The latest order is aimed at further tightening the import of jute and products made from Bangladeshi jute. File
| Photo Credit: Reuters

U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump are neck and neck in the race for the White House. It is likely that if Ms Harris wins that many of her policies towards India will pick up where Mr Biden left off. There may be some greater emphasis on issues that are important to the left flank of the Democratic party — such as stronger or more public positions if the U.S. has concerns about democratic norms and human rights in the actions of the Narendra Modi government. There will likely also be a greater engagement with groups in the U.S. who raise these concerns.  Inter-governmental discussions on these subjects are largely — but not fully — managed behind closed doors and that is likely to continue.

Any step changes in U.S. policy towards India are more likely to appear if Mr Trump becomes President. These changes may result from first order impacts, such as in trade, the energy sector,  or the initiative on Critical and Emerging Technologies (iCET). But there are second order changes which could be at least as  profound, but felt only in the medium to long term. These might occur through Mr Trump’s approach to the Ukraine-Russia war, the conflict in West Asia, and importantly actions vis-à-vis China, the South Asian neighbourhood and the Indo Pacific.

Outcomes under a hypothetical second Trump administration are uncertain, not least because of the unpredictability that is at the core of Mr Trump’s strategy and approach.

Technology Partnership

Given the breadth and depth of iCET, an initiative launched in 2023 by the Biden administration and Narendra Modi government  and led by the countries’ National Security Advisors, it is likely to continue.

Watch: Why are U.S. Presidential elections held on Tuesdays?

Consider cooperation in the domain of outer space, an aspect of iCET , for instance. Mr Trump – especially since his close embrace of SpaceX founder Elon Musk, is continuing to show signs that he will be supportive of space exploration and its commercialization. He sought to promote private space exploration by scaling down regulation while in office and targeted a moon-landing by 2024. The Trump administration also established the  U.S. Space Command and the U.S. Space Force.

The ground is set for greater space cooperation between India and the US,  whether there is a continuity in policy under a Harris administration or a switch to a Trump administration, especially with India signing the Artemis Accords in June 2023.

However, with Mr Trump there could be some friction points – where manufacturing and iCET projects intersect (for example semi-conductor fabrication in India). If the U.S. is going to support manufacturing in India, Mr Trump may view that as a threat to U.S. manufacturing (it is conceivable that he will think this way about semiconductors).  Given, Mr Trump’s mercantilist world view, he is likely to expect something tangible in return and in the short to medium term, rather than playing “the long game” with India, as the Biden administration has said it is doing.  

That iCET is helping India acquire advance capabilities so it can potentially become an alternative to China as far as supply chains are concerned – a view held in the US – is not likely to satisfy Mr Trump for at least two reasons. One, this outcome is not in the near term. Two, this outcome greatly benefits India as well. He will expect India to pay.

Defence

In general, Mr Trump can be expected to emphasize the defece aspect of the U.S. relationship with India. The Quad was revived during his administration (Mr Biden elevated it to the leader level). Mr Trump is likely to push India to keep spending on arms from the U.S. ( the two countries recently concluded a $ 3.5 billion deal for India to purchase 31 MQ-9B armed drones from made by General Atomics). One of iCET’s domains is defence innovation and technology cooperation.

Trade

More generally, as far as trade is concerned, Mr Trump has a preference for trade deals, rather than the Biden administration’s framework approach. India has not yet signed on to the Indo Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF).  Mr Trump said in 2023 that he would undo this framework. He is likely to follow through – he took the US out of the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) days after his inauguration.

Mr Trump views trade balances as profit and loss statements. He has repeatedly suggested that India and China ( sometimes also referring to the European Union) as being “tough” on trade.  

He called India the ‘tariff king’ when he was President and took India out of the U.S.’s preferential trading program, the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP). If elected, Mr Trump is likely to seek the equalization of tariffs across product categories with regard to US-India trade.

Mr Trump is also likely to want tariff equalization across product categories. He told Bloomberg’s John Micklethwait that ‘tariff’ was the “most beautiful word in the dictionary”(since then, as November 5^th got closer,  he had downgraded it to third place, after ‘love’ and ‘religion’).

A Trump administration is also likely to want to sign a trade deal with India, at least a limited-scope trade deal for starters. This was under discussion towards the end of Mr Trump’s first term but nothing came of it.

