WTO - Corporate Greed Blocks Food Security

India's demands block $1 trillion WTO deal on customs rules By David Brunnstrom and Tom Miles GENEVA Fri Aug 1, 2014 6:22am IST (Reuters) - The World Trade Organization failed on Thursday to reach a deal to standardise customs rules, which would have been the first global trade reform in two decades but was blocked by India's demands for concessions on agricultural stockpiling.  [How about blocked by a reasonable request to raise levels to meet inflation?] ... WTO ministers had already agreed the global reform of customs procedures known as "trade facilitation" last December, but it needed to be put into the WTO rule book by July 31. Most diplomats saw that as rubber-stamping 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, so they were shocked when India unveiled its veto.  [And I'm shocked they're all so greedy that bringing food security up to levels that take inflation into account is not a priority.] Trade experts say Thursday's failure is likely to end the era of trying to cobble together global trade agreements and to accelerate efforts by smaller groups of like-minded nations to liberalise trade among themselves. India has been vocal in opposing such moves, making its veto even more surprising. "Today’s developments suggest that there is little hope for truly global trade talks to take place," said Jake Colvin at the National Foreign Trade Council, a leading U.S. business group. ... Some nations have already discussed a plan to exclude India from the agreement and push ahead regardless, and the International Chamber of Commerce urged officials to "make it happen." “Our message is clear. Get back to the table, save this deal and get the multilateral trade agenda back on the road to completion sooner rather than later,” ICC Secretary General John Danilovich said. ... U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, on a visit to New Delhi, had earlier said he was hopeful that differences between India and much of the rest of the world could be resolved. [He also said what amounts to a hope that India's fair call for adjustment would 'wither away'.] India's new nationalist government has insisted that a permanent agreement on its subsidised food stockpiling must be in place at the same time as the trade facilitation deal, well ahead of a 2017 target set last December in Bali. Kerry, whose visit to India was aimed at revitalising bilateral ties but was overshadowed by the standoff, said the United States understood India's position that it needs to provide food security for its poor but India would lose out if it refused to maintained its veto. [So he doesn't care about food; he cares about profit?] DEAL WITHOUT INDIA? Diplomats say India could technically attract a trade dispute if it caused the deal to collapse, although nobody wanted to threaten legal action at this stage. The summer break will give diplomats time to mull options, including moving ahead without India. [OMG; they're threatening legal action!  This is perverse.] ... http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/08/01/india-trade-wto-idINKBN0G02GV20140801

Headline ought to be:   Corporate Greed Blocks WTO Customs Rules Deal -- and Denies Poor Food

Does anyone else think this is wrong?