Though wounds from the Khobragade affair have scarcely begun to heal,
the India-US relationship again witnessed a spike in tension this week
as the US Trade Representative (USTR), Michael Froman, announced that
Washington was initiating consultations with New Delhi over a World
Trade Organisation dispute pertaining to India’s National Solar Mission
(NSM).
Addressing media in Washington Mr. Froman said, “These domestic content
requirements [in Phase II of the NSM] discriminate against US exports by
requiring solar power developers to use Indian-manufactured equipment
instead of US equipment,” and that the US had on Monday morning informed
Indian officials in New Delhi, Geneva and Washington that it was
challenging this requirement.
He added that such “unfair” requirements militated against WTO rules and
the Obama administration was “standing up today for the rights of
American workers and businesses,” and in particular disputing India’s
proposed rules under both Article II:4 of the General Agreement on
Tariffs and trade (GATT) and Article 2 of the Agreement on Trade-Related
Investment Measures (TRIM).
The USTR characterised the request for WTO consultations as a “serious”
step, underscoring the fact that under WTO rules if the matter was not
resolved through such consultations within 60 days of the request, the
US may ask the WTO to establish a dispute settlement panel.
Mr. Froman also focused on the question of costs linked to this clean
energy source, arguing, “These types of ‘localisation’ measures not only
are an unfair barrier to US exports but also raise the cost of solar
energy, hindering deployment of energy around the world, including in
India.”
According to attorneys for the USTR, close to 10,000 American jobs may
be at stake in the solar industry sector if India carries through with
the local content and US exports, which stood at nearly $119 million
before these criteria kicked in, have “fallen off precipitously since
then.”
The USTR’s action received enthusiastic support within the US solar
manufacturing industry with Rhone Resch, President and CEO of the Solar
Energy Industries Association (SEIA), describing it as “justified and
necessary.”
Mr. Resch added, “Over the past three years, the US government has
provided India every opportunity to remove restrictive and unfair
marketplace requirements. In the absence of any meaningful effort by
India to find common ground, it’s now time for the WTO to finally
resolve these long-festering issues.”
The attorneys particularly drew attention to the vast size of India’s
solar energy market, which under the NSM is estimated to increase
20-fold over the coming decade. India was thus a “very important… [and]
the second largest market for US solar exporters, [which was the reason
behind] “the substantial concern,” at the local content rules.
The latest objections raised by the USTR follow from a previous round of
dispute consultations initiated in Washington in February 2013
regarding to Phase I of the NSM.
There appeared to be a clear feeling that matters had taken a turn for
the worse for US exporters because although Phase I also imposed local
content requirements for modules for solar power developers using
crystalline silicone technology, New Delhi excluded thin film technology
from the domestic content requirement.
The USTR office said in a statement, that despite the US going beyond
the WTO consultations to engage India in the bilateral for such as the
India-US Trade Policy Forum, India-U.S. Energy Dialogue, and various WTO
committees, “The formal consultations failed to resolve US concerns.”
Yet the US signalled its hope that the dispute would not be interpreted
as move towards a trade war or a commentary on the broader economic
relationship, and Mr. Froman said, “An important part of any maturing
trade relationship is effectively addressing the range of issues on our
trade and investment agenda, including areas where we may disagree.
Today’s action addresses a specific issue of concern and in no way
detracts from the importance we attach to this relationship.”
On the broader course of bilateral ties, the USTR attorneys firmly ruled
out any link to the arrest of Devyani Khobragade, India’s former Deputy
Consul General in New York, on December 12, following which New Delhi
hit back with retaliatory measures against US diplomats there and the
relationship went into a tailspin.
They said, “These cases take some time to develop, and… we began in WTO
terms, to address this issue a year ago [when] we challenged Phase I [of
the NSM].”
Comments
Post a Comment