India is set to challenge the status quo at the World Trade Organisation (WTO) by seeking the removal of entitlements in trading rules that have long favoured developed countries. According to reports, these entitlements have hindered the fair access of developing nations, creating friction and inequities in international trade. &nbsp;

A source familiar with the matter told Mint that India's stance will be made clear at the upcoming WTO inter-ministerial meeting in Abu Dhabi, where it will call for the removal of 'additional Final Bound Total Aggregate Measurement of Support (FBTAMS) entitlements'.&nbsp;

Mint reported that India's proposal targets the 'de minimis limits', which dictate the minimal level of domestic support allowed for each country under the WTO Agreement on Agriculture (AoA). Currently, developed nations are permitted support up to 5 per cent of the value of production, while developing countries have a 10 per cent threshold. This longstanding disparity has fuelled debates and posed challenges, particularly concerning India's minimum support price (MSP) program for food grains.&nbsp;

The source cited by Mint also emphasised India's position, stating, "India believes any negotiations on domestic support needs to first address existing asymmetries and imbalances in the WTO Agreement of Agriculture (AoA). Thus, discussing disciplines on domestic support for India must begin with the removal of historical asymmetries in domestic support." &nbsp;

However, India's call for change has not been without resistance, and negotiations on this issue have yet to commence in the WTO. According to the Third World Network (TWN), a think tank specialising in trade issues, disciplining FBTAMS entitlements is crucial as they remain "the primary source of inequity" in the AoA. TWN argues that allowing select countries substantial additional entitlements creates imbalances and policy advantages, further aggravating global trade disparities.&nbsp;

As India pushes for a balance, its actions also draw scrutiny from foodgrain-exporting nations like the US and Canada, who question the subsidies provided under India's public stockholding (PSH) program, particularly for rice. India has invoked the 'peace clause' at the WTO multiple times for breaching the 10 per cent subsidy ceiling on rice procurement. In response, India has defended its position by highlighting that it mainly exports premium quality rice rather than common paddy, emphasising its contributions to the global demand for this staple.&nbsp;

In parallel, The Print reported that India's export decisions in the past year have garnered international attention and raised questions about WTO compliance. Several countries have turned to the WTO to inquire about India's bans and restrictions on the export of wheat, rice, and onions. Japan, Switzerland, Canada, the UK, Australia, the EU, the US, and New Zealand have all sought clarifications on these decisions, underscoring the need for communication, notification, and consideration of their impacts.&nbsp;

Critics of India's export bans argue that they have caused international food prices to spike, leading to concerns of social unrest and political instability in Asia and Africa. Before the bans, India accounted for a substantial portion of global rice supplies, adding to the significance of its decisions in the global food trade landscape. While reasons for export bans were provided for some commodities, such as addressing rising food grain prices, others, like the restrictions on onion exports, remain unexplained.&nbsp;

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

India is set to challenge the status quo at the World Trade Organisation (WTO) by seeking the removal of entitlements in trading rules that have long favoured developed countries.

India is set to challenge the status quo at the World Trade Organisation (WTO) by seeking the removal of entitlements in trading rules that have long favoured developed countries. According to reports, these entitlements have hindered the fair access of developing nations, creating friction and inequities in international trade. A source familiar with the matter told Mint that India's stance will be made clear at the upcoming WTO inter-ministerial meeting in Abu Dhabi, where it will call for the removal of 'additional Final Bound Total Aggregate Measurement of Support (FBTAMS) entitlements'. Mint reported that India's proposal targets the 'de minimis limits', which dictate the minimal level of domestic support allowed for each country under the WTO Agreement on Agriculture (AoA). Currently, developed nations are permitted support up to 5 per cent of the value of production, while developing countries have a 10 per cent threshold. This longstanding disparity has fuelled debates and posed challenges, particularly concerning India's minimum support price (MSP) program for food grains. The source cited by Mint also emphasised India's position, stating, "India believes any negotiations on domestic support needs to first address existing asymmetries and imbalances in the WTO Agreement of Agriculture (AoA). Thus, discussing disciplines on domestic support for India must begin with the removal of historical asymmetries in domestic support." However, India's call for change has not been without resistance, and negotiations on this issue have yet to commence in the WTO. According to the Third World Network (TWN), a think tank specialising in trade issues, disciplining FBTAMS entitlements is crucial as they remain "the primary source of inequity" in the AoA. TWN argues that allowing select countries substantial additional entitlements creates imbalances and policy advantages, further aggravating global trade disparities. As India pushes for a balance, its actions also draw scrutiny from foodgrain-exporting nations like the US and Canada, who question the subsidies provided under India's public stockholding (PSH) program, particularly for rice. India has invoked the 'peace clause' at the WTO multiple times for breaching the 10 per cent subsidy ceiling on rice procurement. In response, India has defended its position by highlighting that it mainly exports premium quality rice rather than common paddy, emphasising its contributions to the global demand for this staple. In parallel, The Print reported that India's export decisions in the past year have garnered international attention and raised questions about WTO compliance. Several countries have turned to the WTO to inquire about India's bans and restrictions on the export of wheat, rice, and onions. Japan, Switzerland, Canada, the UK, Australia, the EU, the US, and New Zealand have all sought clarifications on these decisions, underscoring the need for communication, notification, and consideration of their impacts. Critics of India's export bans argue that they have caused international food prices to spike, leading to concerns of social unrest and political instability in Asia and Africa. Before the bans, India accounted for a substantial portion of global rice supplies, adding to the significance of its decisions in the global food trade landscape. While reasons for export bans were provided for some commodities, such as addressing rising food grain prices, others, like the restrictions on onion exports, remain unexplained. WATCH WION LIVE HERE

