India Slams US Global Hegemony By Scuttling Global Trade Deal, Puts Future Of WTO In Doubt

[Butifldrm]

India Slams US Global Hegemony By Scuttling Global Trade Deal, Puts Future Of WTO In Doubt

 

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 08/01/2014 14:24 -0400

• •  
    Yesterday we reported that with the Russia-China axis firmly secured, the scramble was on to assure the alliance of that last, and critical, Eurasian powerhouse: India. It was here that Russia had taken the first symbolic step when earlier in the week its central bank announced it had started negotiations to use national currencies in settlements, a process which would culminate with the elimination of the US currency from bilateral settlements.

    Russia was not the first nation to assess the key significance of India in concluding perhaps the most important geopolitical axis of the 21st century - we reported that Japan, scrambling to find a natural counterbalance to China with which its relations have regressed back to World War II levels, was also hot and heavy in courting India. “The Japanese are facing huge political problems in China,” said Kondapalli in a phone interview. “So Japanese companies are now looking to shift to other countries. They’re looking at India.”

    Of course, for India the problem with a Japanese alliance is that it would also by implication involve the US, the country which has become insolvent and demographically imploding Japan's backer of last and only resort, and thus burn its bridges with both Russia and China. A question emerged: would India embrace the US/Japan axis while foregoing its natural Developing Market, and BRICS, allies, Russia and China.

    We now have a clear answer and it is a resounding no, because in what was the latest slap on the face of now crashing on all sides US global hegemony, earlier today India refused to sign a critical global trade dea. Specifically, India's unresolved demands led to the collapse of the first major global trade reform pact in two decades. WTO ministers had already agreed the global reform of customs procedures known as "trade facilitation" in Bali, Indonesia, last December, but were unable to overcome last minute Indian objections and get it into the WTO rule book by a July 31 deadline.

    WTO Director-General Roberto Azevedo told trade diplomats in Geneva, just two hours before the final deadline for a deal lapsed at midnight that "we have not been able to find a solution that would allow us to bridge that gap."

    Reuters reports that most diplomats had expected the pact to be rubber-stamped this week, marking a unique success in the WTO's 19-year history which, according to some estimates, would add $1 trillion and 21 million jobs to the world economy.

    Turns out India was happy to disappoint the globalists: the diplomats were shocked when India unveiled its veto and the eleventh-hour failure drew strong criticism, as well as rumblings about the future of the organisation and the multilateral system it underpins.

    Shockingly, and without any warning, India's stubborn refusal to comply with US demands, may have crushed the WTO as a conduit for international trade, and landed a knockout punch when it comes to future relentless globallization which as is well known over the past 50 or so years, has benefited the US first and foremost.

     

    "Australia is deeply disappointed that it has not been possible to meet the deadline. This failure is a great blow to the confidence revived in Bali that the WTO can deliver negotiated outcomes," Australian Trade Minister Andrew Robb said on Friday. "There are no winners from this outcome – least of all those in developing countries which would see the biggest gains."

    Broke, debt-monetizing Japan, which as noted previously, was eager to become BFFs with India was amazed by the rebuttal: "A Japanese official familiar with the situation said that while Tokyo reaffirmed its commitment to maintaining and strengthening the multilateral trade system, it was frustrated that such a small group of countries had stymied the overwhelming consensus. "The future of the Doha Round including the Bali package is unclear at this stage," he said."

    Others went as far as suggesting the expulsion of India:

    However, such a move would clearly be an indication that the great globalization experiment is coming to an end: "New Zealand Minister of Overseas Trade, Tim Groser, told Reuters there had been "too much drama" surrounding the negotiations and added that any talk of excluding India was "naive" and counterproductive. "India is the second biggest country by population, a vital part of the world economy and will become even more important. The idea of excluding India is ridiculous." ... "I don't want to be too critical of the Indians. We have to try and pull this together and at the end of the day putting India into a box would not be productive," he added.

    Some nations, including the United States, the European Union, Australia, Japan and Norway, have already discussed a plan to exclude India from the agreement and push ahead, officials involved in the talks said.

    And yes, the death of the WTO is already being casually tossed around as a distinct possibility:

    But the one country that was most traumatized, was the one that has never before been used to getting a no answer by some "dingy developing world backwater": the United States, and the person most humiliated, who else but John Kerry.

