Among the reaons, and there are many, why India is among the world's great democracies, is the quality and political responsibility of its journalists.
An article just published in an Indian newspaper explores brilliantly how the peace clause to which India seems to have acquiesced-but already apparently with buyer's remorse, according to some reports-is an insideous trap. The article notes "Countries invoking the peace clause will have to notify if they are at the risk of exceeding the cut-off limit for subsidies." bit.ly/17wiuNg In other words, to use the four year peace clause you have to admit basically you are violating the Agreement on Agriculture.
So consider the scenarios for India if it re-affirms support for the peace clause rather than walks away from it:
If India re-affirms:
1) it will have betrayed the cause of principle of the G33, and shown it cannot be trusted as a leader of a developing country coalition at the WTO
2) it will have lost its leverage on trade facilitation, because it will have already conceeded on food security
3) if it invokes the clause, then in four years time its effective admission that it has violated the A of A will make India a sitting target for a complaint in dispute settlement-that's the Trojan horse part.
If India gets back its backbone and walks away:
1) it will prove that it has the strength of will to be a leader in the WTO.
2) it can hold to its own values and interests, and those of developing countries more generally with respect to trade facilitation, because it won't be depending on a a deal going through to address food security.
3) if attacked in dispute settlement in the next months it will have full latitude to defend its law and, worse case, come about four years from now,India may-if it loses on both facts and law at every stage in dispute settlement-have to pay compensation or change its law. Or it may have enough leverage in four years to demand a waiver.
Isn't the case pretty clear that the sounder judgment call is to say no thanks to the Trojan horse?