Imperatives of regulatory diplomacy
Regulations are the new focus of economic statecraft. Their increasing importance is reflected in the negotiations on global financial standards, plurilateral trading rules, and regional economic unions.
Regulations are the new focus of economic statecraft. Their increasing importance is reflected in the negotiations on global financial standards, plurilateral trading rules, and regional economic unions.
In the aftermath of Brexit, the recently concluded NATO Summit highlighted the emerging asymmetry between NATO and the EU on their respective policy positions towards Russia. Has the expansion of NATO and the EU to absorb Eastern Europe, and the consequent large migration flows, been responsible for the visible cracks within the Europe?
The result of the Brexit referendum is nothing less than a body blow to Bretton Woods organisations, International Monetary Fund-North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO)-World Bank, that originated at the end of the Second World War. The possibility of an Asian century becomes more feasible, if India can be nimble enough to make the most of the opportunity which has presented itself in Europe.
The WTO judgment on the India-U.S. dispute on solar panels shows how rules across different international regimes – climate change, trade and nuclear power – favor the countries which set those rules. India must deepen its participation in such multilateral fora to protect its interests.
The Trans-Pacific Partnership has dropped strong Intellectual Property Rights regulations on India’s doorstep. The implications of these regulations could affect India’s own policies, as well as her global aspirations towards the potential Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership.
A resurgent Taliban has turned a hopeful declaration by the Obama administration into a premature one. The levels of U.S. troops stationed in Afghanistan, currently at 9,800, are expected to increase as a result. But with more than half a trillion dollars spent trying to stabilize the problem, perhaps it’s time to rethink the Af-Pak region.
The U.S.-driven Trans Pacific Partnership agreement between 12 countries, which is aiming to become the new standard of world trade, impacts domestic systems globally. For India, it will skew investment and intellectual property rights, and especially the debate over the Investor State Dispute System which allows companies to challenge sovereign rights and public policy.
Modi’s second visit to the U.S. in September indicates a growing partnership in such areas as business, technology, and climate change. Though gaps too remain—for example, India is not part of the TPP and its bid for a UNSC seat is on hold—for now, it is time to consolidate bilateral meeting points, and India can start by simplifying its trade policy and tariff structure
Although it is too soon to comprehensively analyse the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement of October 5, it is worth assessing what is known. Here are the facts, the controversies, the assessments, and the implications for countries that are not part of the agreement, especially India.
The sanctions against Iran impacted the country’s oil, banking, aviation, and other sectors, and had a major humanitarian impact. But neither is armed attack a more suitable method in most instances to address allegedly recalcitrant states. What then is the middle ground? And can the UNSC assume a more proactive role in this context?