction that Doha round tariff cuts would result in $150 billion gains to consumers. Here is the report on the exchange that took place on 14 April 2009 when Lamy presented his second report on recent trade and trade-related developments associated with the financial and economic crisis at an informal meeting of the WTO’s Trade Policy Review Body. My comments follow the report:
India doubts Lamy figure on stimulus
D Ravi Kanth / Geneva April 15, 2009, 0:40 IST
India today asked the World Trade Organization (WTO) chief to explain how he arrived at the figure of $150 billion as “being the Doha Round’s contribution to the global stimulus”, a demand that was supported by the United States.
New Delhi also pressed for addressing “the gaping holes in disciplines on subsidies services”. Several industrialised countries, including the US and other major European countries have provided subsidies to their ailing banking and insurance companies without any regard to the distortions they created in the marketplace.
Intervening at a special meeting on WTO’s report “on the financial and economic crisis and trade-related developments”, India’s trade envoy Ujal Singh Bhatia cautioned about the dangers of dishing out figures prepared by economists without any evidence. Though the latest WTO report was “comprehensive and balanced than its predecessor”, it still contained “figures” which are not supported with hard data, he said.
“Today, economists, especially the forecasters among them, enjoy a social status somewhat below a used car salesmen and perhaps at the level of investment bankers,” Bhatia told the trade body’s chief Pascal Lamy.
Over the last several months, Lamy repeatedly quoted the figure of $150 billion as gains to consumers from the anticipated Doha cuts in agriculture and industrial tariffs. Lamy canvassed support for the Doha Round based on this estimate even though several economists have challenged the veracity of such a claim. The just-concluded G-20 leaders communiqué also mentioned the $150 billion figure without any estimate.
“In the last few years, I have seen numbers ranging from $400 billion to $40 billion in this regard,” said Bhatia, citing Kenneth Galbraith’s famous statement that “the only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable”. The US trade envoy, Peter Allgeier, said he supported India’s request for more “details” from Lamy.
In his response, the WTO chief defended his claim of $150 billion, saying it was neither “rocket science”, nor based on “astrology”. He said it represented “the revenues foregone” from the tariff cuts proposed in last year’s July proposals, maintaining that the developed countries would incur most of the cuts. “The director general was exposed for making audacious claims without evidence,” said a trade envoy, suggesting there was no truth that the Doha Round would result in such large gains.
Referring to the distortions caused by subsidies doled out to banks and insurance companies in several industrialised countries, India said: “With disciplines in manufacturing already in place and those in agriculture being negotiated, there is no reason why there should not be such disciplines in services as well.”
Therefore, a discussion on “definitions as well as an exchange of information on subsidies in services” is a must, the Indian trade envoy said, calling for a deeper analytical study on a range of trade restrictions that are not properly reflected in the WTO report.
Several members, including India, called for an earlier return to competitive conditions in auto and steel industries by withdrawal of these subsidies as quickly as possible, stating that continuation of such subsidies would adversely impact developing countries.
I like this exchange. It is time that data put out by WTO economists is subjected to scrutiny and analysis. The figures on gains from the Doha round have as Bhatia said, fluctuated between extremes. Sometime back, the International Economic Law and Policy blog discussed this. I can’t find that thread now, but I had posted there about the wide difference in opinion among economists about who would gain most from Doha. At various time various studies have indicated their preferred candidate for who will gain most from Doha. These have included the United States, China, Africa, developing countries and developed countries.
This exchange once again shows the growing confidence of Indian negotiators. Bhatia is quite acerbic – see his comment about the status of economists.
Indian Prime Minister sets the record straight on India and the Doha round
Setting the record straight: Indian PM says India has a strategic interest in a successful Doha round and that India was not to blame for the collapse of talks last year. In an interview to the Financial Times, Dr Manmohan Singh said this:
FT: The US is widely blaming India for the Doha Development Round deadlock. Where do you see responsibility lying?
MS: There is no truth in the charge that India is responsible for the deadlock in the Doha Round. I have repeatedly stated that India has a strategic stake in the successful functioning of the multilateral trading system and in a positive outcome of the Doha Round. We took on onerous obligations in the 1990s to bring the WTO into existence. We played an active role in launching the Doha Development Round. We want the developmental objectives of this Round to be addressed in any final deal. There were many areas of difference between different groups of countries, including differences between the US and the Europe. In our case the differences related to sensitive issues affecting the livelihood of small and vulnerable farmers. I should add that while public attention focusses on points of disagreement, we should remember that a great deal of work has been done to narrow differences. The negotiators just did not have enough time.
Much of the global media coverage of the Doha round attributes the unsuccessful talks last year to the disagreement between the United States and India last July over the special safeguard provisions for agriculture. Such one-dimensional and misleading media coverage (see for instance the Wall Street Journal here, where it reports “A dispute between India and the U.S. over anti-import surge protections for developing country farmers scuppered an effort to complete the Doha trade round last July.”) ignores the many complex issues (besides the special safeguard mechanism) that remain to be negotiated. International trade negotiators are skilled at using media coverage as a negotiating tool and attempts to isolate an opponent by portraying it as a deal-breaker are part of the game.
Farmer suicides in India and Doha round agricultural negotiations
India’s insistence on an adequate special safeguard mechanism for agriculture is widely viewed as one of the contributing factors to the failure of the July framework talks in 2008. Indian trade Minister Kamal Nath often describes India’s position on agriculture, including its demands for reduction in agri-subsidies by the developed world, as a question of livelihood (and not of business) on which India cannot compromise.
What interests me is the connection between farmer suicides in India and the formulation of Indian trade policy on agriculture and the formulation of India’s Doha round negotiating position on agriculture. News reports in India about the Doha agricultural negotiations and Mr Nath’s various speeches do not directly refer to the spate of farmer suicides in India. Indeed, the political discourse in India itself (as visible in news publications) has not remained consistently engaged with this issue. Small periods of noisy outrage exist between longer periods where the issue is almost absent from the mainstream political discourse.
