The Group of 20 (G20), an alliance of 23 WTO member countries on agriculture led by mainly India and Brazil, representing 51% of the world population and 63% of the world’s farmers, reflected their great helplessness and inertia to take on US protectionist practices and sought an easy route to deal with it by calling for an “urgent” conclusion of Doha Round even though their fundamental demands are not addressed in the current negotiating text. The G20 held its two day Ministerial meeting ahead of the Seventh WTO Ministerial Conference which took place in Geneva from 30th November to 2nd December 2009. The communique issued by the G20 on 29 November, says that “concluding the Doha Development Round would result in a triple win: (i) strengthening of the confidence in the multilateral trading system; (ii) guarding against the rise of protectionism; and (iii) contributing to boost the global economy while reducing its asymmetries.” It further says that “the Ministers of the G20 called for urgent action on the Doha Round...there is urgent need to translate political statements into concrete engagement in Geneva in order to accomplish the shared objective of concluding the Round in 2010...the only way to achieve this objective is to seek convergence on the basis of the draft modalities texts of December 2008.”

 

This is a big shift in the G20 position since its formation in 2003, just before the 5th WTO Ministerial in Cancun. This is the first G20 communique in last six years which is quite hushed in its basic demand for “effective” reduction of subsidies in developed countries, mainly the US and European Union (EU). Ironically, the G20 communique does not make any of its fundamental demands regarding Special & Differential Treatment, especially Special Products (SP) and Special Safeguard Mechanisms (SSM), which the G20 has been associated with. SPs and SSMs are ostensibly intended to protect the interests of the vast masses of poor peasantry in developing countries, but it seems that the G20 is willing to accept the watered down, inadequate and ineffective SP and SSM provisions outlined in the Chair’s text in December 2008.

 

The 7th Ministerial Conference of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) ended as it started: on a subdued and uncertain note.  Statements about the importance of a speedy conclusion to the Doha Development Round (DDR) by some trade ministers and in the Chairman's Summary during the closing plenary, lacked conviction. What came through instead was nervousness among government delegates and WTO Secretariat staff about the credibility and relevance of the WTO and its programme of corporate driven globalisation in the face of deepening crises in the real economy, agriculture and climate.  Every pat on the back that delegates and staff gave the WTO was tempered by statements about the need for WTO members to respect multilateralism, past commitments, the development mandate of the DDR, transparency, inclusiveness, and the special needs of Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and Small and Vulnerable Economies (SVEs).

 

Credibility, relevance and vision are certainly what the WTO lacks at this juncture.  Since its establishment  in 1995, numerous farmers organisations, workers' unions, government officials, academics and civil society analysts have repeatedly warned against the dangers of WTO style liberalisation on local and national economies and the environment. These warnings proved to   frighteningly accurate: as global trade through the WTO expanded, unemployment, food insecurity, environmental destruction, impoverishment and social dislocation increased alarmingly in developing countries.

 

The recent Maharashtra Legislative Assembly elections and its ‘coverage’ have raised certain serious questions before the journalist community. The credibility of journalists, journalism and media is at stake. Various newspapers carried advertisements in the form of news. This is totally against professional ethics. The case of Ashok Chavan, Chief Minister of Maharashtra  blatantly exposes the 'paid news' phenomenon. The record submitted to the Election Commission of India shows that he paid only Rs. 11,379 on advertising., which is nothing compared to the coverage by way of supplementaries he got.  Gujarat Samachar, a leading Gujarati newspaper, carried 'news'  of various candidates contesting against each other as winners. In a few newspapers reporters were told not to give stories regarding elections and there were ‘deals’ with the candidates and parties. Ironically, some time same pages were carrying ‘news stories’ of victory of rival candidates from the same constituencies.

 

Everyone loves elections. The money was pouring in. It was a festival season for many media organizations and activists of various parties. While the upper limit of expenditure is a mere Rs. 10 lakhs.  (http://ceo.maharashtra.gov.in/canFaqCon4.php), most of the candidates of established national and regional parties spend more than two crores of rupees.