The ripples which reverberate after India's refusal to become signatory of historical WTO agreement fascinated Indian diaspora. They saw it as the emergence Narendra Modi on international stage. It was not the case that he was not known on international stage. The Washington think tank was keeping watch on his every move since last 12 year.
Earlier though it was for the bad reason of Gujarat riots but latter the reason changed to the development model of same state. Shinzo abe follows three people on his twitter account. Indian diplomats were fascinated when they saw Narendra Modi was one of them.
Was the move of not becoming signatory of WTO agreement based on personal motto?
Whenever this question comes in world domain, it certainly gets two answer of yes and no. Let's consider no part of it. The main objection which India enlisted was on the question of keeping the base year for calculating agriculture commodity prices to 1986-87. India wanted some recent year for the consideration of comparative agriculture prices. It was better if average inflation of last three year of prices was considered.
If inflation factor is not taken into account then India certainly violates Agreement of Agriculture of 1986 which was the byproduct of WTO ministerial conference. But article 18.4 of AoA allows India to consider 'due allowance' in terms of inflation. If that thing is taken into consideration then it seems that India has not violated minimum support price limit. In fact Indian MSP is considerably below the international market price.
The need for subsidies based on minimum support price can not be denied in Indian subcontinent. Specially when 70 percent of Indian population is based on agriculture and allied activities. In some areas the condition of farmer is so pure that the suicide rate is increasing exponentially. We can't allow job creation by giving sacrifice of our farmers. We need agriculture revolution based on local as well as sustainable scenario.
Same time, Indian diplomats are very much aware of the fact that United States is not the signatory of Kyoto Protocol and Convention on biodiversity agreement. The main objection which U.S had regarding Kyoto protocol was that India and China should at least be included in list B where the resolution of common but differentiated responsibility would partially apply to them. At present these countries are included in list C of Kyoto protocol where there is no compulsion on reducing the level of carbon-di-oxide. That time united states also gave reason of future reduction in trade output which shocked the whole world.
Also U.S was afraid to sign Convention on biodiversity agreement because they feared the fair and equitable sharing of benefit arising due to them. Indian diplomats, on the other side must have become cautious when they saw U.S rejecting any agreement which potentially affected their own capital interests. Also, they saw the one sided use of TRIPS agreement by their US counterparts.
Indian diplomats must have regretted when one of US company tried to patent Haladi, a household product used by almost every Indian family. These previous incidents certainly made Indian government more cautious. The decision of Indian Supreme court to deny renewal of patent of Ranbaxy International pvt ltd was a welcome decision. This helped Indian people to borrow the concerned medicines at considerably low prices.
Narendra Modi took a calculated risk by not signing at WTO. On one hand he got a chance of accusing previous congress government for agreeing to sign so called as anti farmer agreement on WTO platform and on other side, it gave him a platform to emerge as an international leader. Modi knew that American and European lobbies have spent millions of dollars to force developing countries to agree on this historic agreement. He knew that he has stopped some several millions jobs from getting created. When this kind of thing happens world automatically takes note of your personality. He forced them to take a note of him by the concerned refusal.
At this stage, what will happen to WTO agreement is not question of importance. But this, so called as Indian aggression has certainly set an example of vibrant diplomacy which can't get pressurized by west led dictatorship. India sent the massage that few countries of the world can't exploit developing and underdeveloped countries by those one sided virtual agreements. India has shown that if any agreement is to be signed then it should be based on equality and highest integrity.
In near future, with business friendly and aggressive leader such as Narendra Modi we can see international laws getting more equitable. What other marginalized nation wants is to follow Indian example and create a more prosperous and simple world.
Read More
What is command and control to launch Nuclear warhead in India
Earlier though it was for the bad reason of Gujarat riots but latter the reason changed to the development model of same state. Shinzo abe follows three people on his twitter account. Indian diplomats were fascinated when they saw Narendra Modi was one of them.
Was the move of not becoming signatory of WTO agreement based on personal motto?
Whenever this question comes in world domain, it certainly gets two answer of yes and no. Let's consider no part of it. The main objection which India enlisted was on the question of keeping the base year for calculating agriculture commodity prices to 1986-87. India wanted some recent year for the consideration of comparative agriculture prices. It was better if average inflation of last three year of prices was considered.
If inflation factor is not taken into account then India certainly violates Agreement of Agriculture of 1986 which was the byproduct of WTO ministerial conference. But article 18.4 of AoA allows India to consider 'due allowance' in terms of inflation. If that thing is taken into consideration then it seems that India has not violated minimum support price limit. In fact Indian MSP is considerably below the international market price.
The need for subsidies based on minimum support price can not be denied in Indian subcontinent. Specially when 70 percent of Indian population is based on agriculture and allied activities. In some areas the condition of farmer is so pure that the suicide rate is increasing exponentially. We can't allow job creation by giving sacrifice of our farmers. We need agriculture revolution based on local as well as sustainable scenario.
Same time, Indian diplomats are very much aware of the fact that United States is not the signatory of Kyoto Protocol and Convention on biodiversity agreement. The main objection which U.S had regarding Kyoto protocol was that India and China should at least be included in list B where the resolution of common but differentiated responsibility would partially apply to them. At present these countries are included in list C of Kyoto protocol where there is no compulsion on reducing the level of carbon-di-oxide. That time united states also gave reason of future reduction in trade output which shocked the whole world.
Also U.S was afraid to sign Convention on biodiversity agreement because they feared the fair and equitable sharing of benefit arising due to them. Indian diplomats, on the other side must have become cautious when they saw U.S rejecting any agreement which potentially affected their own capital interests. Also, they saw the one sided use of TRIPS agreement by their US counterparts.
Indian diplomats must have regretted when one of US company tried to patent Haladi, a household product used by almost every Indian family. These previous incidents certainly made Indian government more cautious. The decision of Indian Supreme court to deny renewal of patent of Ranbaxy International pvt ltd was a welcome decision. This helped Indian people to borrow the concerned medicines at considerably low prices.
Narendra Modi took a calculated risk by not signing at WTO. On one hand he got a chance of accusing previous congress government for agreeing to sign so called as anti farmer agreement on WTO platform and on other side, it gave him a platform to emerge as an international leader. Modi knew that American and European lobbies have spent millions of dollars to force developing countries to agree on this historic agreement. He knew that he has stopped some several millions jobs from getting created. When this kind of thing happens world automatically takes note of your personality. He forced them to take a note of him by the concerned refusal.
At this stage, what will happen to WTO agreement is not question of importance. But this, so called as Indian aggression has certainly set an example of vibrant diplomacy which can't get pressurized by west led dictatorship. India sent the massage that few countries of the world can't exploit developing and underdeveloped countries by those one sided virtual agreements. India has shown that if any agreement is to be signed then it should be based on equality and highest integrity.
In near future, with business friendly and aggressive leader such as Narendra Modi we can see international laws getting more equitable. What other marginalized nation wants is to follow Indian example and create a more prosperous and simple world.
Read More
What is command and control to launch Nuclear warhead in India
No comments:
Post a Comment