India should play their movements very careful against a Trick and Mercurial Administration of Trump.
He had agreed to celebrate negotiations to conclude a bilateral commercial agreement (BTA) with the modes of the A bold Prime Minister of the United States. UU. Visit us in February, which coincided with the announcement of the “Fair and Reciprocal Trade Policy”, the basics for the basis for the basis for the basis for the imposition of the imposition. “
It is not clear why India agreed to launch the BTA negotiations now when the foreign economic policy of the United States is in its most aggressive form. In the past, the Indian government repeatedly rejected the obertures of its largest commercial partner to launch bilateral trade negotiations.
The moment of BTA negotiations is more surprising since there is no evidence that the United States demand list has changed. A recent report by the United States Commercial Representative, the National Commercial Estimate (NTE) report on foreign trade barriers attest. This report highlights the important foreign barriers for US exports and foreign investment in the United States in India and 56 other countries. “He prepared the stage for the fee announcement of April 2. Since then, there has been an extraordinary sequence of events, which culminated in a 90 -day moratorium in tariff walks, for all Chinese exceptional, announced on April 9.
A summary
To recap, Trump announced his “reciprocal rate policy” on April 2, over 57 commercial partners, ranging from 11 % to 49 percent; This would come into force on April 9. In addition, an additional duty AD VALEEM or 10 percent of imports from all business partners introduced, which implies that the two additional tariffs would apply almost simultaneous.
Now, there is a pause on the implementation of the “reciprocal tariff” in all countries, except in China for 90 days, and secondly, a strong increase in the load of the China rate, which is now 145 percent, according to the White House. The letter was ‘punished’ for retaliation against the “reciprocal rate” and impose a 125 percent retaliation rate. The climbing of the war war against China was expected, since Trump had threatened the same, in case a commercial partner represents against the “reciprocal rate.”
But Trump offered to reduce the “reciprocal tariff” if commercial partners offered concessions that benefit US companies, workers and farmers. The temporary pause on the implementation of reciprocal tariffs has clearly made the leg to ensure concessions of commercial partners.
Several advisors to Donald Trump in particular, Stephen Marin, president of the Council of Economic Advisors, the Secretary of the Treasury, Scott Besent, and Peter Navarro, main counselor of Commerce and Manufacturing, have explained that imposing way and at that time, offer a offer strategy to maximize the concessions of the partners.
Tariffs, a tactic
In an article published immediately after the electoral victory of Donald Trump, Marin argued: “Tariffs create a leverage of negotiation leverage to encourage the terms best terms terms terms.
Navarro presented the White House strategy, arguing that the pause in the implementation was “part of a calculated negotiation tactic”, and insisted that the United States is in a solid position that is aimed at bilateral commercial conversations and that the sudden change (pause in implementation) was part of the plan, “and a demonstration of Trump’s triumphal trade style.”
The secretary of the Treasury, Bessert, said that the setback had been the plan all the time to take the countries to the negotiating table.
Now, returning to the demands made of India in the context of BTA, the dererrente for this reason are the excessive concessions that the United States has sought in sensitive areas, including the opening of the Indian agricultural market for the companies and amendments of the United States.
While they list the so -called “commercial barriers” of India, the USTR offers long list problems/areas in which the Trump administration would surely seek the duration of the “concessions” of the BTA negotiations. The report makes it clear that the United States is looking for reduction/elimination of Indian rates ranging from agricultural products, motorcycles and cars, and drug formulations.
It is also evident that the US is looking for a reversal of rates of rates in products of export interest in the United States, namely information and communication technology, medical devices, automatic components and solar energy equipment. The United States also wants changes in the National Regulatory Environment of India that covers tests and certification requirements for telegraph equipment, dairy products and genetically modified crops.
Looking at IP’s laws
The United States has attacked India patents and other intellectual property laws, seeking the elimination of public interest provisions. In the case of the Patent Law, the provision that prevented perpetual monopolies in medicines, which were included to legislators to guarantee affordable access to medicines, has constantly directed the bone. There is a broad agreement in India with respect to the location of data that is considered to be a broader interest of Indian companies, but the United States government is pressing for its elimination.
In agriculture, the United States is ironicular that demands the decrease in Indian subsidies that are critical for the livelihood of livelihoods and domestic food security, while their own subsidies have embedded almost four times since it became a member of the.
Worse, the United States is pointing to the public distribution system to feed the poor people of the country. During the last three decades, India has constantly defended its agricultural policies, and there are no reasons not to do it now.
An important concern is that even before negotiations began, India seems to be the accommodation of the interests of the United States. The budget reduced rates on motorcycles and bourbon whiskey. More recently, the government agreed to increase the price of coronary stents, just because the United States government had formed price control.
A few weeks ago, Foreign Minister, S Jaishankar had affirmed that the country will follow the “India First” approach in the FTAs, which should be the approach to counteract the “America First” commercial policy of Trump.
Therefore, the government’s priority must be guaranteed that BTA negotiations ensure benefits for the country and central interests in agriculture and health are not sacrificed under any circumstance. For too long, India has not put a price on the access of countries associated with its large domestic market; BTA negotiations are the best opportunity to do so.
The writer is a distinguished professor, Social Development Council and former teacher, Jnu
Posted on April 11, 2025