    Still, the failure of the agreement should signal a move away from monolithic single undertaking agreements that have defined the body for decades, Peter Gallagher, an expert on free trade and the WTO at the University of Adelaide, told Reuters.

     

    "I think it's certainly premature to speak about the death of the WTO. I hope we've got to the point where a little bit more realism is going to enter into the negotiating procedures," he said.

    "U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry told Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Friday that India's refusal to sign a global trade deal sent the wrong signal, and he urged New Delhi to work to resolve the row as soon as possible." "Failure to sign the Trade Facilitation Agreement sent a confusing signal and undermined the very image Prime Minister Modi is trying to send about India," a U.S. State Department official told reporters after Kerry's meeting with Modi.

    Wrong signal for John Kerry perhaps, who is now beyond the world's "diplomatic" laughing stock and the man who together with Hillarious Clinton (and the US president) has made a complete mockery of US global influence in the past 5 years. But just the right signal for China and of course, Russia.

     

     

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-08-01/india-slams-us-global-hegemony-scuttling-global-trade-deal-puts-future-wto-doubt

 

[dontlop]

Freaking democrats make me sick

They should be deported

[TBomb]

Thanks Buti...great find and I thank you for the "bolding" too.  Hugs.

[Sparta]

This, my dear friends, is a BIG DEAL ... IMO.  Based upon what I know about India, it comprises more-or-less one-sixth of the population on the globe.  Its people are generally discontented with the PTB, and by all acounts based upon what I have been reading, the  government of India is starting to listen to their people. On the one hand, India has (or nearly has) the largest on-the-ground-military in the world ... yet on the other hand, their people are a peace-loving people, ... and I know that from personal experience.  The Indian people have been trampled on long enough ... raped, pillaged, and plundered by the PTB of the world.  This "scuttling" ... whether the reader is pro or con ... is a big deal.  This, Buti, is one very significant event, and is (IMO) another comfirmation that "the people" are waking up, standing up, and holding their governments accountable, ... first to the people.  Awesome post, Buti.  Cudos to you for bringing this onto DV.  Otherwise, I never would have heard about it ... certainly from the Lame-Stream-Media.  Thank you, thank you. 

[Sparta]

Bump

[RVWITHME]

This, my dear friends, is a BIG DEAL ... IMO.  Based upon what I know about India, it comprises more-or-less one-sixth of the population on the globe.  Its people are generally discontented with the PTB, and by all acounts based upon what I have been reading, the  government of India is starting to listen to their people. On the one hand, India has (or nearly has) the largest on-the-ground-military in the world ... yet on the other hand, their people are a peace-loving people, ... and I know that from personal experience.  The Indian people have been trampled on long enough ... raped, pillaged, and plundered by the PTB of the world.  This "scuttling" ... whether the reader is pro or con ... is a big deal.  This, Buti, is one very significant event, and is (IMO) another comfirmation that "the people" are waking up, standing up, and holding their governments accountable, ... first to the people.  Awesome post, Buti.  Cudos to you for bringing this onto DV.  Otherwise, I never would have heard about it ... certainly from the Lame-Stream-Media.  Thank you, thank you. 

 

Sure would hate to see a "sudden and mysterious" outbreak of Ebola or something similar in New Delhi because of this.

 

/

[waterman13]

The **** is about to hit the "proverbial" fan!

wM13

[yota691]

Demanded privileges for storage and support for agricultural commodities                                                                                                                                                       India signed an agreement to impede the World Trade Organization to unify customs rules

 

 

     

Director of the World Trade Organization during the opening of the FAO Conference (AFP)

Date Published: Saturday, August 2nd, 2014

WTO failed to reach an agreement to unify customs rules, which would have become the first reform of global trade two decades ago, after he fouled India because of the demands on storage privileges and support of agricultural commodities.

Roberto Azevedo said FAO Director-General of the trade diplomats in Geneva two hours before the end of the deadline to reach an agreement last Thursday evening: «we can not ‭ ‬ solution allows us to bypass this controversy.

 

The deadline ended without a breakthrough.