Though the numbers on these farmer suicides are disputed, yet even allowing for these variations, the figures are high enough to warrant a serious political impact and to expect an engaged political discussion. One would also expect that the issue would seep into agricultural trade policy issues and into Indian demands and sensitivities in the Doha round. (For example see my previous post about India wanting to be included in cotton subsidy talks – surely farmer suicides by cotton farmers in India show the serious impact of cotton subsidies for India and justify its inclusion. But I would suppose the emerging India story makes it embarrassing for the Government to flaunt this issue on the international stage).
Are farmer suicides an issue in the coming national elections? At least not in the English national press.
So what are the facts? Where is the academic and policy research on these issues? Where are the domestic consultations with farmers groups over India’s position at Doha?
I plan to keep an eye out for what I come across on this and will post about what I find on this blog. But for the moment, the following would be of interest:
A March 2008 paper by Nagaraj of the Madras Institute of Development Studies titled ‘Farmers’ Suicides in India: Magnitudes, Trends and Spatial Patterns’, available online here estimates that between 1997 and 2006, 166,304 farmers have killed themselves in India. For 1995-2006, the figure is close to 200,000. An average of 16,000 farmers have committed suicide in India every year for the last 12 years. The author considers even these figures an underestimation of the full extent of farmer suicides. Farmers without a property title to their farmlands are not included in the official definition of a farmer in some Indian states. The rate of suicides has shown an increase over the years. The farmers who have killed themselves are overwhelmingly male as per official figures. Female farmer suicides are most likely not counted as most female farmers would not have title to the land. Maharashtra, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Chhatisgarh and Madhya Pradesh are the top five states with the most farmer suicides. These are five contiguous states in the India heartland.
While India is now touted as a fast-growing booming economy (or at least was until the recent global recession), it is also undergoing a serious agrarian crisis. What is the link between farmer suicides and India’s agrarian crisis? The paper by Nagaraj points to a multi-causal explanation behind farmer suicides. He describes these as a social phenomenon certainly linked to India’s widespread and persistent farm crisis coupled with pre-existing conditions of vulnerability and an absence of alternative livelihood opportunities. Nagaraj dismisses sporadic, disjointed and single-point policy interventions and suggests that the crisis needs comprehensive policy intervention and a complete reorientation of agrarian policies. So where is the research on what should be India’s agricultural trade policy in the context of these suicides?
Also see the Final Report on Causes of Farmer Suicides submitted to the Mumbai High Court from 2005 by the Tata Institute of Social Sciences.
Leaves me wondering who is accountable for these large number of deaths?
For more see this Counterpunch story, this New York Times story
India seeks inclusion in cotton subsidy talks between the US and the Cotton-4
Indian Commerce Secretary says India cannot be kept out of Doha talks on reducing cotton subsidies. The Economic Times reports:
India has said it should be included in the exclusive meetings which the US has been holding with West African cotton producing countries on subsidy cuts as part of the on-going Doha round of multilateral trade talks at the World Trade Organization (WTO). As India is the second largest cotton producing country in the world, it said that it should be made part of all discussions on reduction of the high US subsidies on cotton.
Addressing a seminar on threat to multilateralism in the evolving global scenario organised by Ficci on Friday, commerce additional secretary R Gopalan said that India wants to be part of the discussions taking place between the cotton four countries (which includes Benin, Chad, Burkina Faso and Mali) and the US on subsidy reductions in cotton. “We, too, want to be part of the discussions as we too are a major cotton producing country. We cannot be kept out of the talks,” he said.
Well this is interesting. India ought to worry about a special deal on subsidy cuts being offered by the United States to the Cotton four (all least developed countries) as part of WTO special or differential treatment or as what it is more fashionably called these days, –“variable geometry”.
It also shows how despite India becoming a part of the so-called “core group” in Doha round talks, it can still be excluded from talks on issues that directly affect it and where its stance is likely to be viewed as hindering a deal. Of course these are bilateral talks between the United States and the Cotton 4, yet once a deal is reached there and with Brazil the other main stakeholder in this issue, India might get sidelined and be confronted with a deal that it will find difficult to renegotiate.
Joseph Stiglitz in his film ‘The World According to Stiglitz’, draws a direct connection between such subsidies and the drop in cotton prices in India which led to thousands of poor farmers committing suicide last year. See here
Meanwhile Brazil has reportedly asked the United States for $2.5 billion in sanctions for losses caused to Brazilian cotton producers on account of illegal US cotton subsidies between 1998 and 2000. The report:
GENEVA: Brazil is asking the World Trade Organisation to approve $2.5 billion (1.97 billion euros) in sanctions against the United States in a dispute over US cotton subsidies, the Brazilian ambassador said Monday. Roberto Azevedo said the request was lodged at a meeting of the WTO’s Dispute Settlement Body in Geneva. “We have asked the WTO to ensure that Brazil is compensated $2.5 billion for the prejudice … suffered by our cotton producers between 1998 and 2000,” Azevedo, Brazil’s ambassador to the WTO, said after the meeting. “If the big countries are not sanctioned for violations of WTO rules, that would affect the credibility of the organisation,” he added. Last June, a WTO panel upheld a Brazilian complaint that the United States had breached trade rules over its subsidies for cotton farmers. Brazil first brought the case to the trade bloc in 2002. It estimates that total US cotton subsidies were worth 12 billion dollars between 1999 and 2002. Compared with the value of cotton produced, which reached $13.9 billion during the period, it means that subsidies came to about 89.5 percent. After the WTO ruled in its favour, Brazil had said it could seek more than $1 billion in retaliatory sanctions. The subsidies paid by Washington to US cotton farmers have been criticised by non-governmental groups, who say they depress world cotton prices, thereby penalizing producers from poorer countries, particularly in Africa. The C4 group of West African cotton-producers — Benin, Burkina Faso, Chad and Mali — has since 2003 been fighting for the cotton issue to be included in the Doha Round of negotiations for a global free trade pact.
So is this as compensation or retaliation? Also, if granted, will such sanctions apply on an MFN basis to benefit cotton farmers in third countries like India?