India had purchase  U.S. energy during Mr Trump’s administration after it slapped sanctions on Iran and Venezuela, cutting off those sources of oil. Given the focus on domestic fuel production during the campaign, Mr Trump is likely to not just drill for more petroleum, but also seek markets for U.S. energy in India and other countries.

China and Russia

Mr Trump has said he will end dependence on China in critical sectors – electronics, steel and pharmaceuticals. India could benefit from this.

There are, however, larger questions about his approach to Chinese President Xi Jinping. Mr Trump says he gets  on with Mr Xi,  while also mentioning China in virtually every campaign speech as an economic competitor. Mr Trump began a trade war with China during his time in the White House.  

The former President’s stance on Taiwan is complicated. He has said Taiwan should pay the U.S. for defending it  ( likening the U.S. to an “insurance company”) and has been ambiguous about whether he would go to Taiwan’s defence if China were to attack it. He is nevertheless going to have to negotiate with Republicans  (and Democrats in a split Congress); there is little appetite on both sides of the aisle to placate China. Mr Trump is also expected to have in his inner circle China hawks, e.g. , Tennessee Senator Bill Hagerty, former U.S. Ambassador to Germany Ric Grenell and  former Defense Department official Elbridge Colby. At this stage it is largely futile , in the case of China and Russia, to identify what the outcomes of a Trump 2.0 situation will be.

With regard to Moscow, since Mr Trump left office, Indian purchases of Russian oil have increased significantly (from about 2% to just over 40% by some estimates between 2021 and May 2024).  India has been accused of helping to fund Russia’s invasion of Ukraine through oil purchases and has defended its purchases as being in its national interest. New Delhi has also noted that had it stopped buying Russian oil, the global price of oil will have increased with restricted supply.

 How these dynamics change in the medium to long term will depend on how the path of the Russia-Ukraine war is shaped under Mr Trump who has suggested a keenness to bring the conflict to a swift end. This is likely to involve significantly more unfavourable terms for Kyiv than are perhaps open to it now, going by the adulatory remarks Mr Trump has made about Russian President Vladimir Putin, his testy relationship with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy and his distaste for American money going to Ukraine’s assistance.

In the approach to any resolution to that conflict, there is the more immediate issue of sanctions against Russia. Even as recently as last week (October 30), the  U.S. sanctioned 19 Indian entities for providing “dual use” technologies to Russia.

There are Republicans in Congress who would oppose the removal of Russia-related sanctions.

“We don’t know how that is going to factor into Trump’s calculations,” said Lisa Curtis who leads the Indo-Pacific program at the Centre for a New American Security. Ms Curtis was the senior director for South and Central Asia in Mr Trump’s National Security Council.

“ All we know is that Trump will probably put more effort into ending the war than the Biden administration has,” she added.

Alleged assassination plots

Officials who served as bureaucrats in both Democratic and Republican administrations are united in one thing – that neither a Democratic nor Republican president would look the other way if a foreign government attempted to assassinate a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil (abstracting from whether or not that happened in the Sikhs for Justice leader Gurpatwant Singh Pannun case, as alleged by the U.S. Department of Justice).

Pro-Khalistan figures, have openly propagated separatism in the Indian context as well as issued threats against Indian assets (for instance, Mr Pannun’s threats in October 2022 with regard to Air India flights). Nevertheless, thus far, these activities have appeared to avail of protections offered by the First Amendment (of the U.S. Constitution).  It is unclear if this would change under a hypothetical Trump administration. 

“I think certainly if there’s any information you know, brought to him [ Mr Trump] that demonstrates any involvement in any kind of terrorism or threats to India, a Trump administration would investigate those and act on those. But it really depends on the information that India presents and how credible it is, and what it means,” Ms Curtis told The Hindu.

“Trump … he is ‘America First’.  He’s going support US citizens … he’s not going to like the idea of another country trying to assassinate a US citizen on US territory,” she said, adding ,

“ I don’t think any US president would look favorably on that kind of thing.”

At least some American policy-makers suggest that the meeting between three Sikh groups and White House officials just ahead of Mr Modi’s visit for the Quad Summit in September this year,  was neither out of line nor something for India to be alarmed by.

