India’s domestic policy options should not be curtailed by the outcomes of the International Property Exchange Forum (IPEF), according to trade experts. The IPEF, which was launched in 2020, aims to facilitate cross-border investment and trade by increasing intellectual property rights protections. However, some experts argue that the forum’s outcomes should not be used to restrict India’s ability to implement policies that serve its domestic interests, such as promoting public health, environmental protections, or industrial development. This article examines the potential trade-offs between IPEF outcomes and India’s domestic policy options, and explores strategies to mitigate potential conflicts.
Indian trade experts have argued that India needs to ensure that the outcomes of the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF) negotiations do not limit its domestic policy options for promoting Atmanirbhar Bharat in sectors like green products. The IPEF is a US-led initiative aimed at negotiating rules to address 21st century trade challenges and promote fair and resilient trade. The framework is structured around four key issues: trade, supply chains, the clean economy, and the fair economy, covering issues such as tax and anti-corruption. India has joined the clean economy, supply chains, and fair economy pillars but opted out of the trade pillar.
The US launched the IPEF in May 2022, and it now has 14 members that represent 40% of global GDP and 28% of global goods and services trade. The trade negotiations are being conducted secretly, with very little information available in the public domain, which differs from typical free trade agreement (FTA) negotiations where all parties engage in discussions on all issues at the negotiating table. So far, three rounds of negotiations have taken place, with the last one concluding in Bali on March 19th.
Trade experts have raised concerns with the lack of transparency in the IPEF talks. Abhijit Das, an international trade expert, believes that the IPEF negotiations are tailored to suit the US’s interests rather than being advantageous to developing countries. Das urged Commerce and Industry Minister Piyush Goyal to instruct the Indian negotiators to ensure that nothing in the outcome of the IPEF curtails India’s domestic policy options for advancing Atmanirbhar Bharat in sectors such as the digital economy and green products.
Biswajit Dhar, another trade expert, argues that the US has extensively consulted with corporations to come up with the IPEF’s drafts. Therefore, India should conduct a detailed stakeholder consultation on all the matters involved in the IPEF negotiations. Dhar’s argument highlights the concern that the IPEF might be favorable for US corporations and might not benefit developing countries, including India.
The IPEF negotiations have become a source of concern for civil society, too, as there is no transparency in the talks. The industrial sector has also demanded a clearer, more transparent set of negotiations that benefit India’s renewable energy sector. It is vital that transparency and fairness are preserved in the IPEF negotiations so that they are beneficial to all parties involved, as it covers a broad section of topics from trade to supply chains and anti-corruption of the fair economy.
IPEF’s implications depend on the final agreement, but India should ensure that it is not curtailed in promoting Atmanirbhar Bharat policies in sectors such as green products. India’s green economy, with its focus on clean energy, is a significant player in the global market. Therefore, India needs to safeguard its interests in the IPEF negotiations to protect its domestic policy options in promoting Atmanirbhar Bharat. The US may have launched the IPEF, but it is essential that India’s concerns and interests be represented fairly in negotiations.
