Today, the G20 has acquired a position in the multilateral trade negotiations that is much stronger than other existing or past coalitions. What makes the G20 different?
One distinctive feature of the G20 is that this alliance includes the political and economic heavy weights from the developing world. These key countries, especially Brazil, South Africa, India and China have forged an alliance at the highest political level that goes beyond the remit of the World Trade Organisation. They also seem to share a grand vision, which is to change the “geography of trade” and reduce the dependence of the South on the North.
The countries in the G20 are of varied nature and have different priorities. For instance, Brazil’s interest in agriculture is diametrically different from that of India. How has the G20 been able to remain a cohesive unit in spite of these differences? Are there any apparent fissures that developed countries will try to exploit?
Any alliance which includes such a large range of members, from middle income agricultural exporters to net food importing least developing countries, is bound to have tensions, which will increase as agricultural talks proceed and details of market access commitments become more specific. But the G20 seems well aware of the need for continued unity to oppose the continuation of export dumping by developed countries. It is a matter of political necessity if they want to achieve any results in this area.
Some people argue that the G20 continues to speak in generic terms on different facets of agriculture, in particular, on market access issues of tariff reduction and special safeguard mechanism. Even the New Delhi Declaration does not say anything new. There is a wide divergence between the G20 members on these issues. Do you think that the G20 is avoiding the specificities of contentious issues to prevent the possibility of any rift between the countries in the G20?
There is a time for everything. At this stage of the market access negotiations, which are still blocked by AVEs (ad valorem equivalents), the G20 can easily hide its contradictions. But it is crucial that the alliance works on its internal dilemmas on market access so that the G20 can make joint technical proposals on market access when the time comes.
The G20 has predominantly focused on agriculture. However, there are indications that it may also focus on issues such as Non Agricultural Market Access (NAMA) and services. Will expanding the agenda of the G20 weaken the group and its existing position on agriculture?
The G20 confirmed in New Delhi that it would not seek to achieve common positions on other issues. A larger mandate would have made it even more difficult, if not impossible, to reach consensus. However, the G20 is considering progress in other areas to guide its approach to the agricultural negotiations, which will be crucial to its success this year, as big trade-offs will occur between agriculture, industry and services negotiations.
What role will political factors play in deciding the future of the G20? How will the strengthening trilateral axis between India, Brazil and South Africa (IBSA) and the political equations between Brazil and the US affect the G20?
Political factors will continue to play an important role, as will progress in other areas such as the reform of the Security Council. What happens to regional integration in the Americas, and most specifically the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), will also affect Brazil’s strategy. How much this will affect the G20 still remains to be seen.
What should be the agenda of the G20 in the coming days in order to make the ongoing round of negotiations a truly development round?
To prevent another decade of dumping, the G20 should continue to push for effective reductions in trade domestic support, promote the rapid implementation of the cotton and sugar panels, and oppose any new re-negotiation of the Blue Box by the United States. It should also ensure that market access commitments of developing countries are limited and flexible so that they do not threaten rural livelihoods and food security. |
