India took the conclusion of a trade deal with the United States “very seriously” but the Trump administration decided not to do so, Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar said on Saturday.
In comments indicating that the Modi government holds the Trump administration and its United States Trade Representative (USTR) responsible for the failure of negotiations between the two sides over the past two years to achieve a breakthrough, the Foreign Minister He said he hoped the incoming Biden Administration will now address outstanding trade issues.
Also read: In the United States trade action, an Indian counter-strategy
“There was quite a serious negotiation between our government and the Trump administration to resolve the pending trade issues. The general thinking on both sides was to let us grapple with differences before thinking of something bigger. There were many comings and goings, many discussions, but for a variety of reasons [U.S.TR] it didn’t close it, ”said Mr. Jaishankar, speaking at the 93rd annual meeting of FICCI (Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry) chambers of commerce.
“I hope we have very serious discussions once [Biden] enters the administration and our minister [Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal] He’s very focused on it; this is something that is very important on their agenda, “added the Minister, and said that commercial ties should be viewed in a” strategic “way.
Also read: Big setback if India and the US can’t agree on a trade deal now, says top US diplomat Alice Wells
Ties between India and the US have strengthened in several areas during President Donald Trump’s four-year tenure, but trade ties have been a source of tension, after the USTR took a series of actions against India for what he claimed. they were unfair laws and fees.
In June 2019, just one day after Modi was sworn in for the second time, the United States announced the revocation of the status of India’s Generalized System of Preferences (GSP), which had provided additional benefits to Indian exports since the decade of 1970.
Despite Mr. Goyal’s trade talks with USTR Robert Lighthizer during Mr. Modi’s visit to the US last September, and talks between trade delegations prior to Mr. Trump’s visit to India In February this year, the two sides were unable to agree on a “mini trade agreement” that would include reversing the GSP decision. The negotiations included demands from the United States for greater market access for dairy and agricultural products, as well as for the IT industry, but despite some speculation that commercial teams came close to a deal on several occasions, it never materialized.
Additionally, the USTR has removed India and several other countries from its list of developing countries, making it ineligible for preferential treatment against countervailing duties imposed by the US, and announced investigations against India. under its “Section 301” on India’s proposal for taxes on digital services or what is called the “offset fee.” The results of the investigation will be announced soon and could mean more restrictions and higher import tariffs.
In an article for External relationships Magazine, Lighthizer even called India a “problematic trading partner” for the United States, saying that the United States’ decisions to grant trade concessions to India over the years had had “negative repercussions.”
When asked, Mr. Jaishankar defended the government’s decision to impose digital taxes, saying that there was nothing wrong with India protecting its digital resources and strengths, or what is negatively termed “techno-nationalism”.
“Today, as the power of digital is appreciated, it is natural that more countries want to have some influence on their own digital future. When you say ‘techno-nationalism’, it implies that transnational actors have legitimacy and that we must accept their influence and dominance in a very unquestionable way, ”said Jaishankar in a conversation with FICCI President Uday Shankar, comparing India’s decision to protect its digital industry and data resources favorably compared to the past, where it said that the lack of trade protection had made India a “market for other industrial economies”.
(with input from Sriram Lakshman)
.