Immigration

Mr Trump’s biggest campaign focus has been cracking down on illegal migration (Indians represent the largest group of Asian undocumented migrants in the United States). However, his

Rapport between leaders

Another aspect of the US-India relationship that has been discussed is the apparent connect between leaders.   Mr Biden has emphasized the role of his personal rapport with other politicians – whether from other countries or in the U.S. Congress – in delivering mutually favourable outcomes. He and Mr Modi appeared to have developed a good relationship. There are no signs of an especially good relationship  between While Mr Modi and  Ms Harris appear to have a perfectly good dynamic, there are no signs that it is especially strong.

Mr Modi and Mr Trump also had on display an apparent bonhomie in previous years – seen for example in the ‘Howdy Modi’ rally in Houston in 2019 and Mr Trump’s visit to India in early 2020.   

Officials, past and present, in Washington DC,  have suggested that interpersonal relationships at the leader level are important in setting the overall tone of the engagement at the bureaucratic level and a good rapport between leaders can encourage ministers, negotiators and officers to raise the ceiling of their ambitions.  Notwithstanding the strength of interpersonal bonds, there is a floor; and this likely to be felt sooner in a Trump administration than in a Harris administration , because of Mr Trump’s transactional approach.

Workers break cocoa pods at a farm in Sinfra, Ivory Coast. File
| Photo Credit: Reuters

The discovery of huge deposits of natural resources including oil, gas and gold in the Ivory Coast is pushing the country’s economy in a new direction.

Over the past three years, the West African country — traditionally focussed on agriculture, in particular, cocoa — has leaned into a new role as an oil and gas producer.

Three discoveries of oil deposits in September 2021, July 2022 and February this year, revealed huge reserves estimated at six billion barrels.

The first deposit, called “Baleine”, is already up and running, operated by Italian company Eni. It aims to supply 2,00,000 barrels per day by 2026 and 200 million cubic feet per day of gas.

The Minister of Mines, Oil and Energy, Mamadou Sangafowa Coulibaly, said the country could now have the chance to join the OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) group of oil-producing countries.

“Other discoveries of raw materials are also opening potential new revenue streams. The number of mining permits and projects has tripled since 2012 — from nine to 28 — while research permits have increased from 120 to nearly 200 over the period.”

Mr. Coulibaly said the tax revenues generated are already 20 times higher than they were in 2012, at 372 billion CFA francs ($620 million). “The western half and the northeast of our country are full of strategic and critical minerals,” the Minister added.

Ivorian economy is diversifying: President of CAMP2E

“The Ivorian economy is diversifying into everything related to raw materials,” said Cedrick Sehe, president of CAMP2E, an organisation that promotes mining in the country.

In May, the country’s largest gold deposit was discovered in the west, with the potential to be the third-largest mine in West Africa.

Lithium, manganese, nickel and even coltan — a precious ore used to make electronic devices — have also been found in Ivorian soil.

“These minerals are particularly sought after because they are part of energy transition policies,” Serge Parfait Dioman, an engineering expert in the oil and energy industries, told AFP. “They are, for example, used for the manufacture of electric cars,” Mr. Dioman added.

Some have cautioned that the country could fall into the “raw materials curse”, where a focus on extracting an abundance of resources can end up having negative impacts on the economy.

Mr. Dioman countered that “the more diversified your raw materials are, the less risk you have of falling into this trap”. Experts have also warned about the risk of environmental damage. Fears have also been raised over the toxicity of chemicals used in extraction processes.

Meanwhile, in a sign of its changing role, Ivory Coast will host its first international mining industry exhibition — the SIREXE conference — this November and December.

China’s Premier Li Qiang inspects a hydrogen refuelling truck as Executive Chairman of Fortescue Andrew Forrest (C) looks on at the Fortescue Hazelmere research and development facility in Hazelmere, a suburb of Perth on June 18, 2024.
| Photo Credit: AFP

Chinese Premier Li Qiang has ended his Australian tour on June 18 in the west coast city of Perth where he has focused on China’s investment in critical minerals, clean energy and business links.

Perth is the capital of Western Australia State, which provided 39% of the world’s iron ore last year. Iron ore is one of Australia’s most lucrative exports. Analysts say the commodity was spared the type of trade bans that Beijing imposed on other Australian exports as bilateral relations soured three years ago because the steel-making ingredient was crucial to Chinese industrial growth.

Last week, Mr. Li became the first Chinese premier to visit New Zealand then Australia in seven years. He left Perth late on June 18 for Malaysia, where he’ll be China’s first premier to visit since 2015.

