Yaoundé (Cameroon): The Narendra Modi government is set to return empty-handed from the World Trade Organisation’s 14th ministerial conference in Yaounde, Cameroon. New Delhi appears to have abandoned its opposition to the very issues it has spent years fighting. First, it signalled acceptance of a moratorium on customs duties for electronic transmissions – a core demand of the Trump administration. Second, it acquiesced to the Investment Facilitation for Development agreement, a pet project of Beijing.Commerce minister Piyush Goyal made all the right noises in his statement at the meeting. He said, “the past mandates should be delivered on priority”, which are effectively buried at Yaounde. Goyal said, “a dysfunctional Dispute Settlement System has deprived members from effective redressal”, knowing well that the United States has blocked the restoration of a two-stage dispute settlement system, with the Appellate Body being the final limb for resolving global trade disputes.Goyal asked to “restore the automatic and binding dispute settlement system”, seemingly oblivious that it will never be restored because of the United States.In another giveaway, on the controversial issue of bringing Investment Facilitation for Development in through the backdoor, Goyal suggested that “the incorporation of plurilateral outcomes into the WTO framework should be based on consensus and not impair existing rights of non-parties or cast additional obligations on them”.Notwithstanding his decision to agree to the e-commerce moratorium under pressures from Abu Dhabi and the European Union at the WTO’s last ministerial meeting, he now says, “In the absence of a common understanding among Members on the scope of the moratorium on customs duties on electronic transmissions, and given its potentially significant implications, the continued extension of this moratorium warrants careful reconsideration.”He even cited the Prime Minister, who apparently said, “India believes that emerging technologies must serve Sarvajan Hitaya, Sarvajan Sukhaya – welfare for all and happiness of all. The multilateral trading system must also ensure that innovation, development and opportunity are shared equitably among Members.”On WTO reform, Goyal argued New Delhi “will engage constructively to show that WTO remains central to global trade and strive to reform it to remain responsive, perform in delivering on development, equity, and inclusiveness, and transform to better serve the interests of the poor, vulnerable, and marginalised people, anchored in consensus and multilateralism.”A March 25 press release from the Press Information Bureau seemingly confirmed the capitulation. On the China-backed investment agenda, India now “supports initiatives that facilitate investment flows into developing countries, including LDCs”.On the e-commerce moratorium demanded by Washington, India stated it “has highlighted the rapidly evolving nature of the digital economy, particularly in the context of emerging technologies, and the need for policy space to enable countries to effectively harness these developments”. In diplomatic terms, this is surrender couched in constructive ambiguities.Even on WTO reform, India signalled it will back a “balanced outcome”. Aligning with Washington’s push to subordinate multilateral agreements to bilateral deals, India announced it is “actively advancing its bilateral trade engagements”.Making strong statements in the plenary meeting carries little weight, because what a country does in the closed green room meetings of select trade ministers from key member states is what matters.Interests of Farmers TorpedoedBut the most devastating betrayal is reserved for India’s 800 million poor farmers. Despite pre-conference bluster about securing a permanent solution for public stockholding for food security – an issue Washington vehemently opposes – New Delhi has already conceded defeat.The PIB release claims India will emphasise “the need for a development-centric agenda, including a permanent solution on Public Stockholding (PSH) for food security purposes, effective Special and Differential Treatment (S&DT) provisions for developing countries and Least Developed Countries (LDCs), and the restoration of a fully functional, automatic, and binding dispute settlement mechanism.”Yet this is little more than media propaganda. New Delhi knows full well that under the current administration, Uncle Sam will never accept such a solution.In fact, the Yaoundé meeting appears to be quietly seeking to bury the mandate to negotiate a permanent solution to the PSH issue. This issue decided the fate of the ninth ministerial at Bali and paved the way for adding the Trade Facilitation Agreement to the WTO treaty. In that desperation, richer countries agreed to deal with PSH on a priority basis while agreeing not to challenge developing countries’ compliance with legal commitments under the DSU.When India resisted agreeing to release the TFA protocol – a key step for adding a legal instrument to the WTO treaty – developed countries went a step further, pledging to make “all concerted efforts” to reach a permanent solution “on priority” even before the stipulated four-year timeline, by December 31, 2015. To avoid future linkage with other negotiating issues, it was also exceptionally agreed that negotiations for a permanent solution would be held in a dedicated Committee on Agriculture special session, “distinct from the agriculture negotiations”.Despite these explicit expressions of intent, India and other developing countries understood the typical attitude of developed countries and ensured the 2014 decision included the following statement: “If a permanent solution for the issue of public stockholding for food security purposes is not agreed and adopted by the 11th Ministerial Conference, the mechanism referred to in paragraph 1 of the Bali Decision, as set out in paragraph 1 of this Decision, shall continue to be in place until a permanent solution is agreed and adopted.”This effectively made the interim peace clause perpetual.Developing countries’ fears came to the fore, and they were proved right when the deadline at the 11th Ministerial Conference in Buenos Aires was not met, principally due to one member’s opposition to a permanent solution draft proposed by the then minister facilitator from Kenya. These were the early days of President Trump’s first term.Also read: As India Bends to Trump, the WTO Paves Way for the Washington Trade OrganizationSince then, the US, the Cairns Group of farm exporting countries, and other members on the other side of the debate have worked on two tracks to ensure that the commitment made at Bali in 2013, in Geneva in 2014, and reaffirmed at Nairobi in 2015 was never fulfilled. In recent years, they have begun to question the mandate and its feasibility, with one member going so far as to call the Bali mandate a “mistake”.The US, ably supported by Cairns Group members and the European Union, has been attempting to nullify the Bali and 2014 mandates by proposing so-called new approaches in the negotiations and a “comprehensive” approach to various negotiating topics – conveniently forgetting the 2014 agreement to negotiate a PSH permanent solution “distinct from the agriculture negotiations”.These efforts gained further momentum when the WTO director-general and a few members inserted the issue of “past mandates” under the so-called reform agenda. A dedicated breakout session is now contemplated on “Decision-Making and Past Mandates”.What the senior officials of India’s Commerce Ministry conceded to at the 12th WTO Ministerial Conference in Geneva in 2022 is now coming back to haunt the country in 2026.In short, India has surrendered not only its multilateral trade sovereignty but, more importantly, will return home from Yaounde empty-handed, having abandoned its farmers and capitulated to Washington and Beijing.Ravi Kanth Devarakonda is a financial journalist based in Switzerland.