 "No agreement on food security better than a bad one: Sharma")
Brushing aside suggestions that India's tough stance on food security was guided by the forthcoming general elections, Commerce and Industry Minister Anand Sharma today said New Delhi would prefer "no agreement" over a bad one, thus raising the risk for collapse of the WTO talks here.
"It is better to have a no agreement than to have a bad agreement," Sharma said at a packed press meet.
He asserted: "We have not come here to collapse any meeting. India is committed to a positive outcome in Bali. India is committed to a balanced and fair outcome, particularly in public stockholding and food security."
Developed countries such as the US are asking India to accept a peace clause, which offers four years of immunity against penalties imposed for breaching the farm subsidy cap of 10 per cent under the WTO Agreement on Agriculture (AoA).
India and other developing nations, on the other hand, want the peace clause until a permanent solution is found on the matter for smooth implementation of the food security programme.
Asked if the Indian government was raising the food security issue to gain political mileage in the 2014 general elections, Sharma said: "I think this is a misconception. Democracies do have elections but democracies also have principles and convictions...This proposal emanates from the Hong Kong ministerial meeting of 2005.
"India has not suddenly remembered that there are going to be elections and suddenly pulled the rabbit out of the hat. That is not the case.
"This is an eight-year-old proposal which has been discussed and re-discussed, negotiated and re-negotiated many times and those who are of knowledge of developments, even during the near collapse in June 2008, the AoA continued to be negotiated," Sharma said.
"It is better to have a no agreement than to have a bad agreement," Sharma said at a packed press meet.
He asserted: "We have not come here to collapse any meeting. India is committed to a positive outcome in Bali. India is committed to a balanced and fair outcome, particularly in public stockholding and food security."
More From This Section
Sharma, who is holding talks to garner support on the food security issue here, the venue of the Ninth Ministerial Conference, said there could be "no compromise" on the matter, which is of vital importance for poor and developing countries, including India.
Developed countries such as the US are asking India to accept a peace clause, which offers four years of immunity against penalties imposed for breaching the farm subsidy cap of 10 per cent under the WTO Agreement on Agriculture (AoA).
India and other developing nations, on the other hand, want the peace clause until a permanent solution is found on the matter for smooth implementation of the food security programme.
Asked if the Indian government was raising the food security issue to gain political mileage in the 2014 general elections, Sharma said: "I think this is a misconception. Democracies do have elections but democracies also have principles and convictions...This proposal emanates from the Hong Kong ministerial meeting of 2005.
"India has not suddenly remembered that there are going to be elections and suddenly pulled the rabbit out of the hat. That is not the case.
"This is an eight-year-old proposal which has been discussed and re-discussed, negotiated and re-negotiated many times and those who are of knowledge of developments, even during the near collapse in June 2008, the AoA continued to be negotiated," Sharma said.