Non-transparent economies dangerous to work with: Piyush Goyal | India News – Rashtra News : Rashtra News
#Nontransparent #economies #dangerous #work #Piyush #Goyal #India #News #Times #India
Commerce and industry minister Piyush Goyal believes the US and India have buried many of their differences on the trade front as they look to forge a new relationship. Prior to his visit to Geneva for the WTO meet, now postponed due to the latest Covid variant, the minister said democracies are looking at new investment and trade options due to worries over ‘non-transparent economies’, without naming China. Excerpts:
One of the issues on the WTO agenda is reforms and doing away with special and differential treatment (S&DT) for developing and poor countries. How do you see it?
Any attempt to take away S&DT will fail. It’s not going to happen. The developed world cannot expect developing and less developed countries to come on a par with countries that have multiple times the per capita incomes of the less developed nations. These are areas on which we need a wide consensus building exercise to ensure that S&DT continues, to ensure that the consensus-based approach to negotiations continues, while there may be other areas of reforms on which we are open to discussions. The WTO will have to relook at some of the non-transparent practices that some countries indulge in and will have to address them. It will have to see that countries which are indulging in such practices are taken to task.
Since Covid outbreak, there has been a lot of discussion on the need to create reliable and sustainable supply lines. How is that playing out?
We have had very successful discussions with several countries, including the USTR (Katherine Tai) recently. EU is concerned about how to ensure supply chains remain open in the event of further emergencies. It’s been a wake-up call and more and more democratic and developed countries are recognising that some economies are dangerous to work with as they can suddenly let you down. Resilient supply chains are probably one of the most critical areas of engagement.
One non-transparent economy has been the villain and its entry into the WTO is often considered to be the biggest strategic blunder. How do you deal with that?
While we cannot rewrite history, we will have to look at alternate and smarter ways of working among like-minded democratic countries and transparent economies, nations that believe in rule of law and fair play. They will have to build coalitions like the Resilient Supply Initiative between Japan, Australia and India. Look at the two QUADs that India is a part of (with the US, Australia, Japan and with the US, UAE and Israel).
But such intent is not backed by initiatives. A recent poll of US companies showed 80% will look to invest more in China…
I would not like to talk about what companies in other countries are doing but I will only say that nations across the world are very disturbed and anguished over the way the situation is emerging geo-politically and how it could have an adverse impact in their own countries. Such unfair trade practices ultimately take away jobs in countries that believe in a rule-based system. Just as India is taking steps to protect itself, many other countries are looking to protect themselves from indiscriminate investment or trade linkages with non-transparent economies.
The India-US trade policy forum (TPF) is back after four years and by the looks of it you have made some progress. What are the key markers that you have set?
The joint statement is so comprehensive, covering a vast range of subjects, that you will not find any other document, either with the US in the past or any other country. The message was clear that the US and India are natural partners and we can do a lot together. They are looking at India to be a much bigger trading partner and a much-bigger geo-strategic role for India. A lot of the historical baggage of several decades has been buried.
There are some 40 issues from both sides…
Incidentally, we have also agreed that we should move away from this old school thinking about always trying to balance by moving on two issues each. We should look at each other as allies and see what’s the maximum each one can do. Both have differing sensitivities and we respect that. At the same time, we have differing economic prosperity levels. We are looking at more interactions so that misunderstandings don’t crop up.
One of the issues on the WTO agenda is reforms and doing away with special and differential treatment (S&DT) for developing and poor countries. How do you see it?
Any attempt to take away S&DT will fail. It’s not going to happen. The developed world cannot expect developing and less developed countries to come on a par with countries that have multiple times the per capita incomes of the less developed nations. These are areas on which we need a wide consensus building exercise to ensure that S&DT continues, to ensure that the consensus-based approach to negotiations continues, while there may be other areas of reforms on which we are open to discussions. The WTO will have to relook at some of the non-transparent practices that some countries indulge in and will have to address them. It will have to see that countries which are indulging in such practices are taken to task.
Since Covid outbreak, there has been a lot of discussion on the need to create reliable and sustainable supply lines. How is that playing out?
We have had very successful discussions with several countries, including the USTR (Katherine Tai) recently. EU is concerned about how to ensure supply chains remain open in the event of further emergencies. It’s been a wake-up call and more and more democratic and developed countries are recognising that some economies are dangerous to work with as they can suddenly let you down. Resilient supply chains are probably one of the most critical areas of engagement.
One non-transparent economy has been the villain and its entry into the WTO is often considered to be the biggest strategic blunder. How do you deal with that?
While we cannot rewrite history, we will have to look at alternate and smarter ways of working among like-minded democratic countries and transparent economies, nations that believe in rule of law and fair play. They will have to build coalitions like the Resilient Supply Initiative between Japan, Australia and India. Look at the two QUADs that India is a part of (with the US, Australia, Japan and with the US, UAE and Israel).
But such intent is not backed by initiatives. A recent poll of US companies showed 80% will look to invest more in China…
I would not like to talk about what companies in other countries are doing but I will only say that nations across the world are very disturbed and anguished over the way the situation is emerging geo-politically and how it could have an adverse impact in their own countries. Such unfair trade practices ultimately take away jobs in countries that believe in a rule-based system. Just as India is taking steps to protect itself, many other countries are looking to protect themselves from indiscriminate investment or trade linkages with non-transparent economies.
The India-US trade policy forum (TPF) is back after four years and by the looks of it you have made some progress. What are the key markers that you have set?
The joint statement is so comprehensive, covering a vast range of subjects, that you will not find any other document, either with the US in the past or any other country. The message was clear that the US and India are natural partners and we can do a lot together. They are looking at India to be a much bigger trading partner and a much-bigger geo-strategic role for India. A lot of the historical baggage of several decades has been buried.
There are some 40 issues from both sides…
Incidentally, we have also agreed that we should move away from this old school thinking about always trying to balance by moving on two issues each. We should look at each other as allies and see what’s the maximum each one can do. Both have differing sensitivities and we respect that. At the same time, we have differing economic prosperity levels. We are looking at more interactions so that misunderstandings don’t crop up.
( News Source :Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by Rashtra News staff and is published from a timesofindia.indiatimes.com feed.)