The systemic importance of the GATS domestic regulation negotiations
Doha round negotiations under GATS Article VI:4 are mandated to develop necessary disciplines to ensure that measures relating to licensing requirements and procedures, technical standards, and qualification requirements and procedures do not constitute unnecessary barriers to trade in services. The fourth and current version of a draft text was circulated in January 2008. With its offensive interests in services, India has been active in these negotiations and has sought to protect its right to regulate services for legitimate reasons while at the same time seeking disciplines on the domestic regulations of its trading partners that act as disguised trade restrictions to committed market access in services.
These negotiations have systemic importance in so far as their outcome could potentially result in a re-balancing of the relationship between market access (Article XVI) and domestic regulation under the GATS. The primary issue under discussion involves the appropriate balance between the right to regulate and the new disciplines that are crafted. The draft text, though still lacking consensus, contains ambiguous language that might have such systemic impact. Negotiators thus need to proceed with the utmost caution. They must understand the GATS system-wide implications of the negotiations and evaluate the text under discussion from the perspective of how it might be interpreted in future WTO disputes before the Appellate Body.
The issue acquires greater significance after the Appellate Body decision in the Gambling dispute. In this dispute, the Appellate Body found that US laws prohibiting supply of gambling and betting services by suppliers located outside the United States to consumers within the United States amounted to a WTO inconsistent “quantitative” restriction in violation of US scheduled market access commitments under GATS Article XVI. While the United States seemed to have made a scheduling error in not expressly excluding gambling services from its commitments under the residual head of “other recreational services”, this dispute raised concerns in the literature that the Appellate Body erred in not recognizing the US measure as a “qualitative” regulation under GATS Article VI.
After the Gambling ruling, negotiators must consider whether the new disciplines on domestic regulations might not have the unintended(?) consequence of shifting the present balance in the GATS between domestic regulations and market access. There are provisions in the new draft text which if applicable during the Gambling dispute might well have resulted in a different outcome. Specifically, these include paragraph 3 (in the January 2008 draft) which without qualification recognizes the right of Members to regulate and to introduce new regulations to meet “national policy objectives”. Though the critical right to regulate is already recognized in the GATS preamble, its inclusion in this format in new rules might have far-reaching consequences, if a dispute settlement panel or the Appellate Body were to find in such provision, a need for deference to national policy objectives even when these do not relate to competence to provide the service or to maintaining the quality of the service. The draft text’s unclear treatment of the relationship between the new disciplines and Members GATS schedules is another cause for concern. In the Gambling decision, the Appellate Body left open the question as to where “in the abstract” GATS Article XVI drew the line between qualitative and quantitative measures. Similarly, it did not decide the question of the relationship between the first and second paragraph of Article XVI which is also germane to this issue. The new disciplines under negotiation would influence the future evolution of GATS jurisprudence on the scope of the right to regulate a service once market access commitments are scheduled. And negotiators must pay attention.
Seema Sapra
Kamal Nath recognized as Business Reformer of the Year
The Economic Times Award for Business Reformer of the year has been awarded to Indian Commerce minister Kamal Nath. The Economic Times on why he was selected:
When he speaks, they listen. Be it the WTO talks, the Tata-Corus row or the Mittal-Arcelor controversy, commerce and industry minister Kamal Nath has represented India’s interests with a certain missionary zeal. And today, at the high table of global trade, if India is accepted as the de facto representative of the developing world, it’s largely because of this Doon School alumnus.
The judges felt that Kamal Nath, with his unflagging zeal in taking the Indian message to the rest of the world, is the right person to be named political reformer this year. While many equally deserving candidates were discussed, it was felt that a reformer should also be a person who has reached out to make a global statement. The minister, they felt, has not only defended and promoted Indian policy positions on crucial, and often contentious, global issues like the WTO talks, but has also gained the respect and understanding of his counterparts in the international community.
His very name gets the attention of luminaries like WTO director-general Pascal Lamy, World Bank president Robert Bruce Zoellick and European Union’s trade commissioner Peter Mandelson. Trade ministers of many countries sing paeans of praise to the Indian minister for the force with which he resists pressure from the US and EU at the WTO. Kamal Nath’s negotiating skills and networking abilities were in full display at the Hong Kong ministerial meeting of WTO in 2005 and this year’s mini-ministerial, thwarting efforts to win fresh concessions from the developing world.
At the same time, Kamal Nath spoke out in favour of the Tata Group when its efforts to take over Corus were resisted. Similarly, he backed L N Mittal when the Arcelor deal was opposed by some European governments.
The way he manages a packed schedule and travels across the globe to seek FDI and negotiate trade deals is cause for envy among his Cabinet colleagues, it is said. Well, the results are visible with the conclusion of a free trade agreement with Asean and a comprehensive economic cooperation agreement with Singapore.
At home too, Kamal Nath pursues his responsibilities with zest and has managed to make SEZs a reality despite severe resistance from within the government. The introduction of product patents is seen as another feather in his cap.
For the news report see here
Lamy as Doha Round "midwife" for a "pregnant" Kamal Nath and Susan Schwab!!!
The Business Standard yesterday reported that on his recent trip to India, Lamy compared his role to a midwife to deliver the Doha round deal. The article reads:
Pascal Lamy, the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) embattled director general, says he wants to perform the role of a “midwife” to salvage the Doha trade negotiations. This is what he confessed to the Indian trade team during his closed-door meetings in New Delhi last week. Apparently, Lamy said that the Indian trade minister Kamal Nath and the United States Trade Representative Ambassador Susan Schwab are “pregnant”. As a midwife, he said, it is his duty to ensure a smooth delivery so that the faltering Doha project comes to fruition.
The formidable Indian reporting on the Doha round was once again visible as the reporter commented that Lamy might not be the best midwife in town.
Besides, such a pronouncement is bound to make WTO members sit up and ask whether the director general can offer neutral and unbiased services like a classical midwife. Because of his diverse roles in the past ranging from a banker to the European Union’s top trade policy job, there will always be nagging doubts about his new role.
Some more criticism of Lamy’s role:
An impression gathered ground that Lamy tends to be soft when it comes to dealing with Washington while displaying unusual exuberance when dealing with developing countries. Lamy, for example, suspended the negotiations to help Washington which had refused to budge from its unsustainable position of bringing down farm subsidies below $22 billion in 2006. And during this period he was sending missives to developing countries like China, India, Indonesia, and Philippines questioning their hard-line stance on special products and the Special Safeguard Mechanism for developing countries.
