|
NEW DELHI: Pascal Lamy, Director-General, World Trade Organisation (WTO), will visit United States after his India visit in a bid to revive the stalled global trade talks.
Lamy is the fifth Director-General of WTO. Prior to his appointment, Lamy was the Trade Commissioner of the European Union.
In an exclusive interview to UTVi, Lamy said his talks with Trade Minister Kamal Nath were quite encouraging, and said concerns raised by India were legitimate. He said the WTO members had mandated him to try and bring the talks back on track after the debacle in Geneva last month. Excerpts:
You are in Delhi two weeks after the Geneva talks collapsed, is it mere coincidence or are you a man on a mission?
No. I was to come to Delhi anyway. The programme was made in advance. The talks may have collapsed but there's a safeguards mechanism for developing countries' farmers against the surge in imports. India and the US are the flag carries on two opposing sides and I have to see whether the differences are bridgeable or not and there is no other method than going to the horse's mouth.
How optimistic are you? Have you have met trade officials in India?
"I am neither pessimistic nor optimistic. That is because I can't afford to in this job. The WTO members were saying we are very near to the agreement... Don’t throw in the towel, do not pull the rudder, don’t let it slip away. They asked me to try and resolve the issues and I don’t know whether it is doable or not. I have to see the issues which led to the breakdown of talks between India and the US are bridgeable or not, whether the two sides agree or not is a political view they may have... Whether it is easy for some and a threat to normal trade for others... Is it difficult to use in which case the instrument is not available... Whether some sort of political understanding can be reached and that can be translated into numbers, that remains to be seen...
You said you are going to the US in a happier frame of mind?
I think after these two days in Delhi, I understand a bit more of what’s behind this motion... Not whether the safeguards should be there, but whether they will be easy to use or not and I think that the Indian position on this issue is very clear. I agree that there should be a safety net of this kind to counter the import surge, but it should not hamper the trade flow and I will have to see whether or not the US side can live with it. This kind of balancing act is needed.
Isn’t India's concern legitimate considering that there are so many farmers here - 250 million, most of whom have small land holdings unlike the rich farmers in the developed countries with large farm lands?
Yes. It is a legitimate concern. That's why nobody disputes the existence of a safeguards mechanism. No one across the table says there should be no safeguards mechanism, no one questions the legitimacy. Whether or not millions of farmers are affected by imports or not, it is a political reality, so there is no problem regarding the legitimacy, but the parameters, which will allow the country to trigger such reforms, are more or less conditional, more or less straightjacketed on numbers and this is where the differences could not be bridged.
How receptive is the US administration given that you had a cooling off period of almost two weeks? Is there an appreciation of India’s stand in the US and is there a better understanding of the US view amongst Indian policy makers now?
I think, these issues need a better understanding of India's position in the US and better understanding of the US position in India and whether or not the US realises what the Indian position is, I will see to it next week. To sum up, the Indian side wants something that’s not too difficult to use and the US wants something that’s not so easy to use and there is politics behind it. In India, we have such a large farming community which fears the opening up of the market and on the US side there is a view that if these safeguards are used too easily, it may amount to negating the previously committed market action commitments. I think, both sides have legitimate fears that it may be too easy to use or difficult to use.
How soon do you think India and the US will come to the negotiating table?
Frankly speaking, I am not negotiating. I am just brokering and I think the experts should soon come to the negotiating table before the ministers make their decisions, when would this happen, frankly, I don’t know.
But do we have the time, given the few months the US administration has?
It is not a question of time. It is a question of substance. If the differences can be bridged, then there are so many issues other on the table or which need to be on the table. We simply have an obstacle, which we could not cross and which we have to cross, the sooner the better.
Farm issues are becoming such a sticky issue in global trade talks, don't you think we should drop them and move on to other negotiations?
That’s quite an academic point of view, but the reality is that the Doha round of negotiations was structured around agreed agendas including the reduction of farm subsidies, reduction of farm tariffs, safeguards mechanism for developing countries,
services, intellectual property issues. You cannot pick and choose your agenda. The developing countries insisted and got their point recognised that agriculture should be tackled first in WTO trade talks. They will not agree to things in other areas if they do not get what they want in agriculture. So the notion that you can pick and choose the agenda is not a political reality. In WTO, as regards an agenda, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.
|
Published on 
Tags:
