A fair ruling or an attack on Indian soverignty?

[PolishHeadlock]

https://news.vice.com/article/the-u...against-american-companies-and-the-wto-agrees

At the behest of Uncle Sam, the World Trade Organization (WTO) has spiked parts of a plan to spread solar energy across India — where more than 300 million people lack electricity.

Yesterday, a WTO arbitration panel sided with the United States, which in 2013 complained that India's massive initiative to develop solar power discriminates against American business. The US government and solar industry have greeted the decision as victory for free trade and as warning to other countries pondering protections for domestic industry — but environmental groups argue the decision handicaps India's efforts to grow its own sustainable energy sector.

"This is an important outcome, not just as it applies to this case, but for the message it sends to other countries considering discriminatory 'localization' policies," said U.S. trade representative Michael Froman.

The policies in question come as part of India's National Solar Mission, a government initiative to up the country's solar electricity output and lower power prices. The project is a core component of the India's commitments to the United Nations Paris climate deal and aims to reach 100,000 megawatts of solar capacity by 2022, over 40 percent of its present electrical production. But the present plan requires that 10 percent of this power comes from domestically produced solar panels and cells, a practice the WTO found to be unjustified, uncompetitive, and "inconsistent" with international agreements on trade and tariffs.

So this ruling by the WTO seems to be fueling fear about the impending TPP/TTIP and ISDS.

India has been a huge benefactor of free trade thanks to American capital flowing in for Indian businesses along with US call centers and accounting firms hiring a huge number of Indian citizens.

Recently India tried to pass legislation to to increase the solar power industry and inside of the that legislation was a mandate that 10% of the industry be reserved for domestic companies which was found to be discriminatory against foreign corporations by he WTO.

Now people are claiming that this is an attack on their sovereignty along with an attack on clean energy even though the quota could do nothing but hold back the efficiency in going towards solar power.

S is this an attack on India's sovereignty or is this India wanting to have their cake and eat it too?

 

[Quipling]

Not an attack on Indian sovereignity. To the extent that India's sovereignity was undermined, it occurred when India entered into the trade agreement in question, meaning India consented to such in exchange for other benefits.

cake-and-eat

 

[HunterSdVa29]

sounds like wanting cake and eating it too. You can't benefit from a favorable trade balance w/ the US, and then try to block access to Solar resources to US companies, that's actually kinda hilarious

going back to post WWII treaties and economic/trade policies, we're friendly w/ Japan and Germany for a reason. also, the same reason why Japanese electronics and cars are found pervasively t/o the US, as well newer upstarts from Korea (kia, samsung, hyundai)

 

[YoungBoyd]

I couldn't care less. It should be cost effective and built ASAP. Not assholes spending years arguing over who should build it.

 

[Rod1]

Its not an attack on sovereignty.

An attack on sovereignty would be the US forcing India through threats of sanctions or military force to accept such deals.

India can always leave the WTO and renege on the trade deals anytime it wants.

 

[IDL]

The trade deals that get signed are the attack on sovereignty.

Globalization driven by corporations and internationalists looking to turn the planet into a big sandbox see sovereignty as a dirty word.

 

[UpaLoompa]

So I thought the WTO and trade agreements generally were all an attack on the US by "them". This story doesn't fit the dominant narrative of the war room.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

So I thought the WTO and trade agreements generally were all an attack on the US by "them". This story doesn't fit the dominant narrative of the war room.

I haven't seen that narrative on here as much as the one IDL is describing in the post above you, but it does fit the narrative, it just doesn't hurt America in this situation. And just because it doesn't hurt America, doesn't mean its right.
Now, had India gone ahead with their plan, it would have opened up the potential for a lawsuit against India that would have attacked their sovereignty (see Canada, the most sued country in world, see TransCanada suing the US over Keystone, see Philip Morris vs. Uruguay).

 

[Rod1]

I haven't seen that narrative on here as much as the one IDL is describing in the post above you, but it does fit the narrative, it just doesn't hurt America in this situation. And just because it doesn't hurt America, doesn't mean its right.
Now, had India gone ahead with their plan, it would have opened up the potential for a lawsuit against India that would have attacked their sovereignty (see Canada, the most sued country in world, see TransCanada suing the US over Keystone, see Philip Morris vs. Uruguay).