By the time the negotiations came back on the rails last year following a series of failures, he ought to have drawn important lessons on how to maintain equidistance from key players. But that did not quite happen as can be seen from the manner in which negotiations evolved in different Doha dossiers, especially in the case of the rules and the three TRIPS-related issues, as they would have created difficulties for Washington.
It always remains a mystery as to why Lamy did not fix the final figure for the US overall trade-distorting support for agriculture at $13 billion as demanded by six out of seven trade ministers during the failed mini-ministerial meeting at Geneva last month. Though it is important for the director general to be close to the US because of Washington’s influence over the global trading system, it is also equally important that he calls a spade a spade when that country adopts unyielding positions. He cannot remain silent for the sake of the elephant that is in the room when life-and-death-issues such as cotton for the poorest of the poor remain unresolved.
The report is authored by D Ravi Kanth, who if I am not mistaken was a highly visible participant in the press conferences in Geneva during the July 2008 mini-ministerial convened by Lamy.
Indian government to educate citizens on Doha Development Round through White Paper
With national elections looming, the Indian government will issue a White Paper in October to explain to ordinary Indians and stakeholders what the Doha negotiations are all about, what is at stake and what is India’s negotiating position based upon.
The Financial Express in a report quoting a senior commerce ministry official discloses:
India would give another shot at taking forward the talks next month if the US gives positive signals and then the Centre would come out with the ‘white paper’ by October-end , a senior government official told FE. The ‘white paper’, devoid of all the jargon, would contain the nitty-gritty of the multilateral trade negotiations, India’s stance on all the issues on the table alongwith the positions of other countries as well as the reasons for the failure or success, the official added.
Once again, this proposal shows how trade policy making processes in India have evolved since the Uruguay Round. This move is commendable for promoting transparency about the WTO system at the domestic level. However, the government should encourage transparency in international trade negotiations through similar iniatiatives throughout the WTO negotiation rounds and not just before an election.
India’s role in the recent Doha round mini-ministerial
The Business Standard carries an article today which suggests (and it seems based upon access to information from people who were in the negotiating room) that the issue that sunk the mini-ministerial wasn’t special safeguards for agriculture but cotton subsidies.
According to Bhaskar Goswami, the author of this article:
On the 8th day of negotiations the talks were deadlocked and Pascal Lamy, Director General of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), circulated a revised draft on Special Safeguards Mechanism as a compromise move (trade circles in Geneva suggest that the proposal was drafted by European Union). As is widely known, all drafts of developed countries are circulated at the WTO with US approval and this draft was no exception. Besides, Lamy is not exactly known for producing surprises for the US.
The revised text, although undermining the rationale of safeguarding before harm could occur, was acceptable to India on the 9th day. This was admitted by Kamal Nath. However, midway during the discussion Susan Schwab, the US Trade Representative, hardened her stand. Not only did she turn adamant against accepting a reduced import trigger, she suggested that it be revised upwards by 10 percent! Somebody sure was desperate to ensure that the negotiations fail while the discussion was on Special Safeguards Mechanisms, and India and China take the blame for it.
At the WTO, the US either negotiates from a position of strength or, if its defensive issues are raised, scuttles the negotiations. This is exactly what it did in Geneva this July. What activated this sudden hostile line of argument by the US is not very difficult to gauge. Since Special Safeguards Mechanisms were the second-last topic under discussion, an agreement on this would have brought the discussion to the last issue — cotton subsidies.
YouTube video of Dr. Rajeev Kumar (ICRIER) addressing the Warwick Commission
Here is a YouTube video featuring Dr. Rajeev Kumar, Director and Chief Executive of ICRIER speaking to the Warwick Commission on ‘The Future of the WTO from an Indian perspective’.
Watch here
Indian participation in the Doha Round – no shortage of material for research studies, books, and PhD theses!
As is now clear, India has emerged as a major player in the WTO and its role in the Doha round is significant. And no doubt, many books, papers, and theses are being planned (once the round gets over) on questions like – How India negotiated? What influence did India exert? Did India adopt a successful negotiating strategy? Did India manage to protect its interests? Has India moved away from representing broad developing country interests to a more self-interested negotiating strategy? How did India define its interests? And was there adequate stakeholder consultation and involvement? What were the turning points when deals were made? And in all this, how did India compare with other important players?
India’s participation in the Doha round could not be more different from its participation in the Uruguay round. And the differences are a result of many changes – India’s growth story; the tectonic shifts in global power; the shifts in power within the WTO; and of course everyone’s favourite “cryptic” Globalisation.
What is certain is that those interested in such themes will face no shortage of material, given the media coverage of the round, and given how contemporaneous examination of India’s role is the subject of seminars and discussion all over the world and perhaps, more importantly, within the country. I keep wanting to archive all this material, but just don’t have the time. However, I am sure someone’s doing this. In any case, the reason for this post was more such media coverage. Here are some extracts and headlines from the last few weeks.
Moneycontrol has this today:
GK Pillai, Commerce Secretary, said, “The next 30 days are going to be crucial, because of the considerable differences, there has to be a considerable hardening of stand on our part.”
But it’s not just the government who will be talking. This time Indian negotiators at the WTO want states and corporates to lobby directly just as industry bodies do in the United States and the European Union.
The Commerce Secretary said, “We will be appealing to industry as well as agriculture to support us in our negotiations. We will try to get all states sensitised to our agri position and will try and get the agri ministry on board.”