India's WTO challenge: Raising the stakes in global agricultural trade reforms 

The United States is pushing for regular reviews of China's progress on pledged<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/us-officials-consider-lifting-china-tariffs-report-191160"> trade reforms</a> as a condition for a trade deal - and could again resort to tariffs if it deems Beijing has violated the agreement, according to sources briefed on negotiations to end the trade war between the two nations.

A continuing threat of tariffs hanging over commerce between the world's two largest economies would mean a deal would not end the risk of investing in businesses or assets that have been impacted by the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/explaining-the-us-china-trade-war-which-grabbed-spotlight-in-2018-185043">trade war</a>.

"The threat of tariffs is not going away, even if there is a deal," said one of three sources briefed on the talks who spoke with Reuters on condition of anonymity.

Chinese negotiators were not keen on the idea of regular compliance checks, the source said, but the US proposal "didn't derail negotiations."

A Chinese source said the United States wants “periodic assessments” but it's not yet clear how often.

“It looks like humiliation," the source said. "But perhaps the two sides could find a way to save face for the Chinese government."

The administration of US President Donald Trump has imposed import tariffs on Chinese goods to put pressure on Beijing to meet a long list of demands that would rewrite the terms of trade between the two countries.

The demands include changes to China's policies on intellectual property protection, technology transfers, industrial subsidies and other trade barriers.

An enforcement and verification process is unusual for trade deals and is akin to the process around punitive economic sanctions such as those imposed on North Korea and Iran.

Disputes over trade are more typically dealt with through courts, the World Trade Organization (WTO) or through arbitration panels and other dispute settlement mechanisms built into trade agreements.

Trump's team has criticized the WTO for failing to hold China accountable for not executing on promised market reforms. The U.S. has also criticized the WTO's dispute settlement process and is seeking reforms at the organisation.

(For an explainer on how the US-China talks differ from any other trade negotiation, see: )

Regular reviews would be one potential solution to address a demand from US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer for ongoing verification of any trade pact between the two countries, three sources familiar with the talks told Reuters. The threat of tariffs would be used to keep reform on track, the sources said.

Lighthizer is leading negotiations with China. A USTR spokesman declined to comment on the possibility of regular assessments.

The idea of quarterly reviews of quarterly reviews was part of a US negotiating document leaked after talks in May 2018, before the United States had slapped its first round of duties on $50 billion worth of Chinese goods.

The renewed focus on regular reviews in current negotiations - this time carrying the threat of tariffs - underscores the growing distrust between the two countries.

The extra scrutiny is needed and should be based on clear benchmarks - with consequence for failing to meet them, said Erin Ennis, Senior Vice President of the US-China Business Council, a trade group representing American companies doing business in China.

“It needs to be tied to removing or reducing the tariffs," Ennis said. "If China can show compliance through a process like this, it would also be a trust-building measure for both sides.”

Broken promises

Trump's administration has accused China of repeatedly failing to follow through on previous pledges to implement reforms sought by the United States.

Washington often cites as an example the difficulties still faced by foreign payment card operators in entering China's market despite a 2012 WTO ruling that Beijing was discriminating against them.

A separate industry source said it is likely that different agreement on separate issues - forced technology transfer, intellectual property, changes to China's legal system - would require separate verification processes, all of which will need to be hammered out by negotiators.

