Registration
You will receive an email confirming your registration.
IMGXYZ788IMGZYX Indian Commerce Secretary Gopal K. Pillai spoke at the Carnegie Endowment on India’s current perspective on the Doha round of negotiations on September 25, 2007. Exhibiting guarded optimism, Secretary Pillai said that while many details of an agreement are yet to be worked out, “all in all, we are looking at a reasonably ambitious Doha round” and India feels a conclusion is more likely “than in any other period before.” Secretary Pillai projected that if work proceeds well on issues including services, rules and preference erosion, in addition to the ongoing negotiations over agricultural and non-agricultural trade (NAMA), a ministerial meeting could be held as early as March 2008 with the purpose of finally reaching a Doha accord.
Sandra Polaski, Director of Carnegie’s Trade, Equity and Development Project, noted in her opening remarks that a pair of developments has changed the atmosphere surrounding the protracted negotiations. First, the establishment by developing countries of organized blocs, “not only defensive coalitions” but also those oriented toward “positive goals and proposals” has helped create a Doha framework that “takes better account of all opinions.” Second, she noted that the political calendars of critical actors India and the United States, which both face upcoming elections in which trade issues are likely to be contentious, would slow the talks if they are not concluded in the next few months. However, an extended period of detailed technical negotiations on the many remaining issues could constitute a good use of such time, she said.
Secretary Pillai, who oversees all matters related to India’s external trade and serves as its lead negotiator in bilateral talks, sees a “sense of urgency” in Geneva and a mutual understanding among trade delegates that a Doha proposal must be comprehensive to be effective. This, he said, marks a departure from a philosophy dating back to the 2005 Hong Kong Ministerial, in which negotiators sought to reach an agreement on agricultural goods before considering other issues. As an example of encouraging news from Geneva, he observed that Agriculture Committee Chairman Crawford Falconer’s draft paper on cutting barriers to trade in agricultural goods has been widely “received in a positive light” and that figures for increases in market access to the richest nations have been agreed upon within a range of 66 to 73 percent, with a further narrowing to a range of 69 to 71 percent likely in coming weeks.
However, Secretary Pillai also spoke candidly of difficulties in the discussions. He pointed that what the US has put forward as “real and substantive cuts” in its permitted agricultural subsidies, from a current proposed cap of $22 billion to a range of $13-16 billion, would in reality be of little consequence, as in the most recent fiscal year the U.S. support amounted only to $11 billion.
In a question-and-answer session, Jim Berger of Washington Trade Daily asked whether a “mini-ministerial” meeting should be held to discuss developments in Geneva. Secretary Pillai responded that, in light of past gridlock in negotiations, none of the ministers were keen to have such a meeting until a comprehensive proposal had been put forward.
Sudha Meiyappan of Manchester Trade wondered whether India would support “Aid for Trade” for countries in sub-Saharan Africa as part of the Doha package. In reply, Secretary Pillai noted that India’s unique status as having the world’s fastest-growing economy among democracies and yet also more poor people than all “least-developed” countries combined complicated this decision, but that his country had come to a consensus on the issue that would soon be announced officially.
Mary Irace of the National Foreign Trade Council contended that the position of the so-called “NAMA 11,” of which India is a member, is “politically unfeasible” if the US Congress is to support a final accord. She asked Secretary Pillai whether India was willing to negotiate on the current texts. Pillai said that India itself could survive NAMA cuts in the range discussed in the text but that such reductions would lead to de-industrialization in some other developing countries and India would not break ranks with those countries’ concerns.
In response to other questions, Secretary Pillai stated that lowering tariff rates from bound (versus applied) rates was the norm in WTO negotiations and should not be a concern. He was confident that the “coefficients on the table would lead to real cuts.” He responded to a question on trade disputes between India and the U.S. by saying the disagreements have been moderate detriments to an otherwise increasingly robust bilateral relationship. He singled out the end to U.S. preferences to Indian jewelry exports, pointing out that this decision would hurt poor Indians working in cottage industries. Finally, in response to a question on the political feasibility of the U.S. making a proposal to introduce cuts to its cotton subsidies, he noted that the U.S. had already agreed to reduce these supports “more ambitiously and expeditiously” than on other agricultural goods. Other countries were waiting to see a concrete proposal.