The Hindu wrote Lamy’s prognosis on food crisis finds support in India
The Economic Times wrote India ask US, EU to show leadership in Doha talks and Nath to tour Indonesia, New York to sort differences in trade deals and India needn’t rush for an unfair Doha deal
This could go on and on … An article could be written just on the media coverage of the Doha round in India. A list of quotable quotes from this round would also make interesting reading and mark the important milestones and turning points. Remember Susan Schwab’s teen driver quote to describe India and Brazil.
research paper on GATS implications for Indian marine industry
Kamat, Manasvi Manoj and Kamat, Manoj Subhash, “Implications of the WTO-GATS on Indian Marine Industry, Issues and Policy Perspectives” . Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1069521
SSRN Abstract:
The outcomes of WTO negotiations under the Doha round, Hong Kong development round and the changing European Union regulations are likely to place new hurdles on the marine exports emerging from developing economies like India. In the light of the above, we attempt to discuss the impact of WTO-GATS on the Indian Marine Trade and Service industry, analyze the challenges faced by the developing countries, and suggest way-outs to respond them. Many other WTO-GATS related aspects have repercussions on the marine exports from the developing countries in Asia and India in particular; namely the outcomes from the Dispute Settlement Mechanism (DSM), the relation between trade rules and Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs), Technical Assistance and Capacity Building (TA & CB) and the provisions for Special and Differential Treatment (SDT). The impact of GATS and the implications on Indian marine trade & services are specifically assessed in context of Tariff barriers, Non-tariff measures, Subsidies and Eco-labeling. Relevant policy implications follow the issues discussed.
Should India walk down the multilateral road or the bilaterals road?
There haven’t been many detailed studies on comparative gains to India in adopting a multilateral versus a bilaterals focussed trade policy. With the Doha round still stuck, India has been aggressively open to offers for bilateral trade pacts. The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace has published a report (January 2008) titled “India’s Trade Policy Choices: Managing Diverse Challenges” which suggests that the multilateral route would be preferable for India. The key conclusions of the report available here are:
• India’s economy would grow most under a Doha agreement, although the gains would add a very modest 0.25 percent to the economy. Free trade pacts with China or the United States would produce even smaller gains. An agreement with the EU, India’s largest trading partner, would have a slightly negative overall impact on India’s economy.
• Dramatic swings in world agricultural prices—a common occurrence—could have much larger impacts on India if the country lowers its agricultural tariffs. A decrease of even 25 percent in the world price of rice, which has happened repeatedly, would negatively impact all but the top 10 percent of Indian households, with the poorest households losing the most.
• The EU, the United States, and China would each gain more from free trade agreements with India than would India itself, but in all cases, gains would be a modest and would represent a very small percentage of the affected economies. While China would gain more overall than India from a bilateral agreement, India would see a greater increase in exports than China.
• All of the proposed trade agreements would reduce India’s tariff revenue, which accounts for about 11 percent of the government’s total revenue. This would force the Indian government to either reduce spending or increase taxes at the expense of Indian households. An EU-India trade agreement would reduce revenue the most.
• The trade agreements would have a positive but very modest impact for India’s unemployed, currently estimated at 40.4 million. A Doha agreement, which has the most sizeable impact of the simulated agreements, would increase the demand for unskilled labor by 0.9 percent, about 4 million jobs. Job gains would be spread across a number of sectors, including transport, construction, apparel, textiles and a few agricultural commodities. Under free trade agreements with the EU and the United States, job creation would be concentrated in the apparel and textile sectors, with other manufacturing sectors actually shedding some workers.
While this report seems well-timed to “help” the Doha round on its way, an assessment of its findings would be a worthwhile exercise. It would be interesting to read other studies on the same issue.
Bringing American and Indian business together to discuss "Doha, India and the Issues"
This should be an interesting event:
DOHA, INDIA AND THE ISSUES:
An Indian Business View of the Doha Round Issues
with Responses from Key U.S. SectorsA GBD COLLOQUIUM
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
9:00 – 10:30 A.M.
(Registration opens at 8:30 a.m.)
The St. Regis Hotel (Magnolia Room)
16th & K Streets,
Washington, D.C.
India, like the United States, is a country with big interests in each of the three sectors being negotiated in the Doha Round: it is a powerhouse in services, has 700 million people tied to agriculture, and is increasingly competitive in manufacturing. India’s ability to make the Doha Round work for India will be important for India and for the global economy and quite possibly decisive for Doha Round. And now, like every other WTO member, India must move quickly if the Round is to be completed this year. The views of Indian business on the Round and Indian trade policy will be our focus on February 26….
Speakers
T.S. Vishwanath
Confederation of Indian Industry (CII)Bob Vastine
Coalition of Service IndustriesDavid Salmonsen
American Farm Bureau FederationJohn Meakem
National Electrical Manufacturers Assoc. (NEMA)Moderator
Susan Esserman
Steptoe & Johnson
Here’s more on what the event aims to achieve:
Indian Business Spokesman on the WTO and Trade: 9 A.M. Tomorrow, Feb. 26, at the St. Regis Hotel
WASHINGTON, Feb. 25 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- CII's T.S. Vishwanath will lead off the discussion at tomorrow's GBD colloquium on Doha, India, and the Issues. Mr. Vishwanath, head of international trade policy for the Confederation of Indian Industry, CII, will talk about the trade policy objectives of Indian business. The program will also include comments from three key U.S. sectors: services, agriculture and manufacturing. The Doha Round, the global trade talks that began in Doha, Qatar, in November 2001, is now at a critical juncture, and India's assessment of those negotiations will be critical to the outcome. So too will the assessment of the United States, and tomorrow's colloquium will include key private sector experts from both countries.
India blocking the Doha round? Its certainly not the only one …
Greg Rushford of the rushford report has criticised India for “threatening” the Doha talks in an article in the Wall Street Journal today. He calls India the “Elephant in the Room” that “can least afford the collapse of the Doha Round”.
Last week, the Indians were back to the rhetoric that has marked their negotiating style throughout the Doha process. The latest spat was over a newly circulated draft negotiating text on “rules,” including possible reforms of protectionist antidumping laws. The measure is controversial, and even the Americans have voiced concerns on some issues. But whereas U.S. officials expressed willingness to negotiate, their Indian counterparts threatened to close the door. Ambassador Ujal Singh Bhatia, India’s top trade diplomat in Geneva, called the draft text effectively an insult. India has been committed to the Doha negotiations, the ambassador said, “but if, God forbid, a time comes when that price of engagement is unpayable by us, then we will have to stand up and say that.”
