Moscow has made a decision to hold talks with Delhi on a preferential trade agreement (PTA) with between the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) bloc and India. EAEU is one of the largest trading bloc and five members - Russia, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Belarus and Armenia, integrating 180 million people and nearly $5 trillion GDP.

The preferential trading agreement is one in which tariffs are reduced on certain products and can be termed as an FTA. EAEU already has FTAs with China, Iran, Vietnam, Serbia, Tajikistan, Egypt, Uzbekistan, Moldova and Ukraine.

In 2016, speaking at the, St Petersburg International Economic Forum, Russian President Vladimir Putin had said, "Now we propose considering the prospects for a more extensive Eurasian partnership involving the EAEU and countries with which we already have a close partnership – China, India, Pakistan and Iran – and certainly our CIS partners."

India and Russia have “Special and Privileged Strategic Partnership" and this year will see PM Modi visiting the country to participate in the 75th victory day celebrations in Moscow on May 9th. Victory day is the celebration of Soviet Union's victory over Nazi Germany in World War-II.

Moscow has made a decision to hold talks with Delhi on a preferential trade agreement (PTA) with between the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) bloc and India. EAEU is one of the largest trading bloc and five members - Russia, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Belarus and Armenia, integrating 180 million people and nearly $5 trillion GDP.

Moscow has made a decision to hold talks with Delhi on a preferential trade agreement (PTA) with between the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) bloc and India. EAEU is one of the largest trading bloc and five members - Russia, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Belarus and Armenia, integrating 180 million people and nearly $5 trillion GDP. The preferential trading agreement is one in which tariffs are reduced on certain products and can be termed as an FTA. EAEU already has FTAs with China, Iran, Vietnam, Serbia, Tajikistan, Egypt, Uzbekistan, Moldova and Ukraine. In 2016, speaking at the, St Petersburg International Economic Forum, Russian President Vladimir Putin had said, "Now we propose considering the prospects for a more extensive Eurasian partnership involving the EAEU and countries with which we already have a close partnership – China, India, Pakistan and Iran – and certainly our CIS partners." India and Russia have “Special and Privileged Strategic Partnership" and this year will see PM Modi visiting the country to participate in the 75th victory day celebrations in Moscow on May 9th. Victory day is the celebration of Soviet Union's victory over Nazi Germany in World War-II.

Eurasian Economic Union to hold preferential trade agreement talks with India

President Donald Trump should delay his decision to terminate the preferential trade status granted to India till the general elections in the country are over, several influential US lawmakers, including Democratic presidential aspirant Tulsi Gabbard, said on Wednesday.&nbsp;

Trump this month informed the US Congress about his intent to terminate the designation of India as a beneficiary developing country under Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) programme that facilitates duty-free import of certain products from underdeveloped countries to help grow their economies.

Under the United States GSP programme, nearly 2,000 products including auto components and textile materials can enter the US duty-free if the beneficiary developing countries meet the eligibility criteria established by the Congress. India was the largest beneficiary of the programme in 2017 with USD 5.7 billion in imports to the US given duty-free status, according to a Congressional Research Service report in January.

"My hope is that we can delay, the termination of these GSP preferences until after the elections in India so that we can have a non-political conversation that is very focused on how we collectively can move forward together," Gabbard, the first Hindu US lawmaker, said at a conference on "The US-India Partnership: Economic, Immigration &amp; Strategic Issues." Speaking at the conference organised by the US-India Friendship Council, Gabbard acknowledged that the bilateral relationship was facing a challenge in the field of trade.

"We have some trade challenges that we need to resolve as well as trade opportunities. I think that we have to make sure that cooler heads prevail as we deal with some of the differences that exist," she said.&nbsp;

"Obviously each country (is) advocating for what is in their interest, but recognising that we have great potential and opportunity in many different areas, the announcement to terminate the GSP preferences for India, I think to speak to some of those differences," Gabbard said.&nbsp;

Republican Congressman George Holding, who is Co-Chair of the Congressional India Caucus, agreed with Gabbard, saying that India has been in the generalized system of preferences for three decades and it's just not the right time to address that.&nbsp;

India, he said, is no longer that underdeveloped country when GSP was first granted. There has been a lot of changes in the country since then.&nbsp;

"We do probably need to revisit that. But we don't need to revisit it right before a general election," he said. Swadesh Chatterjee, chair of US-India Friendship Council, said that Trump's decision to terminate GSP for India would impact the country's export of about USD 5.6 billion.&nbsp;

This is more than 10 per cent of the total goods and services between the US and India and this suspension of GSP will definitely create some issues between the two countries. Senator Thom Tellis from North Carolina praised the contribution of Indian Americans in the economy and development of the United States.&nbsp;

"I developed a greater appreciation for their culture, their dedication to education and their dedication to excellence," he said. Referring to the growing defence ties between India and the United States, Indian-American Congressmen Ami Bera underscored the need of the two countries to work in areas like artificial intelligence.&nbsp;

"We'd like to authorize the Department of Defence (DoD) to assist India in reducing purchases from countries that we may mutually view as adversaries and certainly that we may view as adversaries," Bera said.&nbsp;

He said that Indo-US partnership in the area of defence is critical and the two countries have been conducting major defence and naval exercises together. "We would like to require the DoD to conduct regular military engagements and dialogue with India, particularly in the Western Indian Ocean region. We recognize that India strategically has a vital role in protecting the Indian Ocean region and in keeping those lanes of commerce open," he said.