Except nobody forces you to follow these agreements but your own sovereign rulers.

International trade by default is an attack on your sovereignty since your economy depends on foreign countries.

India can simply say "fuck this" renege on the deal and go full autarchy but we know how that ends up, so they dont.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Except nobody forces you to follow these agreements but your own sovereign rulers.

International trade by default is an attack on your sovereignty since your economy depends on foreign countries.

India can simply say "fuck this" renege on the deal and go full autarchy but we know how that ends up, so they dont.

Who is this India person with all this power?

 

[threelions]

Having their cake. Typical India likes to get deals from other countries for themselves then try to cut off foreign companies making money in India. One of the most corrupt countries in the world.

 

[IDL]

Having their cake. Typical India likes to get deals from other countries for themselves then try to cut off foreign companies making money in India. One of the most corrupt countries in the world.

That's the thing though. Greasing the palms and applying leverage to corrupt leaders gets things done. So the globalist institutions and entities that have the money and leverage tend to get their way. Sovereignty of nations is often an illusion because the people in power often end up joining the globalist club and don't care about the masses.

It's true that many do benefit from the foreign investment and other benefits that sweeten the deal though, but there are strings attached.

 

[Rod1]

Who is this India person with all this power?

the internationally recognized govermnent of India in this case.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

But Ilana Solomon, director of the Sierra Club's Responsible Trade Program, said that the American industry already has a large and growing presence in India's solar sector and that the 10 percent domestic production quota was important for India's economy.
https://news.vice.com/article/the-u...against-american-companies-and-the-wto-agrees

The country squirrelled away 10% of this project for its country and its being portrayed as "having it both ways" when the goal is helping the poor and stemming climate change???

What happens when the US wants to rebuild its infrastructure to 1. rebuild our infrastructure and 2. create solid jobs for Americans and Mexico sues for those jobs?

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Except nobody forces you to follow these agreements but your own sovereign rulers.

International trade by default is an attack on your sovereignty since your economy depends on foreign countries.

India can simply say "fuck this" renege on the deal and go full autarchy but we know how that ends up, so they dont.

And international trade is not an attack on sovereignty.
Thats like saying vendors and customers are attackers on business.
Its the stipulations of "free trade" that are the potential threats to sovereignty.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

the internationally recognized govermnent of India in this case.

Right. So they can give us what we want or they can't participate at all. So free.

 

[Awesomesauce]

So I thought the WTO and trade agreements generally were all an attack on the US by "them". This story doesn't fit the dominant narrative of the war room.

This isn't true at all, trade agreements are often bad for all the countries involved. Ideally they simply create greater zones of competition which would ideally create greater efficiencies. But even in the cases where greater efficiencies are created they are often dwarfed by the abuses it allows from corporations playing countries and zones off against each other.

 

[Rod1]

And international trade is not an attack on sovereignty.
Thats like saying vendors and customers are attackers on business.
Its the stipulations of "free trade" that are the potential threats to sovereignty.

Actually no, you dont need to draw analogies since we have clear vendors and customers in such cases.

The stipulations of free trades are guarantees for participant countries to even the field between them in order to have "free trade" otherwise we get a back and forth protectionism jerking off between 2 countries who will scare potential investors.

Without international courts, we would get something like OPEC where everyone agrees to respect the treaty but under the table nobody does.

 

[Rod1]

Right. So they can give us what we want or they can't participate at all. So free.

They can participate there are plenty of countries who dont have FTAs and they participate, of course the scope of participation will be more limited because said countries political climates may sour potential investments without no recourse whatsoever.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Actually no, you dont need to draw analogies since we have clear vendors and customers in such cases.

The stipulations of free trades are guarantees for participant countries to even the field between them in order to have "free trade" otherwise we get a back and forth protectionism jerking off between 2 countries who will scare potential investors.

Without international courts, we would get something like OPEC where everyone agrees to respect the treaty but under the table nobody does.

Who are the clear vendors and customers?