All major press conferences organized on 9th
September a day before the Cancun Ministerial Conference (September 10-14,
2003) clearly show that Agriculture is going to make or break the Cancun
Ministerial Conference of the WTO. Instead of meekly reacting to the EU-US
alliance that can be termed as a sequel to the “Blairhouse Accord”, developing
and developed countries have come out with aggressive groupings that for the
time being at least seem to pose a serious challenge to the designs of the US
and the EU. As we would see from the discussions below, agriculture has become
the centerpiece of negotiations at the Cancun Ministerial Conference of the
WTO. At least one third of the WTO Membership seems to be quite keen to move
forward on negotiations on any other issue only if they see substantive
movement on agriculture.
The CAIRNS group of countries (the Group of 14
agriculture exporting countries) and G-21 (a group of diverse developing
countries including countries like India, Egypt and China that are not a part
of CAIRNS group and countries like Argentina, Costa Rica that are a part of
CAIRNS grouping) seem to have given lower priority to other issues and got
their act together on agriculture at the Cancun Ministerial Conference of the
WTO. Speaking at the press conference organized by the CAIRNS group, the Costa
Rican Minister said that “G-20 (Egypt formally joined in the evening to make it
G-21) and the CAIRNS grouping are complementary and that they would not allow
the EU to divide them this time”.
What increased the significance of this press
conference was the body language of all the CAIRNS group representatives
(mostly Ministers) attending this meeting. They were very aggressive and
confident about pushing their agenda on market access, domestic support and
export subsidies - the three pillars of the Agreement on Agriculture.
Mark Vaile, the Australian Trade Minister who chaired
the morning press conference of the CAIRNS group clarified that “under no
circumstances would the CAIRNS group sacrifice the ambitious mandate of Doha”
and that it was not interested to wind up the round if the Doha mandate on
agriculture was not addressed as per their ambitions. Congratulating such a
development he said, “Make no mistake about the significance of such a
development”. He was categorical that Chairman Castillo’s text on agriculture
“was deficient” and did not reflect the ambitions that the Doha Ministerial
Conference confirmed in the area of reducing and subsequently eliminating
domestic subsidies and export subsidies.
The communiqué circulated by the CAIRNS group says, “We
are seeking the elimination of export subsidies and substantial reductions in
all forms of trade distorting domestic support. In relation to market access,
we are seeking deep cuts to all tariffs and substantial expansion of tariff
quota volumes.”
When it was pointed from the audience that the G-21
and the CAIRNS group alliance suffered political contradictions with players
like India not keen to open their market, the Argentinean Minister pointed out
that the areas of disagreement were very small and that agriculture reform
would be demanded keeping in view the special demands of developing countries.
The explanation of the Argentinean Minister is also supported by the communiqué
which mentions, “Across all three reform pillars the proposals detail
flexibility options for developing countries to enable them to address food
security and rural development concerns.” This language clearly brings concerns
of India on board.
When asked as to what would happen if the alliance
were to be pushed to the wall by the EU-US tough line on agriculture, the
Australian Minister said, “We are here to push the others to the wall and not
get pushed.”
In the evening the G-21 (the grouping of developing
countries) organized a press conference which was addressed by Ministers of
Argentina, Brazil, China, India and South Africa. Summarizing the position of
the G-21, Celso Amorin, the Brazilian Minister for Trade said, “This is the
first time that such a large group of developing countries have been able to
come out with a proposal. We all agree that the fundamental aspect of this
endevaour is to keep our unity and we are aware that our unity is going to be
tested.”
Expressing his views on the grouping the Indian
Commerce Minister Arun Jaitley said, “The formation of this group of 21
countries is very important for us and the WTO. It marks an important point in
the WTO process wherein developing countries are making concerted efforts to
push their agenda. This document is endorsed by 21 countries that represent
majority of the global poor and more than 65% of the world’s farming community.”