 

The members of the World Trade Organization, has already reached an agreement on reforms of the global customs procedures agreement which is known as «facilitate trade» last December, but it should be included on the notebook WTO rules by July 31.

Most of the diplomats consider it an endorsement automatically on the success of the unique in the history of the organization that runs the nineteen-year-old, would have added to the global economy a trillion dollars and 21 million jobs a new, e according to some estimates, and has therefore shocked when fouled India.

Trade experts say: «The failure to ratify the agreement, will end probably time attempts to conclude a global trade agreements, and accelerate the efforts of smaller groups of countries to liberalize trade among themselves».

India opposes such moves strongly, which is more than surprising on the objection.

And some countries have already discussed, the plan to exclude India from the agreement and move forward.

The U.S. Secretary of State, John Kerry, who is visiting New Delhi, had expressed earlier optimism about the possibility of resolving differences between India and most countries of the world.

But after the speech FAO Director-General, made no secret of U.S. Ambassador Michael Bank pessimism.

He told reporters: «We are sad and disappointed, because a very small number of countries were not ready to meet its obligations dating back to the conference in December in Bali, and we agree with the general manager on the move pay this institution to a situation of extreme uncertainty».

In exchange for signing an agreement to facilitate trade, which was reached in Bali last year, India has insisted on the need to make further progress on a parallel agreement, allowing them the freedom to support and storage of food grains greater than permitted by WTO rules.

India got support from Cuba, Venezuela and Bolivia.

The government demanded that new nationalism in India, a timetable universally agreed on the rules of the new customs, said: «The permanent agreement on the storage and food subsidies with the aim of supporting the poor, it must be reached at the same time before the year 2017, a target date which was set in December In Bali ».

(New Delhi - Reuters)

[Sparta]

The **** is about to hit the "proverbial" fan!

wM13

In the words of the Great Lao-Tzu:  "It's only when you see a mosquito landing on your testicles that you realize that there is always a way to solve problems without using violence."

[TBomb]

WTO: 2014 NEWS ITEMS

31 July 2014

TRADE NEGOTIATIONS COMMITTEE: INFORMAL MEETING

Azevêdo: Members unable to bridge the gap on trade facilitation

Director-General Roberto Azevêdo reported to WTO ambassadors on 31 July 2014 that despite intensive consultations, “we have not been able to find a solution that would allow us to bridge the gap” on the adoption of the protocol on the Trade Facilitation Agreement. He urged members “to reflect long and hard on the ramifications of this setback”.

 

NOTE:
THIS NEWS STORY is designed to help the public understand developments in the WTO. While every effort has been made to ensure the contents are accurate, it does not prejudice member governments’ positions.

“INFORMAL MEETING” means there are no minutes.

 

MORE:
> Doha Development Agenda (DDA)
> Trade Negotiations Committee (TNC)
 
> DDA news
> TNC news

 

Good evening everyone. Thank you for being here at short notice.

I convened this meeting as a Heads of Delegation — but given developments I think it’s appropriate that I convert it into an informal TNC meeting before delivering this statement.

So right now we are in an informal TNC.

These are the last few working hours before the deadline to adopt the protocol on the Trade Facilitation Agreement, so I wanted to take this opportunity to brief you on everything that has happened since the General Council adjourned on Friday evening.

Ambassador Fried, as Chairman of General Council, is here at my side. We have discussed the situation and confirmed that what he announced on Friday still stands. So unless something happens before midnight tonight, item 2 on the agenda will be closed without any action other than to take note, as usual, of the statements made. And the meeting of the General Council will therefore be formally closed without the adoption of the protocol.

Of course it is true that everything remains in play until midnight — but at present there is no workable solution on the table, and I have no indication that one will be forthcoming.

We will not be opening the floor for statements. This will just be a report from me to you, for the sake of transparency, so that I can brief you all on the situation.

If anyone has an idea which has not already been proposed or tested then please inform the General Council chair that this may still be doable. But, as I say, I have no indication that this is the case.

So let me update you on the events of the last few days.

Since Friday I have been reaching out to different delegations, and I have been in contact with some capitals.

I convened a meeting of the group coordinators on Tuesday — and again earlier today — to inform them of my activities, and I asked them to report back to all of you.

