Introduction
The 11th Ministerial Conference (MC11) of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) in December 2017 highlighted significant debates and disagreements over issues of food stockpiling and food security. These discussions not only underscore the complexities of global trade but also highlight the critical importance of ensuring food security for millions around the world. This article explores the key players, the issues at stake, and the potential implications of the debate for global trade policies.
Understanding the Ministerial Conference of the WTO
The WTO's Ministerial Conference (MC) is the highest decision-making body in the organisation, tasked with making binding decisions on matters related to any multilateral trade agreement. The MC11, held in Buenos Aires, Argentina, in December 2017, saw trade ministers and senior officials from 164 member countries engage in discussions critical to the future of global trade and food security.
The Issue of Food Stockpiling and Food Security
According to global trade norms, a WTO member country's food-subsidy bill is restricted to 10% of the value of production based on the reference price of 1986-88. However, during the Bali Conference, members agreed to an interim ‘Peace Clause’ under which any breach of the ceiling by a developing nation would not be challenged. This clause was intended to be temporary until a permanent solution was agreed upon. The resolution of this issue was to be a critical agenda item at MC11.
India's Stance at MC11
The Indian delegation, led by Commerce Minister Suresh Prabhu, emphasized the importance of a permanent solution to the food stockpiling issue. India argued that the credibility of the WTO would be affected without such a solution. Mr. Prabhu highlighted the survival of 800 million hungry and undernourished people as a matter of global concern.
"We cannot envisage any negotiated outcome at MC11 which does not include a permanent solution is a matter of survival for 800 million hungry and undernourished people in the world. A successful resolution of this issue would fulfill our collective commitment to the global community."
The US Position and the Implications
The US played a crucial role in the discussions, questioning the special and differential treatment for countries with high GDPs. The US Trade Representative, Robert Lighthizer, emphasized the need for clarification on the concept of development within the WTO. According to him, the situation where new rules can only apply to a few while others are given a pass in the name of development is not sustainable.
"We need to clarify our understanding of development within the WTO. We cannot sustain a situation in which new rules can only apply to the few and that others will be given a pass in the name of self-proclaimed development status is something wrong in our view when five of the six richest countries in the world presently claim developing country status."
Lighthizer's statements align with the Trump administration's claims that the US has received a raw deal from the WTO. The US stance underscores the tension between the need for developmental support and the imperative for fair competition in the global market.
India's Response and the Debate on Special and Differential Treatment
India's response to the US position affirmed the importance of special and preferential treatment in the WTO framework. Commerce Minister Suresh Prabhu stated that such treatment is an important component of the organisation, emphasizing that developing countries like India are 'legitimate demandeurs' of it. He also pointed out the historical context, noting that many developed countries today have benefitted from long periods of derogation exemption from GATT rules in the area of agriculture and textiles.
"You cannot ignore realities that certain societies have been left behind in the process of development… It is also noteworthy that many developed countries of today have benefitted from long periods of derogation exemption from GATT rules in the area of agriculture and textiles."
Conclusion
The debates and disagreements over food stockpiling and food security at MC11 are symptomatic of broader challenges in the WTO framework. While the US advocates for more stringent adherence to global trade rules, India and other developing countries emphasize the importance of special and differential treatment to address developmental imbalances. The outcome of these discussions will have significant implications for global food security and the future of the WTO.