"The challenge of verification and enforcement stems from the fact that China has made promises it hasn't kept," the source said.

Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping agreed to a 90-day truce in the trade war in December to give their teams time to negotiate a deal. Nearly 50 days later, there is little sign that China will make the concessions the US is seeking.

Lighthizer saw no progress on structural issues at three days of mid-level talks in Beijing last week, Republican Senator Chuck Grassley said on Tuesday.

China's Vice Premier and lead negotiator Liu He is due to visit Washington for the next round of talks with Lighthizer and US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin at the end of the month.

The United States is pushing for regular reviews of China's progress on pledged trade reforms as a condition for a trade deal - and could again resort to tariffs if it deems Beijing has violated the agreement, according to sources briefed on negotiations to end the trade war between the two nations.

The United States is pushing for regular reviews of China's progress on pledged trade reforms as a condition for a trade deal - and could again resort to tariffs if it deems Beijing has violated the agreement, according to sources briefed on negotiations to end the trade war between the two nations. A continuing threat of tariffs hanging over commerce between the world's two largest economies would mean a deal would not end the risk of investing in businesses or assets that have been impacted by the trade war. "The threat of tariffs is not going away, even if there is a deal," said one of three sources briefed on the talks who spoke with Reuters on condition of anonymity. Chinese negotiators were not keen on the idea of regular compliance checks, the source said, but the US proposal "didn't derail negotiations." A Chinese source said the United States wants “periodic assessments” but it's not yet clear how often. “It looks like humiliation," the source said. "But perhaps the two sides could find a way to save face for the Chinese government." The administration of US President Donald Trump has imposed import tariffs on Chinese goods to put pressure on Beijing to meet a long list of demands that would rewrite the terms of trade between the two countries. The demands include changes to China's policies on intellectual property protection, technology transfers, industrial subsidies and other trade barriers. An enforcement and verification process is unusual for trade deals and is akin to the process around punitive economic sanctions such as those imposed on North Korea and Iran. Disputes over trade are more typically dealt with through courts, the World Trade Organization (WTO) or through arbitration panels and other dispute settlement mechanisms built into trade agreements. Trump's team has criticized the WTO for failing to hold China accountable for not executing on promised market reforms. The U.S. has also criticized the WTO's dispute settlement process and is seeking reforms at the organisation. (For an explainer on how the US-China talks differ from any other trade negotiation, see: ) Regular reviews would be one potential solution to address a demand from US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer for ongoing verification of any trade pact between the two countries, three sources familiar with the talks told Reuters. The threat of tariffs would be used to keep reform on track, the sources said. Lighthizer is leading negotiations with China. A USTR spokesman declined to comment on the possibility of regular assessments. The idea of quarterly reviews of quarterly reviews was part of a US negotiating document leaked after talks in May 2018, before the United States had slapped its first round of duties on $50 billion worth of Chinese goods. The renewed focus on regular reviews in current negotiations - this time carrying the threat of tariffs - underscores the growing distrust between the two countries. The extra scrutiny is needed and should be based on clear benchmarks - with consequence for failing to meet them, said Erin Ennis, Senior Vice President of the US-China Business Council, a trade group representing American companies doing business in China. “It needs to be tied to removing or reducing the tariffs," Ennis said. "If China can show compliance through a process like this, it would also be a trust-building measure for both sides.” Broken promises Trump's administration has accused China of repeatedly failing to follow through on previous pledges to implement reforms sought by the United States. Washington often cites as an example the difficulties still faced by foreign payment card operators in entering China's market despite a 2012 WTO ruling that Beijing was discriminating against them. A separate industry source said it is likely that different agreement on separate issues - forced technology transfer, intellectual property, changes to China's legal system - would require separate verification processes, all of which will need to be hammered out by negotiators. "The challenge of verification and enforcement stems from the fact that China has made promises it hasn't kept," the source said. Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping agreed to a 90-day truce in the trade war in December to give their teams time to negotiate a deal. Nearly 50 days later, there is little sign that China will make the concessions the US is seeking. Lighthizer saw no progress on structural issues at three days of mid-level talks in Beijing last week, Republican Senator Chuck Grassley said on Tuesday. China's Vice Premier and lead negotiator Liu He is due to visit Washington for the next round of talks with Lighthizer and US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin at the end of the month.

US demands regular review of China trade reform

trade-reform

Trade Reform, News on Trade Reform, stories on Trade Reform, articles on Trade Reform, Trade Reform stories at Wion, Trade Reform news, Trade Reform latest news