|
Major trade agreements hinge largely on policy convergence between the parties and the stakeholders involved, and not leader-level symbolism, asserted India-based think tank Global Trade Research Initiative (GTRI), after US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick's claims that the Bilateral Trade Agreement (BTA) did not fructify because Prime Minister Narendra Modi did not personally call President Donald Trump.
Earlier, the US Commerce Secretary had claimed that the trade deal between India and the United States did not happen as Prime Minister Narendra Modi did not place a call to Donald Trump. In a conversation with American venture capitalist Chamath Palihapitiya, as part of the 'All-In Podcast' on Thursday (local time), Lutnick said that while contracts were negotiated and the entire deal structure was prepared, the final step required direct, leader-level engagement. As India-US trade talks continue to face delays, a remark by the US Commerce Secretary has shifted the focus from substance to symbolism, according to GTRI. The explanation by Lutnick raises more questions than it answers about how complex trade negotiations actually break down, GTRI said. Lutnick had said PM Modi later agreed to place the call, but by then it was "too late", as the US had already shifted focus to concluding trade deals with other countries. The US trade agreements with Indonesia, Vietnam and the Philippines were concluded around July 2025, but India-US negotiations continued well beyond that period, with multiple official-level engagements on market access, tariffs and regulatory issues taking place afterward, GTRI recalled. "If Washington had already decided in July that there would be "no deal" simply because Prime Minister Modi did not make a personal call, there would have been little reason for both sides to continue negotiating for months thereafter. The claim reads less like a contemporaneous reason and more like a retrospective justification," GTRI supplemented. According to GTRI, reducing a complex, multi-sector trade negotiation to the absence of a leader-to-leader phone call misses the logic by which such agreements are concluded. "Trade deals of this scale hinge on unresolved policy differences--on tariffs, agriculture, digital trade and regulatory autonomy--not on symbolic gestures. Lutnick's remarks therefore confuse diplomatic optics with negotiating reality, and overlook the deeper structural reasons why an India-U.S. deal has remained elusive." GTRI concluded that the India-US trade impasse reflects hard policy choices rather than missed phone calls. "Framing the delay as a matter of personal diplomacy may offer a convenient narrative, but it obscures the substantive disagreements that both sides have yet to resolve--and risks trivialising one of the most consequential trade relationships in the global economy," the GTRI report concludes. Trump administration has imposed tariffs on countries that were major exporters to the US, including India and China. There is a 50 per cent tariffs on goods from India entering the United States since August 2025. (ANI)
|
