The US India WTO Deal:The Need for Clarity on Next Steps

It seems the full text of the WTO deal between India and the US is not yet publicly available. In these circumstances, it is difficult to clear up confusion about what the next steps are toward getting Bali back on track. As I mentioned in my previous post, some news reports are suggesting that what Is involved is re-writing the Bali peace clause; I still think that's implausible, but it is hard to avoid misunderstanding and the kind of rumors that created the peace clause crisis in the first place while the text of the agreement is secret. A particular area where there is lack of clarity is on the notion that the US India agreement would have to be put before the WTO Membership for some kind of approval. If what is meant is that it would be a good idea if the interpretive understanding of the US were joined by all Members, that would be great. But it is not necessary in order for the US to bind itself to exercise restraint based upon its understanding of what the peace clause requires, as stated in the India US Agreement. If India remains worried about other Members attacking its policies in dispute settlement besides the US, then it may want to get those Members to make unilateral declarations that they endorse the interpretation in the India US agreement. But is it really worthwhile to hold up the negotiations further in order to fully multilateralize the understanding of Bali in the India US deal? If Brussels were to step up to the plate and declare that the EU accepts that understanding, it would further build India's confidence that the Appellate Body would not adopt a twisted interpretation of the Bali peace clause urged by a Member not litigating in good faith-perhaps to the point that the process of full multilateralization of the interpretive understanding wouldn't be needed.