In these discussions ideas have been tested which could move us forward.

I have been exploring whether there are any possible ways that we might find convergence.

However, I am very sorry to report that despite these efforts I do not have the necessary elements that would lead to me to conclude that a breakthrough is possible. We got closer — significantly closer — but not quite there.

At this late hour, with the deadline just a matter of moments away, I don’t have anything in my hands that makes me believe that we can successfully reach consensus on item 2 of the agenda of the General Council.

My understanding is that the remaining gaps are unbridgeable with the time that we have.

On the one side we have the firm conviction, shared by many, that the decisions that ministers reached in Bali cannot be changed or amended in any way — and that those decisions have to be fully respected.

And on the other side of the debate we have some who believe that those decisions leave unresolved concerns that need to be addressed in ways that, in the view of others, change the balance of what was agreed in Bali.

These are the two sides.

We have not been able to find a solution that would allow us to bridge that gap.

We tried everything we could. But it has not proved possible.

The fact we do not have a conclusion means that we are entering a new phase in our work — a phase which strikes me as being full of uncertainties.

Since Bali I have reported to you on the encouraging engagement that I had seen in the negotiations. There has been a constructive, positive mood. Members have been flexible, open-minded and ready to engage on the substantive issues in a way that we haven’t seen for many years.

Together we have been working to make progress in all areas of our work — in implementing the Bali decisions and in moving forward with the post-Bali agenda. Convergence would be challenging of course, but we were working hard achieve it.

But, while I was reporting this news to you, at the same time I said that if we missed the 31 July deadline for the adoption of the protocol on the Trade Facilitation Agreement, it would be likely to have an impact on all areas of our work.

I said on several occasions that I did not think this would be just another minor procedural landmark.

My sense, in the light of the things I hear from you, is that this is not just another delay which can simply be ignored or accommodated into a new timetable — this will have consequences. And it seems to me, from what I hear in my conversations with you, that the consequences are likely to be significant.

But of course it is not me who will decide what the consequences will be.

That will be up to you. What this means for the WTO will be in the hands of the Members.

We have a natural hiatus in our calendar as people leave for the summer break in the coming days.

So I invite you all to use this time to think carefully about what the next steps might be. I urge you to reflect long and hard on the ramifications of this setback.

I will be doing the same.

During August I will be travelling and talking to members to see where we are, to hear your views, and to talk about how we should proceed.

And when everyone is back in Geneva, I will be asking the chairs of the negotiating groups and the regular bodies to consult with Members on what can be done in these changed circumstances.

As I have indicated, I will be doing the same under my own authority — I will be talking to Members and to the chairs — and I will report back to you all in due course.

As we look forward to these discussions I want to stress the importance of each of the three pillars of the WTO: disputes, monitoring and negotiations — not to mention our work on technical assistance and aid-for-trade. 

We saw the importance of our work during the financial crisis when, unlike with previous crises, there was no surge in protectionism. Having the rules in place and adherence closely monitored — with the dispute settlement mechanism there to back them up — helped to keep protectionism in check during a dangerous period for the global economy.

The value of those pillars was plain to see — and they performed very well.

But, when I took office last September, I was clear that I had real concerns for the future of the negotiating pillar.

Bali was a very important moment in reviving and revitalising the negotiating function.

But, just seven months later, once again I am very, very concerned.

My view has always been that the multilateral trading system is essential not just to support economic growth and development, but also to deal with other systemic, global issues of governance — such as: guarding against protectionism; responding to new challenges at the global level; and working to resolve not just specific disputes but larger, more fundamental imbalances.

In this way, since its creation in 1948, the multilateral system has been a powerful force for openness, cooperation — and peace.

But it is clear to me that all three pillars are needed for the system to function properly. And if the system fails to function properly then the smallest nations will be the biggest losers.

The major economies will have other options open to them. But the smaller, more vulnerable economies may not. They’re the ones with fewer options, who are at risk of being left behind. They’re the ones that may no longer have a seat at the table.

My fear is that the smaller and more vulnerable an economy is, the more it will suffer.

I said this at the opening ceremony of the 9th Ministerial Conference — and it remains my view today.

It would be a tragic outcome for those economies — and therefore a tragic outcome for us all.

