|
Dr. Suman Sahai
is the president of Gene Campaign, a non-government organisation (New Delhi-based) working on the issues of bio-resources, intellectual property rights, indigenous knowledge, farmers’ rights and community rights, and she is a member of the International Trade Committee, Government of India.
|
|
Diplomatist:
What are your thoughts on post-Cancun WTO trade negotiations?
Dr. Sahai: The Cancun meet in September was a failure. No common ground of agreement could be identified between the developed and the developing nations. If the North led by USA and EU were adamant on their stand, so were the developing world led by China, India, Brazil, South Africa and Malaysia.
The Cancun failure was not in the interest of any party, more so for the developing conglomerate. The need is to revive further talks. The coming December 15 Geneva talks could give some space to breathe once again. Any negotiation should offer some space for accommodation of interests on the either side. Efforts for deliberations will definitely fail if one party takes an absolute rigid stand, blocking any modest outcome.
The efforts towards regional trading blocks are lucrative arrangements and these have proved worthwhile as far as the results are concerned. Where then is the necessity for an institutional multilateral trading arrangement under WTO?
It is naïve to think and go in for robust economic arrangements at the regional level while forgetting any world trading arrangement. It is nice to see that regional trading blocs like NAFTA, EU, MERCOSUR, and lately ASEAN, coming up on their own with enormous gains. If China, India and ASEAN come together, it is well and good for the three to boost their trading, investment and infrastructural climate. Such blocs provide leverage to developing and underdeveloped countries in international economic forums to put up their demands. But these are all good as alternatives. In other words, situations are not warranted to talk about coming out of WTO as of now. The present need is for greater consultations for a fair multilateral trading platform.
The coming Geneva meet to revive the WTO talks has nothing new to offer. Instead, differences will continue to persist. Where is the problem?
Yes, the issues will be the same. Agriculture, market access, tariff and subsidy reductions and a few other things will dominate all further negotiations.
Any talks further have to reflect the seriousness of intent from every side. It is a mutual give-and-take policy, a mixture of rigidity and flexibility. Agriculture and industry have to reciprocate on behalf of developed and developing nations. The agricultural concerns of the developing nations have to be addressed by the developed nations. The former needs to be flexible on the industrial front or market access for the latter.
What is your stand on WTO/TRIPS?
We had been focussing on the impact of international developments like WTO/TRIPS on the genetic resources of the developing world and the food and livelihood security of rural and tribal communities that depend on them. We are clear that TRIPS would have a devastating effect on agriculture and livelihoods. Domestic laws should be framed to protect geographically-indicated rights. We are focussed on getting equity and justice into IPR regimes, establishing and implementing farmers’ and community rights and developing strategies to conserve genetic diversity, in consultation with farm men and women. We are working on developing a sui generis legal regime for the protection of Indigenous Knowledge and its recognition as a valuable knowledge system and know-how.
Talking about India, New Delhi did make its stand clear at Cancun. What is the other side of the story?
India’s stand at Cancun was not a sign of victory, but one of failure. As I said, any failure of trade talks is not in the interest of countries like India.
At home, this country needs a sound domestic policy regarding WTO. Unlike other countries, including Africa, where the opinions and ideas of civil society and NGOs are counted before taking any stand on WTO issues, in India the policies are discussed and framed at the top without taking into account the views at the ground level. Many in India are still not aware of WTO issues. Of course, this is not India-specific alone. But, we are learning from our past mistakes.
The Cancun round had brought the developing countries together and that is something unique. Their message could be, ‘United we gain, divided we lose’. Is that true?
I am not that optimistic on this. If these networks of developing countries are good, they cannot be taken for granted either. The reason is that these countries are under pressures of economic aid, trade and technology, credit lines, weapon supply, all tied up to their any unique but ubiquitous stand on any major issue.
What is your idea of a free trade world?
A free trade world to me is a myth. It is not practicable. For instance, for this every country has to accord MFN status to each other, which in any case is impossible. If negotiations for a common agreement point are impossible, some agreement on least damaging issues can be arrived at. And for WTO to succeed, developed countries have to oblige their commitments they made during the Doha round. WTO needs ethical conduct from member-countries.
|
