GTRI Advocates for India’s Withdrawal from U.S. Trade Negotiations
The Global Trade Research Initiative (GTRI) advises India to withdraw from negotiations with the U.S., suggesting a protocol similar to its interactions with other countries. The organization critiques misleading U.S. trade claims and advocates for India to safeguard sensitive sectors while avoiding concessions that could impact its agricultural base.
The Global Trade Research Initiative (GTRI) has suggested that India should cease all negotiations with the United States, advocating instead for a more formulaic approach akin to its dealings with other nations. This opinion was voiced by Srivastava, who noted that President Trump has disparaged India by using misleading data, making balanced negotiations unfeasible.
GTRI pointed out that retaliatory actions have already been undertaken by nations such as China and Canada in response to U.S. tariffs. Amidst tensions, President Trump asserted that India had consented to reduce tariffs on American goods after his administration highlighted perceived unfair trade practices.
Moreover, U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has urged India to liberalize its agriculture market, underscoring that it cannot be overlooked during talks with the U.S., which is India’s largest trading partner. He has proposed a comprehensive trade agreement instead of a piecemeal, product-specific approach to facilitate bilateral trade.
According to the GTRI report, any extensive trade arrangement might impose U.S. demands regarding tariffs, government procurement policies, agricultural subsidies, patent regulations, and data movement—areas where India has long held firm. The report highlights Trump’s unstable nature with trade agreements, evidenced by his cancellation of the US-Mexico-Canada Free Trade Agreement.
An alternative proposed by GTRI is for India to adopt a macro-level reciprocal tariff strategy, potentially covering 90 percent of industrial goods under a “Zero-for-Zero” framework, where tariff reductions would be mutual. However, it insists that sensitive sectors such as agriculture and passenger vehicles remain protected.
Citing historical outcomes, GTRI referred to Australia’s auto industry collapse following dramatic tariff reductions in the late 1980s. Additionally, it posited that India’s minimal car exports to the U.S. would not be significantly impacted by increased tariffs.
Srivastava criticized opening the agricultural sector to U.S. imports, arguing that it is a matter of livelihoods for over 700 million people in India as opposed to mere trade statistics. He noted that existing tariffs on certain U.S. agricultural exports to India are already quite low.
Despite high tariffs imposed on certain products by India, the U.S. has comparable or greater tariffs on several items. Srivastava emphasized that U.S. officials often misrepresent trade balances, highlighting discrepancies such as the exaggerated U.S. trade deficit with India.
In light of ongoing provocations from the U.S., Srivastava encouraged India to adopt a firmer stance against misinformation and to prioritize its long-term economic strength over temporary compromises. He stated that if the U.S. dismisses the ‘Zero-for-Zero’ proposal and imposes tariffs in retaliation, India should respond judiciously, as the trade analysis indicates minimal adverse effects on most sectors.
In summary, the GTRI urges India to halt negotiations with the U.S. until fair conditions prevail. The initiative calls for a measured approach in dealing with U.S. trade demands, particularly in sensitive sectors, and cautions against concessions that could impact India’s agricultural base. Additionally, it emphasizes the importance of countering misinformation regarding trade figures and the necessity for India to focus on long-term economic stability rather than immediate appeasement.
Original Source: m.economictimes.com
Post Comment