So I hope you will all reflect on this very seriously and very carefully — to consider what the next steps might be.

As I have said, you will be the ones that determine the consequences of today’s events.

I imagine that you all have some questions and doubts about what this will mean — and I expect you will all want to take some time to talk to your capitals.

I would recommend that you do so at the highest possible level. I urge you to stress the importance of the situation we find ourselves in, and how significant the position you take in September will be. 

So please, take this time to reflect — and let’s be ready to discuss the way forward on these issues when you return.

The future of the multilateral trading system is in your hands.

At midnight the General Council will formally close.

It is regrettable that we have just a few more hours. But I remind you that 31 July is not my deadline — it is a Bali deadline decided by ministers — and a deadline that many delegations have made clear we must observe.

So, thank you for listening.

Like I said at the outset, I will not be opening the floor.

I am sure that you all have a lot to say. But I hope you will understand that this meeting may not be the right moment to say it.

Instead I think we should take the time to reflect and come back in September.

Thank you.

 

http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news14_e/tnc_infstat_31jul14_e.htm

 

Failed efforts to bring agreement to facilitate trade procedures WTO late last night because of the objection of India, despite the efforts that have been made ​​in the last moments to reach a settlement.expired deadline set for the ratification of the Convention on trade facilitation, which aims to adjust the customs procedures between countries , said the secretary-general of the WTO, Roberto Azevedo in the Geneva headquarters of the meeting, which includes the countries of the 160 members of the organization: "We could not find a solution allows us to bridge the gap, We have done everything we can, but we have not been able to reach a solution." and had been agreement on the terms of this agreement in Bali, Indonesia, last December. Against the signing of the agreement insists New Delhi on the need to make further progress on the Convention on the parallel, allowing them more freedom in terms of support and storage of food grains are larger than the permissible limits, within the framework of World Trade Organization rules.
http://www.mubasher.info/TDWL/news/2576563/%D9%85%D9%86%D8%B8%D9%85%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AA%D8%AC%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D8%AA%D9%81%D8%B4%D9%84-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%A5%D9%82%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%B1-%D8%A7%D8%AA%D9%81%D8%A7%D9%82%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D8%AA%D9%8A%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%B1-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A5%D8%AC%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%A1%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AA%D8%AC%D8%A7%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AE%D8%A7%D8%B5%D8%A9#.U90uJPldXTo

Edited August 2, 2014 by TBomb

[TBomb]

Will the WTO Fast-Track Trade at the Expense of Food Security?

GDAE’s Timothy A. Wise and Jeronim Capaldo wrote the following op-ed for Al Jazeera, based on Wise’s work on the WTO’s conflict over food security (see articles here, here, here, and here) and Capaldo’s work on the exaggerated gains from trade facilitation (see articles here and here). See GDAE’s other work on the WTO.

Timothy A. Wise and Jeronim Capaldo

 

The General Council of the World Trade Organization begins a two-day meeting in Geneva today, with India and other developing countries threatening to block implementation of an agreement on trade facilitation. They would be justified in doing so.

The potential gains from that agreement, reached last December in Bali, Indonesia, are vastly overstated, and they flow primarily to rich countries and private sector traders. Meanwhile, the United States and other developed countries have made little effort to resolve the legitimate demands that developing country food security programs be exempted from archaic stipulations of the WTO’s Agreement on Agriculture (AoA).

 

India has threatened to withhold its support for trade facilitation, which would effectively scuttle the deal in the WTO’s consensus-based process. The Indian government charges that there has been no serious movement on a re-tabled proposal from the so-called G-33 group of developing countries (which now includes 46 nations) to renegotiate parts of the WTO’s agreement on agriculture so that government efforts to buy and distribute food to the poor are not treated as illegal agricultural subsidies.

 

This was the issue that almost derailed WTO negotiations in Bali. The so-called Bali Package, which included trade facilitation, food security, and policies to favor least developed countries (LDCs), was saved when India accepted a “Peace Clause” granting such “public stockholding” programs a four-year hiatus on any disciplinary action from WTO members while negotiators work out a “permanent solution” to the dispute over the legitimate uses of food reserves for food security.

