The United States cheered on Thursday an agreement it reached with India as progress for the World Trade Organization (WTO). Critics, however, say deal is likely a win for corporations and economic loss for developing countries.A fact sheet from the U.S. Trade Representative explains that there are two parts to the deal that broke what had been an impasse over agreements from Ministerial meeting last year in Bali. The first is that the two countries stated they would move forward on the Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA)—the WTO\u0026#039;s first multilateral trade agreement of the body\u0026#039;s two-decade existence. The second is an agreement on India\u0026#039;s food security program, which allows for domestic \u0022food stockpiling.\u0022Begging WTO for Food SecurityAs the Associated Press summed up: \u0022India had insisted on its right to subsidize grains under a national policy to support hundreds of millions of impoverished farmers and provide food security amid high inflation.\u0022\u0022It is beyond shameful that the United States blocked these negotiations all year in 2013, and that India and other developing countries were left with a peace clause as a consolation prize.\u0022 —Deborah James, CEPRRegarding that food security program, the New York Times reports, \u0022Indian and American officials agreed to a peace clause that protects India’s program from a legal challenge until W.T.O. members reach a permanent resolution of the dispute.\u0022 India had held out on this issue.But as the Transnational Institute (TNI) pointed out in a report released this week: \u0022The big question is why do governments even need the WTO to decide whether they can guarantee the right to food to their people? The right to food is a universal human right that should not be subject to trade rules.\u0022The report also notes that the need for such a peace clause highlights the \u0022deep hypocrisy embedded within the WTO,\u0022 as the EU and the U.S., unlike India and other developing countries, are able to pour billions into their own agricultural subsidies.Deborah James, Director of International Programs at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, echoed these points, explaining to Common Dreams: \u0022The entire debate is outrageous.\u0022\u0022The world has passed through multiple food crises since the WTO rules were written, and nearly every global agricultural agency now recognizes the dire need for developing countries to invest in agricultural production to promote food security, rather than relying on a global market rife with rich countries’ trade-distorting subsidies and speculative distortions. And due to a mass Right to Food movement, India now has a food security program that has been hailed as the most ambitious in the world,\u0022 James stated.\u0022It is beyond shameful that the United States blocked these negotiations all year in 2013, and that India and other developing countries were left with a peace clause as a consolation prize,\u0022 she continued.Mary Louise Malig,\u0026nbsp; Researcher, Trade Analyst, and author new TNI report, stressed that the deal does not offer a permanent solution to food security,\u0026nbsp; and that it \u0022is just a tiny step more than what is already agreed in the Bali Package.\u0022Yet, according to Timothy A. Wise, who directs the Research and Policy Program at Tufts University\u0026#039;s Global Development and Environment Institute, that India and the U.S. were able to reach an agreement on this issue could be positive.\u0022India was under enormous pressure to settle this, and its allies were under pressure to abandon India. The good news is that India\u0026#039;s firm stance exacted some concessions from the United States that may lead to good-faith negotiations on the food security issues. Time will tell,\u0022 Wise explained to Common Dreams.The TFA as Corporate WinThe agreement also moves forward the WTO’s TFA, which is also problematic, critics charge.As CEPR\u0026#039;s James wrote in July:The new agreement on \u0022Trade Facilitation\u0022 would set binding rules on customs procedures and trade operations that would demand huge investments from developing countries and Least Developed Countries (LDCs) to modernize and streamline - according to U.S. and EU standards -- their port operations. This means that while we still don\u0026#039;t have binding international rules on, say, the right to water, corporations would have the \u0022right\u0022 to have their products exported into developing countries quickly, easily, and cheaply. That\u0026#039;s why nearly 200 organizations around the world opposed the agreement when it was being negotiated last year.The TFA would also divert limited resources away from priority development needs such as health, education, and domestic infrastructure investments in LDCs and developing countries. Developed countries refused to make binding commitments on financial support during the negotiations. The World Bank announced on July 17 that it would make available, through its Trade Facilitation Support Program (supported by Australia, the EU, the U.S., Canada, Norway and Switzerland) an embarrassingly paltry $30 million for over 100 developing countries to assist them in implementing the TFA.As TNI\u0026#039;s new report puts bluntly, the TFA is a win for transnational corporations. As they \u0022control the global supply chains across the world, [they] will gain the most from an Agreement that slashes costs and relaxes customs procedures, easing the flow of imports and exports,\u0022 the report states.Malig added in a statement to Common Dreams:\u0026nbsp; \u0022The clear winners of this break in the impasse are the Transnational Corporations, all poised to benefit from the implementation of the Trade Facilitation Agreement.\u0022While the WTO had touted the economic gains of the Bali deal, Wise stated: \u0022The bad news is that trade facilitation remains a largely unfunded mandate that will not produce the laughable estimate of $1 trillion in economic gains for the world, as my colleague Jeronim Capaldo has shown. And it may well create economic losses for some least developed countries.\u0022\u0026nbsp;The WTO said Friday that the U.S./India agreement will probably be implemented by the full 160-member body within two weeks.