That’s a rich statement, given India’s negotiating tactics. Rather than express willingness to negotiate gradual, phased-in liberalizations — which is how the Doha process is supposed to work — Trade Minister Kamal Nath has a long list of sectors he has insisted are “non-negotiable” from the get-go, including a “negative list” of politically “sensitive” imports that are discouraged, if not actually prohibited, from fruits and vegetables to grains, edible oils, rubber, cotton and silk.
He suggests:
While the rich Europeans and Americans actually could afford to walk away from the Doha Round, India would pay a dear price for its failure. Consider the gains India has already reaped from earlier rounds of partial trade liberalization.
Is this really a fair assessment? Rushford argues that India needs more tariff and regulatory reforms and better infrastructure to continue to grow, and that without the Doha round, India will have no “pressure to fix those problems”. What he omits to mention is why the United States and Europe need a successful Doha round … Under present WTO rules, agricultural support in both the US and the EC will be open to legal challenge at the World Trade Organization’s dispute settlement body. Thus both the US and the EC want a Doha round outcome that will renegotiate these rules and allow them to continue their agricultural subsidies, albeit at a reduced level. And there are other reasons. All WTO members have a stake in a successful Doha outcome.
And as far as reform goes, India has engaged in unilateral reform before and will continue down that road. The dynamic within India has changed and now the reform agenda finds its strongest supporter within India itself, among Indian business. And bilateral and regional engagements will contribute to that impetus for reform. Almost everyone seems to want an FTA with India these days.
All this is not to say that a balanced Doha round will not bring benefits to India. It will and Indian negotiators and business certainly realise that. But it seems unfair to criticise India for “negotiating”. Its important to understand that domestic trade politics in India has evolved from its non-existent status in the Uruguay Round to a highly informed and contested democratic politics today. And no one would know better than the United States, that domestic trade politics is both important to negotiate a beneficial trade agreement and cannot be ignored. Domestic trade politics is essential for good trade policy making by the government.
Nonetheless, Mr Rushford makes a very valid point when he highlights how India loses out in international business:
The World Bank’s latest Doing Business survey estimates that the cost, including tariffs, poor roads, others customs duties and bureaucratic red tape, for India to export a carton of goods to the U.S. is $820; for China, it’s $390. It costs India $910 to import a carton from America, compared to $430 for China. Overall, the survey ranks India 120 out of 178 for ease of doing business. China ranks 83.
However, some of Mr. Rushford’s advice to India might be too simplistic. For instance he suggests:
Since the economic logic is so powerful, one would think that India’s trade negotiators would be eager to bargain away tariff walls that hurt the country’s competitiveness. Wrong. In the Doha talks, India wants to retain “policy space” — a code word for protectionism — to raise tariffs any time it might find it convenient to prop up this or that uncompetitive domestic industry, like Brazil has been doing. Somehow it doesn’t occur to the Indians that their models on tariffs, instead of Brazil, should be the likes of Singapore and Hong Kong, where tariffs are negligible and economic growth is rampant.
Surely, India’s size and development needs would require trade policy that differs from that of Singapore and Hong Kong?
Doha talks to continue till 2011?
In a guest column in the Economic Times last week, Suparna Karmakar, of ICRIER suggests that the intractabilities in ongoing Doha negotiations mean that the talks might only end in 2010, with implementation starting in January 2011.
The most likely scenario is that Doha will remain at the present level of low-key engagement till 2009, when negotiations will begin in full earnest and a likely timeline for the Round to start implementation will be January 1, 2011.
Why 2011? This is because multilateral trade negotiations are more of an exercise in political economy than pure economics or even trade imperatives. Tradeoffs in WTO negotiations are essentially slug-offs between the well-established and entrenched interests within individual countries and sectors, to the detriment of others (both at home and outside) who would otherwise have benefited from freer trade.
However, even with an agreement on the broad contours of the potential deal by mid-2009, the sorting out of ‘modalities’ and other details which would be necessary before the agreement can be deemed to be ready for signatures, would take anything between 12-15 months.
On what Doha difficulties mean for the future of the WTO, she writes:
Two variations of a view are doing the rounds when it comes to Doha’s prospects. Some opine that WTO is dead; others say Doha is dead. In this author’s view, neither is a plausible scenario; and anyway, multilateral institutions and engagements don’t just die so easily.
The problems in this round are not only because of an overly enhanced agenda and a large membership of developing-countries, who are active participants and demandeurs unlike in the earlier rounds, but also because the negotiations are focused on ‘politically sensitive’ issues that call for difficult adjustments from all participants.
Indian officials wary of EU-US proposal on environmental goods, plus reactions on fisheries subsidies and zeroing
India and Brazil have criticised the new EU-US proposal for a new WTO “green trade agreement”. The proposal envisaged as a two tier process would according to the European Commission compise of these two stages:
- First, agreement to liberalise trade in at least 43 goods with clear environmental benefits drawn from a World Bank list including solar panels and wind mill turbines.
- Second, an even more far-reaching Environmental Goods and Services Agreement (EGSA) to be negotiated by WTO Members, which would foresee further binding commitments to eliminate tariffs and non-tariff barriers in trade in green technologies. In services, highly ambitious and comprehensive commitments would be undertaken that address environmental and climate change challenges such as waste management. Developing countries would be asked only to make contributions proportionate to their level of development.
A two page summary of the proposal is available here.
The Guardian reports on Indian and Brazilian reaction to this proposal:
“We don’t think it’s a basis for negotiation on environmental products,” said Brazil’s top trade negotiator, Roberto Azevedo. “Brazil is deeply disappointed with the proposal. We find the proposal modest, we find it biased and we find it protectionist,” he told a briefing.
Azevedo noted that the U.S.-EU proposal made no reference to biofuels, of which Brazil is a major producer, or the technologies to produce them, and said the list was geared to U.S.-EU products. “Anything that they don’t produce is not on the list,” he said.
Bhatia said India could support proposals to free up trade in goods whose sole use was countering climate change, such as solar panels or windmills, but the list could be extended over time to new models of cars or refrigerators that were more energy-efficient, and that was unacceptable.
“Their list is a disguised effort at getting market access through other means and does not satisfy the mandate for environment,” he said.
India and Brazil are also opposing the new negotiating text on “rules” (view it here) that would allow “zeroing” for calculation of anti-dumping duties.
