Despite being nearly isolated in the G-7 - India, Brazil, China, the European Union, US, Japan and Australia — commerce minister Kamal Nath stood his ground and did not yield to the pressures of the rich countries, especially the US, to compromise on protection of the livelihood concerns of poor farmers in developing countries. Excerpts from an interview with Arun S:What was the main reason for the collapse of the talks at the Doha Development Round of the WTO? The main issue was the question of protection of the livelihood security of hundreds of millions of poor farmers in India and other developing countries against import surges which could take place. The Special Safeguard Mechanism (or SSM, which enables developing countries like India to impose additional duties to protect the livelihood of its poor farmers from import surges and price declines of sensitive agricultural products) was agreed in Hong Kong, and in the Framework Agreement. But the proposal on the table was frustrating the operationalisation of SSM. Developed countries and those with huge farm export interests wanted SSM to become effective only at a higher rate of import surge so that their interests were not hurt. I was not going to accept this proposal. There was no question of trading off commercial interests with livelihood security. Developed countries must, in fact, reach out to the poorest and undeveloped countries. India has 300 million people living on less than a dollar a day and 700 million people at 2 dollars a day. This SSM is not just for today, but is in the larger interests of Indian agriculture. No one would have thought a year ago that there would be this sort of crisis in global food prices, which is caused also due to huge farm subsides. Since the talks have failed now, do you think India is losing out in anyway?We are not losing out. India is already growing at 8.5 per cent. We possibly cannot look at gaining on one hand and failing to secure livelihood security of the poor on the other. Was India isolated at the G-7 talks? In the G-7, I was alone speaking. But, not in terms of membership. In terms of membership, we had a backing of over 100 countries, including the G-33, African group and the ACP group. Were there issues other than SSM that were unresolved? Yes. The issue of (reduction or elimination of) cotton subsidies of the US, the issues of industrial products (where the US insisted that developing countries should eliminate duties in certain infant and vulnerable industries in developing countries) and overall trade distorting farm subsidies of the US. All these were left. The US did not want to get into discussions on cotton subsides. The US has their positions and some positions are dictated solely by commercial considerations. What is the way forward now for WTO?India’s confidence in this institution of WTO and the multilateral system remains intact. I think what is on the table should be left on the table, and we should consider this as a pause and then pick this up, move forward and run that extra mile. What about the unity of all our alliances, especially the G-20, considering that Brazil has broken away? The unity will remain intact because nobody is willing to bargain or sell off issues which affect the poorest people in their respective country. It is due to the joint efforts of G-20 that we have got this far. G-20 is a diverse group and that is what gives it credibility, and each member respects the other.