While in Perth, China’s second-most powerful leader after President Xi Jinping inspected iron ore miner Fortescue’s clean energy research facility.

Fortescue’s chairman Andrew Forrest said Mr.Li was interested in the company’s plans to produce iron ore without carbon emissions and potentially “green iron.” “I think China chose us because it’s not just the best technology to go green in Australia, it’s the best technology to go green in the world and we’ve got real examples of it in trains, ship engines, trucks,” Forrest told The Associated Press before the visit.

The Perth facility is testing technology on hydrogen, ammonia and batter power for trains, ships, trucks and heavy mining equipment.

Focuses on Critical Minerals

Mr. Li also visited Chinese-controlled Tianqi Lithium Energy Australia’s processing plant south of Perth to underscore China’s interest in investing in critical minerals. The plant produces battery-grade lithium hydroxide for electric vehicles.

Australia shares U.S. concerns over China’s global dominance in critical minerals and control over supply chains in the renewable energy sector.

Citing Australia’s national interests, Treasurer Jim Chalmers recently ordered five Chinese-linked companies to divest their shares in the rare earth mining company Northern Minerals.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese wrote in an opinion piece published in Perth’s main newspaper, The West Australian, on June 18, that his government was acting to ensure foreign investment “continues to serve our national interests.”

“This includes reforming the foreign investment framework so that it’s more efficient, more transparent and more effective at managing risk,” Mr. Albanese wrote.

Mr. Forrest said the national risk from Chinese investment in the critical minerals sector was overstated.

“Australia should be producing all the critical minerals in the world because we’re a great mining country, so by all means let’s go in harder after critical minerals, but let’s not do it with panic because there is no reason for panic,” Mr. Forrest said.

Mr. Qiang and Mr. Albanese flew to Perth in separate planes late on June 17 from the national capital Canberra where the two leaders held an official annual meeting with senior ministers in Parliament House.

Both leaders attended a round table of business leaders in Perth representing resource companies including mining giants BHP and Rio Tinto.

Business Council of Australia chief executive Bran Black said business dialogue was essential to the bilateral relations between the two free trading partners.

“While there have been challenging times in the bilateral relationship between the two nations, I think it’s fair to say this is another positive point of progress,” Black told the meeting.

“It shows that whilst the parameters of a bilateral relationship are set by governments, they will always be sustained by the quality of the personal relationships and especially those personal relationships that subsist on a business-to-business level,” Black added.

Chinese premiers and Australian prime ministers met annually from 2013 until 2019, after which Beijing banned minister-to-minister contacts over the previous conservative government’s call for an independent investigation into the causes of and responses to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Relations had already been strained by Australian legislation that banned covert foreign interference in Australian politics and the exclusion of Chinese-owned telecommunications giant Huawei from rolling out the national 5G network due to securit

Beijing initiated a reset in relations after Mr.Anthony Albanese’s center-left Labor Party was elected in 2022.

The annual meetings resumed when Mr. Albanese visited Beijing in November last year.

Concerns over press freedom

Mr. Albanese revealed that his office had complained to the Chinese Embassy about the behavior of two officials during a media event with the two leaders after June 17th meeting.

Australia had “concerns” about two Chinese officials who stood in the way of cameras taking images of well-known Australian journalist Cheng Lei sitting with other reporters as the leaders spoke, Mr. Albanese said.

Mrs. Cheng spent more than three years in detention in China for breaking an embargo with a broadcast on a state-run TV network while she was based in Beijing. She was released last year after interventions by the Australian government and now works for Sky News Australia.

“When you look at the footage, it was a pretty clumsy attempt, frankly, by a couple of people to stand in between where the cameras were and where Mrs. Cheng Lei was sitting,” Mr. Albanese said.

“There should be no impediments to Australian journalists going about their job and we’ve made that clear to the Chinese Embassy,” Mr. Albanese added.

Chinese-born Cheng told Sky News on June 17 that the officials “went to great lengths to block me from the cameras and to flank me.” “I’m only guessing that it’s to prevent me from saying something or doing something that they think would be a bad look. But that in itself was a bad look,” Mrs. Cheng said.

The embassy did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Mr. Li and Mr. Albanese made statements during the press event but neither took questions from the assembled journalists.