India’s reaction to the fisheries text, is also not very enthusiastic:
Bhatia said the proposals on banning most fisheries subsidies, welcomed by environmental groups, would cause India difficulty as it tries to improve the living conditions of its fishermen, among the poorest people in the country.
The proposals do give some leeway to developing countries to support fishermen, but he said the conditions, such as setting up approved fisheries management schemes, were too onerous.
India had proposed special treatment for small scale, artisanal fisheries on development grounds. Draft article III of the new fisheries text deals with S&DT for developing countries.
Legislation to be introduced in US Congress to push for India-US FTA
US Republican Congressman, David Dreier plans to introduce legislation in the US congress calling for FTA talks with India. Reuters reports on the comments which were made at the World Economic Forum India summit in New Delhi.
Rep. David Dreier, a California Republican, said at the World Economic Forum India summit such a move would be a building block towards the success of the Doha Round of global trade talks or the next World Trade Organisation (WTO) round.
He added:
“It will in large part be a discussion piece for us to just begin talking about this,” he told Reuters after making the announcement to hundreds of delegates at a dinnertime question and answer session with Indian Trade Minister Kamal Nath.
“I don’t want to lead anyone to believe this is going to happen overnight or happen quickly. But the notion of discussing the idea of a U.S.-India FTA I think is important,” Dreier said.
India’s response:
Nath told Reuters afterwards the idea had come up before and it should be examined.
Dreier’s comment that discussions on an India-US FTA could help progress in the Doha round is interesting. It suggests that at least some in US policy circles think that talks on aligning Indian and US trade interests long-term, would prevent clashes in WTO rounds. A US-India FTA would seemingly resolve trade contradictions between the two countries, making it possible for them to adopt joint positions in multilateral fora like the world trade organization. However, as many international trade experts have noted, regulation of agricultural trade is difficult in a bilateral setting and needs multilateral engagement.
Nath challenges Mandelson’s classification of India as "emerging economy"
An EU-India business summit in New Delhi became a venue for trading of blows between Kamal Nath, the Indian commerce minister and Peter Mandelson, the European trade comissioner. When the EC commisioner attempted to challenge India’s WTO status as a developing country, Nath responded vigorously.
Nath took on Mandelson on India’s classification as an emerging economy, saying that in WTO there were only three categories — developed, developing and least developed — and EU had suggested that India, China, Brazil and South Africa be given the new tag so that they could take on additional burden in WTO talks.
“If India is an emerging economy, the EU is a submerging economy,” Nath said.
Remarks were also exchanged regarding the bonafides of raising non-trade issues, referring back to recent allegations of child labour use in textile exports by India:
Nath said EU was trying to raise non-trade issues, pointing to demands from Brussels to include animal welfare in talks. “I don’t know what does it have to do with trade. India is very concerned about NTBs. If NGOs in Europe are producing reports about our factories showing them in bad light, our NGOs are also concerned about forced feeding of animals,” Nath said.
The Doha talks also featured in the exchange. The Economic Times reported:
The minister said the Doha Round was supposed to be a development round where India was just going to negotiate trade issues and not subsistence.
Taking a dig at both the EU and the US on Thursday, Mr Nath urged EU trade commissioner Peter Mandelson to ask “your friends in the US” to lower their trade-distorting subsidies by just $1. “I have already told the US that if they commit on lowering their subsidies by just $1, the deal is acceptable to us. But I have not got any response so far,” he said.
The commerce minister said distortions in the global trading system had to be addressed as the ongoing WTO round was not about perpetuating these distortions.
He added that the high tariffs on finished products such as jackets and coats and the relatively low tariffs on raw materials should be corrected.
Addressing Mr Mandelson directly, the minister said India had unilaterally brought down its tariffs substantially over the last few years, but the developed countries were not ready to acknowledge it. “You have pocketed whatever tariff reductions we have made unilaterally and you are pressuring us to make cuts over and above what we have already done,” the minister said.
Mr Nath said there were millions of subsistence farmers in India whose interests had to be protected at all costs. “While we are ready to negotiate trade, we cannot negotiate subsistence,” he said.
India and services negotiations in Doha
Even though this article dates from September, it makes for interesting reading on Indian struggles with the Doha negotiations on services.
We will not brook any inequity, India tells US
From D Ravi Kanth,DH News Service,Geneva:
India issued a stern warning, on Friday, to its trading partners, especially the United States, at the World Trade Organization that the take and take approach adopted by them in liberalising global trade in services will not be tolerated.
At a special meeting of the Doha negotiating session on how to liberalise global trade in services, the Indian trade envoy Ambassador Ujal Singh Bhatia said in unmistakable terms that New Dehli has failed to secure any genuine response to its demands in Mode 1 relating to cross-border services and outsourcing and Mode 4 concerning the movement of short-term services providers on non-immigration basis. “This is a negotiation and it involves ‘give and take’ not ‘take and take’”, he told members pointing that without clear signals in these two areas, India will not be able to join the consensus in other areas.
Ambitious outcome
“For some of us at least, the lack of ambitious outcome in services, would seriously, perhaps fatally, impact the prospects of an early conclusion of the Round,” he told the meeting. Ambassador Bhatia said India has “defensive” concerns in agriculture while it has liberalised a great deal in opening its market for industrials. The only area where India can secure some concrete gains is in the arena of Doha services, he added, pointing an accusing finger that so far there is no response from the major trading partners.
Clear imbalance
On Wednesday, the United States categorically told India that it will not provide any access on Mode 1 and Mode 4 because it has no mandate from its Congress to negotiate on this issue. The US was not even prepared to talk on some minimal issues in both these modes during the plurilateral meeting, trade diplomats said.India’s ambassador said “there is a clear imbalance in the responses” adding “by and large, developing countries have been more forthcoming in their responses to plurilateral requests, than developed members.”
