However, the latter did not agree to this time schedule, though all other trading partners did. This agreement in effect drastically shortened the phase-out period to 2001 by which date all QRs on 1,429 items would be lifted. This is despite the fact that the European Union and other countries had agreed to a phasing out of import restrictions by March 2003. But the Indian Government, bowing to pressure from the US, advanced the lifting of QRs by three years. However, the U.S. is itself violating international obligations such as backing off the Kyoto Protocol to regulate CO2 emissions though it is the biggest polluter.
Responsibility is two way lane.
And the lack of responsibility being shown by the U.S. in respecting international commitments should have been used by India to gain space in setting policy that ensures her people's survival. In any case, India is arguing for maintaining QRs in the review of the Agreement on Agriculture. It should have maintained QRs as a right. It is also arguing for a livelihood and food security exemption from the rules of the Agreement on Agriculture. Instead of defending the livelihoods and food security of the country, the Commerce Minister has threatened the survival of the Indian people, especially the farmers twice over firstly, through removing restrictions on imports and secondly by announcing an agribusiness centered export oriented policy for agriculture.