New Delhi:

 India has called for starting formal negotiations by WTO members to reform the dispute settlement body of the World Trade Organisation, as the present informal deliberations are creating hindrance for several nations to participate in the talks, an official said.

The official added that formal talks on the subject can help in arriving at some kind of consensus by the 13th ministerial conference (MC), the highest decision making body of the WTO, in Abu Dhabi in February next year.

The issue came up for discussion during a recent meeting of senior officials of WTO members in Geneva last week. Certain countries flagged their concerns on the informal system of talks.

“We have to formalise this process as soon as possible. India stated that if you want to maintain the WTO’s credibility, we need to talk on this,” the official said.

WTO’s dispute settlement body (DSB) is one of the important arms of the 164-member Geneva-based body. Besides monitoring global exports and imports related rules, it adjudicates trade disputes between the member countries.

“The US has started engaging in DSB reforms, but in an informal setting. In this setting, not all members get the opportunity to talk. There are no interpretation facilities in those informal meetings,” the official said.

Many WTO member countries have one or two delegates only in Geneva. So, they get busy in different meetings like general council and because of that, they are not able to participate in the deliberations on DSB reforms.

“So, there are some concerns. It was flagged in the break-away sessions’ meeting in Geneva recently. The sense was that as soon as possible, the negotiations should happen in a formal setting. The whole discussion should come under the Committee on DSB. At present, it is happening in an informal fashion,” the official added.

“The talks should be formalised so that all members can participate in that discussion and contribute their views. India wants the talks to happen in a formal way,” the official, who did not wish to be named, said.

Normally in the WTO, talks through a formal process involves submissions of papers on the subject for discussions among all the members.

The official, however, exuded confidence that the way the US is engaging on the subject, it looks like they will do something like coming up with some formal text for discussion on the issue.

“The developed countries are talking about peripheral reforms, but our main ask is that there should be a two-tier system,” the official said.

Trade experts too said that all the members would have to work together on this.

Hi-Tech Gears Chairman Deep Kapuria said that the US’ leadership is crucial for breaking the deadlock in WTO, which is facing multiple challenges.

“But the question is, how far is the US willing to translate this positive intent into some meaningful action, where it can work towards building consensus on WTO reform agenda and more importantly on reigniting the functioning of DSB. The US has been repeatedly blocking any proposed decision to commence the appointment of Appellate Body members,” Mr Kapuria said.

There are two main ways to settle a dispute once a complaint has been filed in the WTO – the countries find a mutually agreed solution, particularly during the phase of bilateral consultations; and through adjudication which includes ruling by a panel and if not satisfied, challenging that ruling at the appellate body.

The appellate body is the apex institution to adjudicate disputes.

Smooth functioning of the WTO’s dispute settlement mechanism hit a roadblock, when the US blocked appointments of members in the appellate body (AB). Though the AB stopped functioning from December 10, 2019, the panels are still working.

Since December 2019, over 20 appeals have been filed in the AB.

According to experts, the US wants to weaken the two-tier system of the dispute settlement mechanism and they do not intend to restore the appellate body.

The US had earlier stated that over time, the despite settlement has become synonymous with litigation, which is prolonged, expensive and contentious.

Developing countries, on the other hand, are of the strong view that a two-tier system is fundamental for the smooth functioning of the dispute settlement mechanism.

Citing the US Trade Representative Katherine Tai’s suggestions, Mr Kapuria said that the US has three specific ideas to reform DSB and that include finding appropriate alternatives to litigation.

The alternatives include conciliation, and mediation; the panels be restricted to address only those matters which are necessary to resolve the dispute and resist the urge to pontificate; and no judicial overreach so that members could exercise their power to regulate domestic policies.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

New Delhi:

India on Monday imposed an anti-dumping duty on some Chinese steel for five years, according to a government notification.

On Sept 4, India’s steel secretary, Nagendra Nath Sinha, said New Delhi was monitoring the steel imports situation after the steel industry raised concerns over potential dumping by Chinese sellers.

During April-July, China was the second biggest steel exporter to India, after South Korea, selling 0.6 million metric tons, up 62% from the same period a year earlier.

In all, India imported 2 million metric tons of finished steel in the period, the highest since 2020 and up 23% from a year earlier.

China, the world’s top steel producer, exported mostly cold- rolled coil or sheets to India.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)