 

The issue sounds complicated, but it is in some ways quite simple. The United States and others argued that India’s recent expansion of its National Food Security Program constitutes a trade-distorting agricultural subsidy because the government buys Indian farmers’ rice and wheat at “administered prices,” which are generally above market prices.

The logic of such programs is easy to understand. Put more money in the hands of poor farmers by buying their crops at a stable and higher price, and use those government purchases to feed the hungry—many of them those same farm families—with free or subsidized food distributions. The United States used similar policies in its early farm programs.

What’s the issue? Under the WTO’s Agreement on Agriculture, the difference between the administered price and the market price is considered a subsidy, and there is a limit on how much is permitted. The United States argued that India’s expanded program exceeds its limit and constitutes a trade-distorting subsidy since the government could then dump its surpluses on international markets.

 

The hypocrisy of longtime U.S. agricultural dumpers accusing developing countries of dumping is bad enough. (See Wise’s “Top Ten Hypocrisies” from Bali.) But this particular U.S. complaint is even more cynical. India’s support prices are only slightly higher than current market prices, but they appear much higher because of the AoA stipulation that administered prices be compared not to current prices but to the average international prices in 1986-88. Those are roughly one-sixth of current market prices, so any price the government pays today would look like a huge subsidy.

But it’s not, and the G-33 has been asking the WTO since 2006 to reopen the AoA to at least update that reference price to account for inflation. The U.S. and others have refused, and now, even after the commitment in Bali to resolve the issue, India and the G-33 have seen no movement on the food security issue while trade facilitation has sped toward implementation.

 

The stakes are higher than just the Bali Package. They go to the heart of the WTO’s so-called Doha Development Agenda (DDA) and the principle of the “single undertaking” under which an agreement is valid only if agreements are reached in every area of negotiation.

 

When the Bali Package was agreed in December 2013, some warned that the concept of the single undertaking was being undermined because trade facilitation, which was seen to favor exporters, had a quick implementation deadline while the other two parts of the package, food security and policies to support least developed countries, had only vague commitments and distant deadlines.

 

For many developing countries, the hope was that the Bali Package would jump-start the stalled Doha process. But the fear was that by advancing agreement on only some parts of that broader development agenda, and by fast-tracking an issue of most interest to developed countries—trade facilitation—the logic of the single undertaking would dissolve and they would see no movement on the issues that matter to them most, agriculture and food security.

 

Those fears have been realized. The United States and other exporting countries have pushed hard for firm commitments from developing countries on trade facilitation, without even keeping the promises to finance the high costs of upgrading port facilities and procedures. Meanwhile, they have offered no reciprocal commitment to negotiate in good faith on the flaws in the existing WTO Agreement on Agriculture, or on the specific Bali issue of public food reserves for food security.

 

Trade facilitation is itself a bitter pill for many developing countries to swallow. It requires countries to make substantial investments to reduce the costs of international trade, including large infrastructure, such as port and transportation hubs, as well as changes in custom procedures and personnel.

 

The problem with this is two-fold (see Capaldo’s “Trade Hallucination”). potential gains are vastly overstated, estimated by some at the absurd level of $1 trillion. Those predicted gains evaporate when one looks at the assumptions behind them, such as the assumption that all countries in the world would gain the same amount of income from a given increase in exports.

 

On the other hand, trade facilitation surely has a wide array of costs, which are surprisingly ignored. These include up-front disbursements for the initial investments and consultancy fees but also delayed costs, such as loss of employment, adverse effects on trade, and higher inequality. At least for some developing countries, the balance may well be negative.

 

India, its G-33 allies, and other developing countries are right to insist that food security and assistance to LDCs must advance in tandem with trade facilitation. They are also justified in demanding that the Bali agreement jump-start the stalled Doha Round, restoring the original commitment to correct the biases against developing countries in the WTO’s Agreement on Agriculture and other chapters. They are right to resist the abandonment of the single undertaking and the advancement only of exporters’ economic interests.

 

If that means the trade facilitation agreement needs to be held up or made “provisional” subject to progress on other Bali issues, as India, South Africa and others have argued, so be it.

 

 

 

- See more at: http://triplecrisis.com/will-the-wto-fast-track-trade-at-the-expense-of-food-security/#sthash.w2u2jNlo.dpuf