&nbsp;"We'd like to require the State Department to advance India's membership into the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum or APEC because we think this is an important vehicle by which India can continue to seek it's free and open trade across Asia," Bera said.

President Donald Trump should delay his decision to terminate the preferential trade status granted to India till the general elections in the country are over, several influential US lawmakers, including Democratic presidential aspirant Tulsi Gabbard, said on Wednesday.

President Donald Trump should delay his decision to terminate the preferential trade status granted to India till the general elections in the country are over, several influential US lawmakers, including Democratic presidential aspirant Tulsi Gabbard, said on Wednesday. Trump this month informed the US Congress about his intent to terminate the designation of India as a beneficiary developing country under Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) programme that facilitates duty-free import of certain products from underdeveloped countries to help grow their economies. Under the United States GSP programme, nearly 2,000 products including auto components and textile materials can enter the US duty-free if the beneficiary developing countries meet the eligibility criteria established by the Congress. India was the largest beneficiary of the programme in 2017 with USD 5.7 billion in imports to the US given duty-free status, according to a Congressional Research Service report in January. "My hope is that we can delay, the termination of these GSP preferences until after the elections in India so that we can have a non-political conversation that is very focused on how we collectively can move forward together," Gabbard, the first Hindu US lawmaker, said at a conference on "The US-India Partnership: Economic, Immigration & Strategic Issues." Speaking at the conference organised by the US-India Friendship Council, Gabbard acknowledged that the bilateral relationship was facing a challenge in the field of trade. "We have some trade challenges that we need to resolve as well as trade opportunities. I think that we have to make sure that cooler heads prevail as we deal with some of the differences that exist," she said. "Obviously each country (is) advocating for what is in their interest, but recognising that we have great potential and opportunity in many different areas, the announcement to terminate the GSP preferences for India, I think to speak to some of those differences," Gabbard said. Republican Congressman George Holding, who is Co-Chair of the Congressional India Caucus, agreed with Gabbard, saying that India has been in the generalized system of preferences for three decades and it's just not the right time to address that. India, he said, is no longer that underdeveloped country when GSP was first granted. There has been a lot of changes in the country since then. "We do probably need to revisit that. But we don't need to revisit it right before a general election," he said. Swadesh Chatterjee, chair of US-India Friendship Council, said that Trump's decision to terminate GSP for India would impact the country's export of about USD 5.6 billion. This is more than 10 per cent of the total goods and services between the US and India and this suspension of GSP will definitely create some issues between the two countries. Senator Thom Tellis from North Carolina praised the contribution of Indian Americans in the economy and development of the United States. "I developed a greater appreciation for their culture, their dedication to education and their dedication to excellence," he said. Referring to the growing defence ties between India and the United States, Indian-American Congressmen Ami Bera underscored the need of the two countries to work in areas like artificial intelligence. "We'd like to authorize the Department of Defence (DoD) to assist India in reducing purchases from countries that we may mutually view as adversaries and certainly that we may view as adversaries," Bera said. He said that Indo-US partnership in the area of defence is critical and the two countries have been conducting major defence and naval exercises together. "We would like to require the DoD to conduct regular military engagements and dialogue with India, particularly in the Western Indian Ocean region. We recognize that India strategically has a vital role in protecting the Indian Ocean region and in keeping those lanes of commerce open," he said. "We'd like to require the State Department to advance India's membership into the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum or APEC because we think this is an important vehicle by which India can continue to seek it's free and open trade across Asia," Bera said.

Trump urged to delay decision on ending preferential trade deal with India

U.S to end preferential trade with India

The recently concluded visit by Iranian President Rouhani to India was full of optics: his visit to the Qutub Shahi mosque at Hyderabad, then his address at the ORF (Delhi based think tank) hit all the right notes but if we look at the joint communique released at the end of the &ldquo;substantive&rdquo; talks we find that the visit accomplished less than what was being promised from both the sides.&nbsp;

The joint statement has laid stress on &ldquo;connectivity&rdquo;. It seems that the bilateral relations revolve around the port project and the subsequent advantages it will have not only for Afghanistan but to larger Central Asian Region. India has invested a lot of capital and now wants to benefit from the project, not only in terms of trade but also strategically. But if we closely follow the developments w.r.t. Chabahar, we find that the pace of development is sluggish. The port is only partially operational. India has been trying to develop the port as its answer to Gwadar and China&rsquo;s Belt and Road initiative in the region by providing an alternate route for trade and commerce with Central Asia and Afghanistan. India&rsquo;s biggest weakness lies not in striking of agreements and deals, but in follow-up and execution of those deals and projects. There are a large number of irritants which have repeatedly stalled the project.

