'Might Is Not Always Right'

Is any dilution perceived in the stand of any country or like-minded group?

Let us first go back a few steps. The negotiations broke down in July 2008 but at the negotiator level talks continued till November 2008 and then they essentially shut down. Between then and September essentially nothing happened. Everybody kept urging to revive the talks but nothing was happening in Geneva.

What we essentially did (in holding the ministerial meet) was call 100 plus countries posing the question ‘do you have the political will to move forward and if so, how are you going to do it?’ That is what the New Delhi meet was about – the process and not the content.

The issue you are raising is the substance of the negotiation. Your question whether I perceive any change in the stance or position of any country or group on any issue, the answer to that I will get when I engage in negotiations in Geneva. All the ministers who were here on September 3-4 uniformly said we want the deal done. They did not stop there, but went beyond that to say - send your negotiators to Geneva in the week beginning September 14.

How many days of negotiations are slated to take place in Geneva?

It will be about 7-8 days from September 14-21 and will include three types of meetings – chief negotiators meeting with one another as a group; chief negotiators meeting various negotiating group chairs like agriculture and NAMA (non-agriculture marketing access) where the bulk of the negotiations are done, and the third will be the chief negotiators meeting Mr Pascal Lamy because he is the chief of the trade negotiating committee.

So there will be interactions at all that level. Then, I am sure, they will devise a work plan of how meetings will be scheduled and meetings will be taken up. For instance I already know that in the week beginning September 21 there will be negotiations on NAMA and agriculture in parallel. So I know the work plan for the two weeks from September 14 to September 28…..

Once the negotiators come back the next phase of schedule will be worked out. Then the engagement will start getting intensified, which is exactly what the ministers wanted done and it is already happening….

During the ministerial meeting one of the topics hotly debated was whether we are at the ‘beginning of the end game’ or in ‘ the end game’ as Mr. Pascal Lamy stated. At what stage do you feel the negotiations are currently?

We are very close to the end game but need to work a little before we get there….We can engage in semantics about this forever. What everybody understands end game to mean is that there is a pocketful of issues that you need to close up. You can close them up in a couple of months and then call a ministerial to sew up the deal. But that is not the position we are in right now. I think we need to do a lot of work on submissions where the architecture of the solution is not clear. Second, there are still wide gaps in some areas and those gaps have to be bridged.

Think of it this way, if you are saying zero and I am saying 100 then there is a large gap; and I can’t expect the minister to come in and say alright let us settle at 50. Whereas if you are saying 20 and I am saying 30, then maybe the ministers can come in and say let us strike a deal at 25.

What I am trying to says is that in some issues it is a question of narrowing gaps sufficiently before you are there, while in a large number of things you are almost close but everybody wants to be sure if it is settled or not. That is why we need to go back to the negotiating table in Geneva to find out whether it is settled. If there are no big issues, put it aside.

Second, we are getting close (on some issues) but still have a wide range, lets narrow it. Third, where we have very wide differences or where the architecture of solutions is such that I don’t know how to solve the problem those are areas where work will have to go on.

Some of the areas where a lot of work is required is sectorals, rules negotiations as in case of anti-dumping and fisheries subsidy, services—here you have the broad architecture but are nowhere close to defining a solution. For example, in the rules negotiation for anti-dumping there is one bunch of countries that want to remove the practice of ‘zeroing’, but the US is dead set against removing it. Clearly you have a very wide divide. How are you going to resolve the issue? It can’t be a ‘you win or you lose’, as trade negotiations don’t work out that way. You have to give people time. As I said, we are very close (to the end game) as a large number of issues have almost been settled.

In the backdrop of the global economic slowdown and its impact, are there any areas which you feel need to be reopened or relooked at for negotiations?

The problem there is very simple – if you reopen one you reopen all and then it all unravels. I don’t think you have any excuse. A trade negotiator will always tell you this: what you have settled, please don’t reopen, because it took us eight years to get here. If you reopen one thing then the entire package will unravel. So that is definitely not a desirable outcome and something any sensible trade negotiator would want to embark upon. When you have come very close to a solutions don’t say you want to start devising a new solution. All that you would do is create a new problem and not devise a new solution.

What are the influences and challenges you see ahead?

People have to learn to give and take. This is going to be harder today then it was four years back because domestic political constituencies are not all gung ho. When unemployment ranges between 10-20 per cent in many of these (developing) countries, how do you go and sell a deal there. For instance, in South Africa you have unemployment in excess of 30-35 per cent. Now how do go a sell a deal there that says you have to take a steep cut in NAMA tariffs. In a country like that it becomes an extremely difficult issue.

Similarly, there are countries where agriculture product prices have fallen or farmers are on the street – look at France and Spain. The problem I am describing can apply whether it is a developing country like us or any other country in the world, as we all have issues. Because of the economic downturn all of us have to look inside (at the internal situation) and find out what is going on.

The point is to be statesman like and that is why the leaders have to take these decisions. That is why Pittsburgh (G-20 meet) is so important as the leaders will give a call. Without that impetus there will be some degree of reluctance (on the part of trade negotiators) to move. It is not because you are not convinced that trade is good for you, but because you are concerned about the impact on jobs and other issues. And that can taint the belief in trade (capacity to help global revival). That is why you saw (nations take steps towards) protectionism all over the world. The biggest anti-dote to protectionism is to close the deal. And that is where you need leaders and not negotiators, who do what is told to them.

In effect, what you are saying is that it is not only in the interest of developed but also developing nations to conclude this deal?

Absolutely. This is the (Doha) Development Round, so it is all about development. How can the developing countries not be interested? The biggest beneficiary will be the developing countries at the end of the day. Many LDC and poor countries are waiting for this deal to come through. Remember, a rules based system works better for a developing country. If it is not rule based than international politics is ‘right is might’. When it is rule based then might is not always right – that is the difference. If a large country tries to hurt my exports by levying a duty or doing something else, if I have a rule based system that allows me to go to Geneva and enforce the rule, that works to protect me against any arbitrary exercise of economic or other power by somebody who has more power than I do.

This interview did not appear in print