The 15-member European Union is the most enthusiastic proponent of such a round to pre-empt rising trade protectionism and unilateralism.Brittan, long a persuasive voice for free trade, is the EC's acting vice-president and trade commissioner. His task has already taken him to Indonesia and Malaysia and he goes from New Delhi to Pakistan. America, Japan, and many Latin American countries have also declared their support for a new trade round.

In New Delhi, Brittan was given the traditional argument that this country wants real gains from previous agreements first. But he believes it is early days yet and hoped India will come around.

In this interview to SHEFALI MISRA, he was particularly careful not to tread on sensitive Indian toes:

Did you get asense in your talks with the Indian side of what it might take to make India agree to a millennium round?
Not really, I wasn't trying to do that. I deliberately said at the outset that I was trying to leave my visiting card, not to get a response today. And I hope that what I said will serve to persuade them. But when that will be I don't know.

Several countries have already now agreed to the millennium round provided that we don't apply ``double standards'' as Indonesian president (B.J.) Habibie put it. And as far as Malaysia is concerned they have already agreed but they differ about the timeframe (the EU wants the millennium round to be launched at the WTO ministerial meeting in Seattle in November).

What will be the effect on the millennium round of the trade disputes between the US and the EU on bananas and hormone-treated beef?
Well, I think that both agree that the disputes should not get in the way. We agree on transatlantic cooperation in multilateral talks. The important partis that we should work together to try and achieve a position. Now the United States has come out in support of a millennium round. At the same time we have our trade disputes with it. We had disputes during the Uruguay Round too. But we agreed that that should not strain the multilateral dialogue.

There have been reports out of Brussels that the EU will back India if the US takes unilateral action against India's amended patents law. Did you discuss this with Mr (industries minister Sikander) Bakht?
No, it was not raised.

Is there anything to suggest that the United States might do that?
I am not aware of that. But I can tell you this that just as India has supported us against the unilateral action taken (by Washington) in our bananas dispute with the US, we will support any country that faces unilateral action by any other country without the support of the WTO.

America's Super 301 trade law has been challenged by the EU in the WTO as a result of their banana dispute.Should the bananas dispute be resolved, what happens to the EU challenge to America's domestic trade law?
Oh, we'd like to keep the Americans guessing on that.

(The EU had told the US that if it imposed sanctions against it in the bananas case without the WTO's go-ahead, Brussels would challenge America's domestic trade law. India too has suffered from this US law in the past.)

The EU has already talked about textiles tariff cuts to get developing countries on board the millennium round. Did you discuss anything similar on agriculture with the Indian government?
Well, it was discussed, yes. We are committed to the Marrakesh (Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture) specifications and direction. But how far and how fast it occurs will depend on a variety of factors. n The reform of the EU's Common Agricultural Policy (which heavily subsidises farmers) hs not gone as far as it should have. What does that mean for the EU's WTO negotiating position on the review of the WTO agreement onagriculture?

Well, all I can say is that we have not had digested the limits of CAP reform.

You don't think it ties the EU's hands in making concessions on farm trade?
I think it obviously has not gone far enough. I would have preferred it to be more comprehensive. I regret that.

If a country like India should seek specific concessions in this area, what would your response be?
I would wait for it to do that, and then I would respond.

Did you get a response from India on your complaint that it has not bound its textiles tariffs as agreed in the Indo-EU bilateral MoU?
Not a firm response. I think I clarified what we wanted and what we were able to do. I tried not to focus on these (bilateral) trade issues. n India worries that if it makes a multilateral commitment on tariff ceilings and then the European Court of Justice (ECJ) rules against the bilateral MoU, it will be the loser. (The MoU has been challenged in the ECJ by Portugal and some others.) It already made amultilateral commitment.

Have you told the Indian government that you plan to seek a WTO disputes panel in any of the ongoing disputes?
(India and the EU are arguing about Indian import restrictions on health and safety grounds, Indian requirements of indigenisation, etc, on foreign auto makers, and India's virtual ban on imports of raw hides and skins) No, I have not done that.

Have you not decided yet to seek a panel (whose rulings are binding)?
We have not told the Indian government anything.

But you have decided?
I have not decided anything. But our position is that if we can't make progress bilaterally, the parties seek (WTO) help. There is nothing hostile about that.