INDIA has recently reached several trade and interim trade agreements. Although not all aspects and full texts of these agreements are in the public domain yet and part of them are still not finalised, they have raised several questions. In this context, the latest interim trade agreement with the United States is proving to be the most controversial. While the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi has been asserting strongly that the most important interests of agriculture and dairy sectors in particular have been protected, opposition parties and some farmers’ organisations have alleged that the important interests of people, including farmers, have been compromised.
Before coming to these recent controversies, some important aspects of international trade need to be mentioned for proper context. The framework for international trade, as it emerged in the post-war period after 1945, was largely decided by Western countries led by the US. After some decades, there was a move to change this in ways that would even more aggressively serve the cause of Western domination, and this was to be achieved, among other things, by including a lot of additional issues in trade talks like agriculture, investment, services and intellectual property rights or patents. Hence, trade agreements became a means of achieving greater control over a much wider part ofthe economy and their influence could more easily extend even to remote villages to impact rural livelihoods. This could be seen in the rules and scope of the World Trade Organisation. However, a stage came more recently when the US became impatient in unprecedented ways with any kind of rules and instead has been trying to force its way out of economic and trade problems of its own making by resorting to threats and very high and arbitrary tariff hikes, sanctions and cross-sanctions and other unilateral decisions in violation of trade or other rules and regulations. In this situation, the US has entered into a spate of new trade agreements with many countries, and this, in turn, has led to increased trade agreements among other countries as well.
The second aspect of international trade to be remembered is that while so-called free trade agreements have generally been pushed as desirable, the fact is that for any democratic country with several options, free trade in one or more significant contexts may be less desirable than other more important objectives like, for instance, progress of the food and farming sector in self-reliant ways to combine best the objectives of protecting sustainable livelihoods, producing safe and healthy food, protecting rural environment (including soil) and protecting the sovereignty and other important rights of rural communities. To the extent that trade agreements clash with such noble and highly desirable objectives, a country desirous of being guided by such objectives may exercise a rational choice of opting for certain aspects of self-reliance over certain aspects of free trade. Such an option may be particularly made by those countries or those people who have admired the ideas of more original thinkers and leaders like Mahatma Gandhi. What is more, such ideas may have become more relevant in recent times because of the increasingly aggressive pursuit of their narrow interests by countries like the US.
On the other hand, at a different level, it has become more difficult for several countries to protect their essential interests because the Donald Trump administration, in particular, integrates economic, trade, political and military issues in arbitrary ways and so a negotiating country has to think twice about all kinds of possible costs and implications in trying to protect its trade-related concerns.
Last but not least, it needs to be remembered that while bilateral trade agreements are often seen in terms of two countries, the actual negotiations may be more affected by considerations relating to the powerful elites of both countries. Another related aspect is that negotiators on both sides may have perceptions of development of crucial sectors like agriculture that are far removed from the perceptions of those who are deeply committed to important objectives like protection of sustainable livelihoods of small farmers, ecologically protective and climate-resilient farming, protecting seed sovereignty and self-reliance.
It is in this wider context that we must consider the means available for protecting core interests relating to safeguarding sustainable livelihoods of farmers and workers, protection of the environment, production and consumption of safe and healthy food and feed, seeds sovereignty and decentralised development based on increasing self-reliance of rural communities (gram swaraj).
One important aspect is to demand greater transparency and consultation with people. In fact, even from the point of view of the government, perhaps its best option to avoid any unfair criticism is to make available the entire final text of any agreement in the public domain, instead of people having to look here or there or striving to find more meaning between the lines or in ‘coded’ terminology.
Secondly, there should be efforts to identify the most crucial concerns or the core concerns of people, environment, safety and health. These core concerns should be monitored carefully and as wide a consensus as possible should be created among people to defend them. Any irreversible harm likely to be caused should get the closest attention. In this context, the opposition to GM crops and foods must be very strong.
At the same time as opposing any policies or compromises that are certain to be harmful, there should be a willingness to extend cooperation to the government if and when it becomes clear that it is resisting pressure from very powerful forces on some issues of public interest.
Recently, there have been strong criticisms of the India-US trade agreement as well as strong defence from the government side, causing some confusion. In fact, there is some truth on both sides, as critics have focused more on some undesirable features that they feel may turn out to be even more dangerous when all details are revealed. On the other hand, the government has focused on how it has defended what were seen to be its red lines, such as maintaining the existing protection levels for some of the staple food products and crops of India. The government’s claim that the adverse health effects of GM crops do not exist in processed products obtained from them has been widely rejected, and rightly so.
The government has stated that the concessions provided for imports of apples and dry fruits will not affect a wide area of farming, but it should be remembered that this area is in the sensitive Himalayan region.
Recently released India-US statement also mentions “additional products” in the context of reducing or eliminating tariffs on US farm produce, and so the question of what these additional products will be still remains.
ASHA Swaraj and other organisations have criticised the decision to allow imports of soybean oil or feeds like DDGs (dried distillers’ grains) obtained from GM maize. The joint statement of India and the US has stated, “India also agrees to address long-standing non-tariff barriers to trade in US food and agricultural products.” It is being interpreted as a weakness of resistance to GM products.
Some of the harm caused by trade agreements can be reduced by organising a social boycott of those imported products that are known to be harmful to health and safety. This will also act as a discouragement in the future for those who try to impose harmful products.
In some contexts, a worrying situation already existed even before these trade agreements. Despite the fact that India is rich in traditional oilseeds, these crops have been facing increasing problems in recent times due to a number of factors. These trade agreements may lead to further aggravation of these problems.
While understandably most attention has been focused on the interim trade deal with the US, given the record of close relationships between big businesses of various Western countries, we cannot ignore the risks from some other countries. One very active and leading company in spreading GM crops and also facing many legal cases for causing serious health hazards, was absorbed by a German entity, so those concerned about the US company now have to worry about the German one as well.
These are difficult times of many uncertainties and there is no certainty that, despite extracting many concessions, the US will still honour its side of the agreement. So, the best course of action for those struggling for public interest is to identify core issues and to create a wide consensus for protecting core interests.
———
Bharat Dogra writes extensively on environment, development and welfare issues. The views expressed here are the writer’s own, and Clarion India does not necessarily subscribe to them. He can be reached at: bharatdogra1956@gmail.com
