Q&A: MURASOLI MARAN

Protecting national interest not disruptive: Maran

Singapore: The press here described him as “difficult” , “contrariant”, and “a bit of an odd ball”. The Singapore government, too, would have liked to see him “make that one big departure” from his stated position so far, “and agree to support a New Round”. Singapore’s Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong left no doubt in anyone’s mind that he wanted the satisfaction of having delivered “the turning point” before the Fourth Ministerial Meeting of World Trade Organisation (WTO) to be held in Doha next month.

Alas, India’s minister for trade and industry, Murasoli Maran, stuck to his guns. This evoked various interpretations. At least one analyst in Singapore’s ministry of trade and industry saw Mr Maran “as the biggest winner”, if “keep going, as they are, i.e, annex 1 and 2 are merged and annex 3 put on the fast track” and “the New Round is renamed as the New Development Agenda”, thereby “giving Maran a handle to stall competition and investment issues”.

Is there a method to Mr Maran? Or is he fixatedly catering to a domestic constituency at the cost of pushing India into an “isolationist” position? Or, is he posturing, only to “capitulate” at an appropriate time? Mr Maran, dressed in smart western formals and assisted from time to time by commerce secretary Probir Sengupta, spoke to Rohit Bansal of The Financial Express, from his suite at the Shangri-la. Excerpts:

You have disappointed your hosts, no doubt! That’s not the issue. We have to constantly discuss the rationale of our negotiating strategy with our friends. But the paramount issue, no doubt,
has to be our own national interest. My friend Mr Goh understands that.

Perhaps. But behind all the tough words, we don’t see you adopting a strong enough line even by your own standards, as compared to, say, what you were saying in Mexico.

There is a lot of difference between Mexico and now. It was a blank slate there, and everyone was demanding pretty much everything under the sun. From a situation where there was nothing, we now have to make specific responses. So we have to adapt to the new situation, and demand more transparency, more democracy, and more consultation, in the (WTO) process in the appropriate manner.

What really is your problem with the (Stuart) Harbinson draft?

That we must learn to go beyond beautiful words and best endeavour clauses.


Specifically, are you saying there have been no gains at all with the draft at this informal ministerial meet?

The draft falls short of our expectations on many counts. Annex 1 and 2 should be merged. Annex 3 should be put under a fast-track mechanism. Even the draft on agriculture needs minor changes. I have used hard words on several subjects. I have gone on to narrate all the injustices. The gains are that there is no mention of a “New Round”; and growing coalition on implementation. This ministerial helped generate suggestions on the next draft. It helped on environment, for example, where we don’t like the cherry picking. Mr Zoellick (US Trade Representative Robert Zoellick) recognised that when we spoke.

If India keeps putting in the spokes, there will be two interpretations. You are either going to be called isolationist, or you would be seen putting your lot with developing countries who don’t have too much of a track record on collaboration. Comment.

International negotiations are a long travel. I am the first one to demand that we should narrow down the differences, the cleavages, the contentious issues. I have strong reservations on the Singapore issues. On implementation. On emergency clauses.

As for consensus among developing nations, there are challenges all the time. There is no formal unity. But there is, as I see, growing realisation based on national interests. Pakistan tells me that the LMG (the like- minded group) wants to meet in Geneva (on October 27) if India is willing to come.

The US and other industrialised nations see a new set of trade rules as the antidote to the global slowdown. Shouldn’t the process be expedited, rather than take recourse to, to use the virtual chiding of Mr Goh, “technicalities”?

We can join in only on the basis of national interest. Indeed, the Singapore informal ministerial served useful purposes.

Why then was there no joint communique? This gave the impression of a mere talking shop.

There was no need for a joint communique. We didn’t need another green room after what happened at Seattle. The biggest step forward was the recognition of issues that we have been raising all this while. Twenty countries exchanged their views. That’s all.

Will the ministers meet at Doha on November 9? I believe the Americans aren’t keen to go there. So will it be Singapore?

We have excellent relations with Qatar. I won’t say anything on this subject. I believe the WTO DG (Director-General) will be saying something on this soon. The venue is to be decided by him. We will be happy if Doha takes place.