The biggest irritant has been funding as well as the role international sanctions have played throughout this whole process. Despite our commitment to the project and its eventual realisation, India has been apprehensive about the US and its response to JCPOA; and its eventual impact on our investments in Iran. We have ignored the fact that French and German firms have made large investments and have been trying to court maximum areas for their benefit as Iran opens up its economy for international investment. The whole purpose of the visit was to enhance bilateral trade ties and the visit appears to have come short on the promise.&nbsp;

India has also not yet allowed Iranian banks to open their branches in India. However, in a welcome move, investment in Iran in Rupee terms has been allowed. The Indian investments in Rupees will get converted into Iranian Rial through banking mechanism allowing investments from here, including in the Chabahar Port complex. 
&nbsp; 
The visit further failed to address the pending issue of ensuring Indian investments in the Farzad-B gas field. It was announced that India and Iran need to move away from the traditional buyer-seller relationship when it comes to the energy sector but no measure to finish decade-old negotiations on Farzad gas field has been announced. Instead, we hear that the pace of negotiations needs to be increased for enhanced energy cooperation. The delay in completion of Chabahar project, the roadblock over Farzad-B gas block should not be allowed to act as hindrances in the development of bilateral ties. 
&nbsp; 
Although, the visit did achieve few things; the finalisation of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement is welcomed as a step that would promote business environment but both sides need to work on lowering bilateral trade tariffs: negotiations on Preferential Trade Agreement as well as conclusion of Bilateral Investment Treaty in a fixed time frame need to be accomplished.&nbsp;

The unanimity of thought on the security front was also witnessed. Both the countries have a common stance on confronting terrorism and extremism, and are determined to confront terrorism and extremism through cultural interaction and the exchange of information and experience.&nbsp;

The outcome from the visit is debatable but it cannot be denied that progress in the right direction has been made, however, the journey is far from over and we have a long way to go to accomplish our strategic goals in the region.&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

The whole purpose of the visit was to enhance bilateral trade ties but President Rouhani's visit appears to have come short on the promise.

The recently concluded visit by Iranian President Rouhani to India was full of optics: his visit to the Qutub Shahi mosque at Hyderabad, then his address at the ORF (Delhi based think tank) hit all the right notes but if we look at the joint communique released at the end of the “substantive” talks we find that the visit accomplished less than what was being promised from both the sides. The joint statement has laid stress on “connectivity”. It seems that the bilateral relations revolve around the port project and the subsequent advantages it will have not only for Afghanistan but to larger Central Asian Region. India has invested a lot of capital and now wants to benefit from the project, not only in terms of trade but also strategically. But if we closely follow the developments w.r.t. Chabahar, we find that the pace of development is sluggish. The port is only partially operational. India has been trying to develop the port as its answer to Gwadar and China’s Belt and Road initiative in the region by providing an alternate route for trade and commerce with Central Asia and Afghanistan. India’s biggest weakness lies not in striking of agreements and deals, but in follow-up and execution of those deals and projects. There are a large number of irritants which have repeatedly stalled the project. The biggest irritant has been funding as well as the role international sanctions have played throughout this whole process. Despite our commitment to the project and its eventual realisation, India has been apprehensive about the US and its response to JCPOA; and its eventual impact on our investments in Iran. We have ignored the fact that French and German firms have made large investments and have been trying to court maximum areas for their benefit as Iran opens up its economy for international investment. The whole purpose of the visit was to enhance bilateral trade ties and the visit appears to have come short on the promise. India has also not yet allowed Iranian banks to open their branches in India. However, in a welcome move, investment in Iran in Rupee terms has been allowed. The Indian investments in Rupees will get converted into Iranian Rial through banking mechanism allowing investments from here, including in the Chabahar Port complex. The visit further failed to address the pending issue of ensuring Indian investments in the Farzad-B gas field. It was announced that India and Iran need to move away from the traditional buyer-seller relationship when it comes to the energy sector but no measure to finish decade-old negotiations on Farzad gas field has been announced. Instead, we hear that the pace of negotiations needs to be increased for enhanced energy cooperation. The delay in completion of Chabahar project, the roadblock over Farzad-B gas block should not be allowed to act as hindrances in the development of bilateral ties. Although, the visit did achieve few things; the finalisation of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement is welcomed as a step that would promote business environment but both sides need to work on lowering bilateral trade tariffs: negotiations on Preferential Trade Agreement as well as conclusion of Bilateral Investment Treaty in a fixed time frame need to be accomplished. The unanimity of thought on the security front was also witnessed. Both the countries have a common stance on confronting terrorism and extremism, and are determined to confront terrorism and extremism through cultural interaction and the exchange of information and experience. The outcome from the visit is debatable but it cannot be denied that progress in the right direction has been made, however, the journey is far from over and we have a long way to go to accomplish our strategic goals in the region. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: Iranian President Rouhani came but offered little to India