Left, govt stand on WTO not different

Shorn of rhetoric driven by the demand for an independent foreign policy, there is very little difference between India's official position on various issues at the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and the Left position.

A draft note seeking to influence the government's negotiating stance was released by the Left parties at the same time Commerce Minister Kamal Nath was in Zurich recently for a mini-ministerial prior to the sixth ministerial meeting of the WTO starting in Hong Kong on December 13.

The draft note says New Delhi should ask the US and the European Union at the upcoming WTO meet to reduce support to their farm sector if they want concessions from the emerging economies.

"Unless this (trend of subsiding farm production) is corrected, rich countries can continue to dole out heavy subsidies to their farmers that will be detrimental to farmers from developing countries," the note said.

But this has been India's position consistently and that the Left is actually bolstering India's point of view was clear even at Zurich. Reacting to US Trade Representative Rob Portman's offer of up to a 60 per cent cut by the US on farm aid, Nath said this was not enough. He told reporters in Zurich that though the US proposal was welcome, it must also "lead to a reduction in budgetary support". The US should impose ceilings on some specific commodities, Nath said.

Therefore, it is not clear what the difference between the Left and the government's position is. The note further added that India should demand a "reduction in total producer support to agriculture in the US and EU in return for any concession that developing countries may offer".

Nath went a step further. He did not even mention the contours of the market access concessions the US had asked for, in return for cutting farm subsidies. The Left note said India's role in the formation of G-20 and G-33 at Cancun would have reinforced solidarity of the South. "But subsequent events have unfortunately belied our expectations," it added.

In this context, the draft specifically mentions India's joining the "five interested parties" forum and its role in reaching a consensus known as the "July Framework" in 2004, which "in our opinion (was) a reversal of India's commitment to speak on behalf of developing countries".

Ignoring the fact that the "Five Interested Parties" (FIP, a group of developing nations with some common trade negotiating positions) are broadly endorsing what India is saying, the Left says India should have spoken up for the developing world instead of joining countries like Brazil in a closed group like the FIPs that took decisions for the rest of the world.

Although India's position is that it works closely with the developing world wherever there is common interest on specific issues, the Left parties' stand is: "We are in fundamental disagreement with such a position".

"We will like to reiterate that India's long-term interests are best served by making a common cause with developing countries, rather than by building opportunistic alliances for illusory short-term gains," the draft note said.

"The government should re-emphasise the need for the developed countries to eliminate billions of dollars of subsidies that they provide to their farmers every year," the draft note said, adding the "July framework" gave the developed countries the leeway to dole out heavy subsidies to the farm sector.

Interestingly, a note released by the Punjab, Haryana and Delhi Chamber of Commerce and Industry, makes roughly the same point. Urging India to take tough stance on agriculture, the PHDCCI said OECD countries still spend over $341 billion to support agriculture in their countries.

"Subsidies of such magnitude are clearly detrimental to the interests of marginal farmers in poor countries whose markets could increase substantially due to the comparative cost advantage," it said.

"'If developed countries reduce support to their agricultural sector and to agro commodity exports, there is a tremendous scope for increase in exports of developing countries,"' PHDCCI said.

There is no love lost between the Left parties and chambers of commerce. But on the agricultural issues at the WTO, the differences - between the Left, the government and industry - are only in the nuances.