“On the issues of most concern to us (India), Mode 4 and cross border supply, the responses have been specially disappointing,” he maintained. India is also unhappy that Washington is not prepared to provide access to Indian banks which want to expand their operations within the United States. When Indian raised the issue of difficulties faced by the Indian banks in the US, an American services negotiator told the meting “all banks are not equal,” trade diplomats said.source: http://www.deccanherald.com/Content/Sep302007/business2007092928009.asp Sunday, September 30, 2007
Indian finance ministry pitches for successful Doha round for sake of services growth
The Economic Times reports:
“India will lose out in services sector in case the WTO’s Doha round of trade negotiations fails, according to a paper brought out by the Finance Ministry.
The country could be a major beneficiary from greater market access in services unlike other developing nations, said the working paper authored by HAC Prasad, Senior Economic Advisor in the ministry.
India is Asia’s third largest economy with a size of nearly one trillion dollars. Services contribute about 61 per cent of GDP and the sector is growing at double-digit rates.
The paper, titled ‘Strategy for India’s Services Sector: Broad Contours’, said a clear plan for services highlighting the potential gains for India in terms of growth, employment and exports can possibly give a new direction to the country’s strategy in WTO negotiations.
“Our future strategies should depend on our assessment of the export potential in the near and medium term in different services, the likely increase in market access in different services as a result of WTO negotiations which can benefit India and the likely impact on India’s growth,” it said.
The paper pointed out that future negotiations would need realistic strategic alliances which can fetch good dividends. Citing an example, it said while India and Brazil have become very close coalition partners, the economic interests of the two are not necessarily the same.
“We have to be more forthcoming in future negotiations and set our own agenda and make others to react instead of we reacting as has been the case till now,” said the paper, which is the first such document brought out by the Department of Economic Affairs. “
Thoughts:
The three principal stakeholder interests for India in Doha seem to be services, manufacturing and agriculture. Its seems the domestic battle over Doha is between the industrial and poor farmer lobbies on the one hand and the services lobby on the other.
There is a hint of criticism of how India sets its trade negotiation agenda, in that India tends to react defensively instead of being proactive in its demands. This would be a failure of domestic trade politics in identifying Indian interests. Also, the report suggests that India and Brazil might not be the best coalition partners, because their economic interests in the Doha round differ.
This is all part of a larger syndrome in India. As a country, India is still undecided about its ideological and geopolitical positioning in the world. Who does India want to get closer to? How does India decide its foreign economic and political policy? Do Indian policy makers have any long-term strategy for growth and development? Say for the next 50 years. In order for this kind of long-term strategic planning, India needs new institutions. The EU and the US have institutions that define such long term strategies. Whether it be the Commisson, the European lobby or American think tanks. In addition, Indian domestic politics too needs to evolve. Do we have a vision of global alliances in 50 years time. India might want to be an important power but have we wondered in what kind of world and what our role will be?
IBSA summit declaration on trade
The relevant part of the trilateral declaration by the leaders of India, Brazil and South Africa issued on 17 October 2007:
“… 23. The leaders noted that WTO Doha Round of trade negotiations is entering a critical stage. These negotiations are now in a genuine multilateral process, with draft modalities texts for agriculture and industrial goods that provide a good basis for negotiations. They reaffirmed their commitment to carry out negotiations towards an outcome that is fair and acceptable to all.
24. The leaders reiterated the importance of the development dimension of the Round and welcomed the strengthened engagement, solidarity, and cooperation among developing countries in that process.
25. The leaders underlined that agriculture remains the key to the conclusion of the Round. To truly deliver on the development benefits of the Round, they called for the removal of long-standing distortions and restrictions in international agricultural trade, such as subsidies and trade barriers that affect the agricultural exports of and domestic production in developing countries. They also asserted that developed countries must agree to substantial and effective cuts in the latter’s trade distorting support, with new disciplines that prevent box shifting and commit to real and new trade flows in agriculture. They underscored that meaningful and operable special and differential treatment, which includes development instruments of Special Products and the Special Safeguard Mechanism are vital to address the concerns of developing countries with subsistence and low-income farmers.
26. The leaders emphasized that any progress towards achieving the above goals is a development imperative and should not be linked with meeting the disproportionate demands by developed countries in the NAMA and services negotiations.
27. The leaders asserted that developing countries have been constructive and willing to negotiate in all areas. They urged others to act with the same disposition.
28. The leaders recalled their commitment to making a contribution to market opening in the Doha Round in agriculture, NAMA, and services that will create new trade flows. They also committed to ensure that the process of the negotiations is not held hostage to “who goes first”. They reaffirmed their conviction that all members must “move together” to arrive at a balanced and fair outcome of the negotiations.
29. The leaders stated that through constant dialogue, reciprocal flexibility, non-dogmatic approach and good faith efforts, full modalities in the agriculture and industrial goods negotiations could be achieved before the year-end, together with equivalent results in other areas. They reaffirmed their commitment to achieving such a positive outcome within this framework.
30. The leaders underscored the importance of incorporating the development dimension in international discussions concerning intellectual property. They reaffirmed that intellectual property is not an end in itself, but one of the instruments to encourage innovation for technological, industrial and economic and social development. They also recalled that it is fundamental to preserve policy spaces necessary for ensuring access to knowledge, promoting public goals in the fields of health and culture, and a sustainable environment. In this context, they welcomed the adoption of 45 recommendations of concrete actions regarding the “Development Agenda” by this year’s WIPO General Assembly, as well as the establishment of the WIPO Permanent Committee on Development and Intellectual Property.
31. The leaders reaffirmed the need to reach a solution for the problem raised by the granting of intellectual property rights on biological resources and/or associated traditional knowledge, without due compliance with relevant provisions of the Convention on Biological Diversity, such as the granting of erroneous patents or the registration of undue trademarks. In this regard, they recalled the presentation in the WTO of the proposal co-sponsored, among others, by the three IBSA countries to amend the TRIPS Agreement by introducing a mandatory requirement for the disclosure of origin, prior informed consent, and also fair and equitable benefit sharing of biological resources and/or associated traditional knowledge used in inventions for which applications for intellectual property rights are filed.
32. The leaders welcomed the ongoing discussion in the Inter-Governmental Working Group (IGWG) on Intellectual Property and Public Health of the World Health Organization. They stated the important role of WHO in the discussion of the impacts of intellectual property protection on public health and on the access to medicines. …”
leave a comment