The Ministers representing G-21 reiterated that it was
the first time that such a grouping of developing countries had taken such a
professional, non-circumstantial, constructive position and therefore they
would not go without “real substance”. Its communiqué clearly reflects its resolve. In the area of export
subsidies the communiqué makes it clear that economic, political, technical and
ethical reasons added up to make their continuation an aberration. Whereas in
the case of domestic support the communiqué demands that the proposed cuts
should be complemented by tighter rules and disciplines which do not encourage
box-shifting.
The Ministers pointed out that the suggestions in the
G-21 communiqué should not be treated as merely procedural issues but should
taken pari pasu with the Chairman
Castillo’s text. They want their text to be central to negotiations and for
achieving this they are even ready to negotiate issue by issue.
Hitting out at the WTO Secretariat’s gestures in the
past towards creating ambiguity on positions, Celso Amorin asked the press to
make sure that they got hold of a copy of the joint statement of G-21. The
level of seriousness of the G-21 initiative can be possibly gauged from the
fact that an official from one of the G-21 delegations was actually approaching
the press personally to hand over the Draft Ministerial Communiqué.
The developments and the context in which they have
come about are certainly welcome. This political unity has opened some
strategic opportunities as well as challenges for political unity of developing
countries. What are these opportunities and challenges?
Strategic Opportunities and
Challenges
This sectoral initiative launched by CAIRNS and G-21
could open the doors for forming strategic alliances on Singapore issues
(investment, competition, government procurement and trade facilitation). If
the Grouping is really interested in keeping its unity in tact then it would
have to guard itself on all the fronts. Singapore issues are one area wherein
Members of this Group have polarized positions. Some of the Members of this
Grouping such as Brazil, Argentina, Costa Rica have never negated the
possibility of initiating negotiations on investment at the WTO. This is in
complete contradiction to the Indian position. Hence safeguarding of
agriculture interests of the Alliance might provide India a strategic
opportunity to convince its other friends in the Alliance to toe its line on
Singapore issues.
The EC Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy in the press
conference in the afternoon has already sounded his intention to test the
strength of this Alliance. He said, “If there is an alliance on agriculture,
let’s see how long would it hold.” There is great possibility that the EU could
use Indian industry to nudge the Indian position on investment and other
Singapore issues. In order to avoid being pushed on Singapore issues, India
might yield its position on agriculture. Lamy even hinted towards this when he
mentioned that he already had the support of the Indian industry on launching
investment negotiations at the WTO.
The US has already started dangling carrots before
least developed countries by pushing sectoral initiatives such as one on cotton.
It has also declared a strong technical assistance package taking its trade
related technical assistance for the Doha Agenda to USD 3 million since the
launch of negotiations in November 2001. Most of this technical assistance is
going to be channeled through the World Bank to least developed countries such
as Burundi, Cambodia, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Guinea, Lesotho, Madagascar,
Mali, Mauritania, Malawi, Senegal and Yemen. This is going to create
considerable difficulties for the Alliance to increase its strength.
Conjuncture
There is no doubt that the EU and the US are certainly
disturbed about this political marksmanship shown by G-21 and CAIRNS grouping.
The EU Trade Commissioner, Lamy and the Commissioner for Agriculture, Franz
Fischler are caught in an uncomfortable position as they cannot dilute their
positions without discussing them with the EU-Member States. The USTR, Robert
Zoëlick would not want himself to go back with a weak image. Certainly this
would not help George Bush whose popularity ratings are taking unprecedented
beatings these days.
Arun Jaitley would also been keen to preserve the
image of his Party, as one, that does not sacrifice the interests of the
farmers and farm labour, especially in the context of the forthcoming
elections. At the same time he would not want to unnecessarily ruffle feathers
of the industry who provides critical resources during elections. There is news
that the Indian Prime Minister has been receiving calls from Washington to re
think on their position vis-à-vis agriculture. Who knows one call from Delhi
could change the Indian position on agriculture overnight.
Who would lose and win in this balancing act? Would it ever be the farmer and the farm
labourer?
Raghav
Narsalay
Focus
on the Global South-India Programme