India has recently concluded a number of trade agreements and interim trade arrangements. Although not all aspects and full texts of these agreements are yet in the public domain—and some are still works in progress—they have already raised serious questions. The latest interim trade agreement with the United States has proved to be the most controversial. While the Indian government has strongly asserted that the key interests of agriculture, and particularly the dairy sector, have been safeguarded, opposition parties and several farmers’ organisations allege that the interests of the people, including farmers, have been compromised.
Before addressing these recent controversies, it is necessary to outline some important aspects of international trade for proper context. The framework of international trade that emerged in the post-war period after 1945 was largely shaped by Western countries led by the United States. After a few decades, efforts were made to change this framework in ways that would serve Western dominance even more aggressively. This was achieved, among other means, by including additional issues in trade negotiations such as agriculture, investment, services, and intellectual property rights or patents. As a result, trade agreements became instruments for exercising control over much wider segments of the economy, extending their influence even to remote villages and rural livelihoods. This was clearly reflected in the rules and scope of the World Trade Organization.
More recently, however, the United States has shown unprecedented impatience with rules of any kind. It has attempted to force its way out of economic and trade problems of its own making by resorting to threats, steep and arbitrary tariff hikes, sanctions and counter-sanctions, and other unilateral actions that violate established trade norms and regulations. In this context, the US has entered into a spate of new trade agreements with many countries, which in turn has led to a proliferation of trade agreements among other nations as well.
A second important aspect of international trade that must be kept in mind is that while so-called free trade agreements are often promoted as universally desirable, this is not always the case. For a democratic country with multiple policy options, free trade in certain significant contexts may be less desirable than other crucial objectives—such as developing a self-reliant food and farming system that protects sustainable livelihoods, produces safe and healthy food, safeguards the rural environment (including soil), and preserves seed sovereignty and other vital rights of rural communities. Where trade agreements clash with such noble and necessary objectives, a country guided by these values may rationally choose self-reliance over unrestricted free trade.
This choice has special relevance for those who draw inspiration from original thinkers and leaders like Mahatma Gandhi. Indeed, such ideas may have gained even greater relevance in recent times due to the increasingly aggressive pursuit of narrow national interests by powerful countries like the United States.
At the same time, it has become more difficult for many countries to protect their essential interests because the Trump administration, in particular, has tended to integrate economic, trade, political, and military considerations in arbitrary ways. Negotiating countries therefore have to think carefully about a wide range of possible costs and consequences while attempting to safeguard their trade-related concerns.
Another important point to remember is that although bilateral trade agreements are formally between two countries, the negotiations are often shaped more by the interests of powerful elites in both nations. Closely related to this is the fact that negotiators on both sides may hold views on the development of crucial sectors such as agriculture that are far removed from the perspectives of those committed to protecting sustainable livelihoods for small farmers, promoting ecologically sound and climate-resilient farming, preserving seed sovereignty, and strengthening self-reliance.
It is within this broader context that we must examine the available means to protect core interests: safeguarding the sustainable livelihoods of farmers and workers, protecting the environment, ensuring the production and consumption of safe and healthy food and feed, preserving seed sovereignty, and promoting decentralised development based on increasing rural self-reliance or gram swaraj.
One crucial step is to demand greater transparency and wider public consultation. Even from the government’s own standpoint, the best way to avoid unfair criticism would be to place the complete and final text of any trade agreement in the public domain. This would prevent speculation, misinterpretation, and attempts to decipher meaning from vague or “coded” language.
Second, there must be a clear effort to identify the most crucial or core concerns relating to people’s livelihoods, environmental protection, safety, and health. These concerns should be closely monitored, and the widest possible public consensus should be built to defend them. Any possibility of irreversible harm must receive the highest level of scrutiny. In this context, opposition to genetically modified crops and foods must be firm and unequivocal.
At the same time, while opposing policies or compromises that are clearly harmful, there should also be a willingness to extend cooperation to the government when it becomes evident that it is resisting pressure from powerful forces on issues of public interest.
In recent weeks, there have been strong criticisms of the India–US trade agreement, alongside equally strong defences from the government, leading to considerable confusion. In reality, there is some truth on both sides. Critics have highlighted several undesirable features that they fear may prove even more dangerous once all details are disclosed. The government, on the other hand, has emphasised its defence of what it considers its red lines, such as maintaining existing protection levels for certain staple food products and crops.
However, the government’s claim that genetically modified crops pose no adverse health effects once processed has been widely rejected, and rightly so. Similarly, while the government has stated that concessions on imports of apples and dry fruits will not affect a large farming area, it must be remembered that this production is concentrated in the ecologically sensitive Himalayan region.
The recently released India–US joint statement also refers to “additional products” in the context of reducing or eliminating tariffs on US farm produce, raising unanswered questions about which products may be included. Organisations such as ASHA Swaraj have criticised the decision to allow imports of soybean oil and animal feeds like DDGs (dried distillers’ grains) derived from genetically modified maize. The joint statement’s reference to addressing “long-standing non-tariff barriers” to US food and agricultural products is widely interpreted as a weakening of resistance to GM products.
Some of the harm caused by trade agreements can be mitigated through organised social boycotts of imported products known to be harmful to health and safety. Such actions can also discourage future attempts to impose harmful products on consumers.
It is also important to note that in some areas, worrying trends existed even before these agreements were signed. Despite India’s rich heritage of traditional oilseeds, these crops have faced increasing difficulties in recent years due to multiple factors. New trade agreements may further aggravate these problems.
While most attention has understandably focused on the interim trade deal with the United States, the close relationships among large corporations across Western countries mean that risks from other nations cannot be ignored. One major company heavily involved in spreading GM crops—and facing numerous legal cases for serious health impacts—has been absorbed by a German corporation. Those concerned earlier about a US company must now also be wary of its European successor.
These are uncertain times, and there is no guarantee that even after extracting major concessions, the United States will fully honour its commitments. In such a situation, the most effective course of action for those working in the public interest is to clearly identify core issues and build the broadest possible consensus to protect these vital interests.
---
The writer is Honorary Convener, Campaign to Save Earth Now. His recent books include Protecting Earth for Children, Planet in Peril, A Day in 2071, and Man over Machine
Comments