Podcasts about world trade organisation wto

The United States is India's biggest trading partner. In 2023, the U.S.-India bilateral trade in goods and services stood at $190.08 billion -- $123.89 billion in goods and $66.19 billion in services trade. 17.7% of India's exports are to the US. In 2024, India enjoyed a goods trade surplus to the tune of $45.7 billion. American exports into India also face a higher rate of tariffs than India's exports to the US. Now President Donald Trump has said that the US will mirror Indian tariffs from April 2. This means tariffs on Indian goods will increase substantially. If this does happen, how will it affect Indian industry? Should India get into a trade war or pre-emptively lower its tariffs on US goods? More critically, what are the implications of reciprocal tariffs for the World Trade Organisation (WTO) – is the US getting out of WTO? Guest: economist Neeraj Kaushal, Professor at the School of Social Work, Columbia University. Host: G. Sampath, Social Affairs Editor, The Hindu. Edited by Sharmada Venkatasubramanian.

All countries seem to have economic growth as their primary economic objective and the received opinion is that the best way to do this is through international trade. Since the end of the Second World War this trade has been facilitated by trade agreements brokered first by the ad hoc assemblies to promote the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and later via the auspices of the permanently instituted World Trade Organisation (WTO). The man behind the idea of an organisation to encourage trade was Nobel Prize winner James Meade, a real economists' economist. Throughout his life, he worked on numerous areas of economics and had a personal crusade to prevent the malaise of unemployment, With even a cursory look at his thought you can see how influential he is or might be today's world in a broad range of areas e.g. in his prescient ideas about an Universal Basic Income (UBI) In this third episode of Season 8 of their award winning podcast, your friendly neighbourhood economists, Pete and Gav, dive into the world of Angus Deaton's (a fellow Nobel Prize winner) favourite economist. Along the way, you will get a cheese recommendation, a rather coarse quiz and so many policy ideas, you won't know what to do with them all. Technical support as always comes from our good friend Nic.

Another Senate confirmation hearing for one of Donald Trump's top team, this time its Jamieson Greer, the nominee for US Trade Representative. So all the talk was of tariffs. China has filed a World Trade Organisation (WTO) complaint against the US president's 10% tariffs on Chinese goods after a trade war between two global powers began this week. What does Pascal Lamy, former director general of WTO, have to say? We hear from Gene Seroka, the executive director of the Port of Los Angeles, the busiest container port in North America.And egg prices are soaring in the States. But why? That's what we asked a poultry farmer from South Carolina.Global business news, with live guests and contributions from Asia and the USA.

India Policy Watch #1: How Not to Let the Opportunity Slip AwayInsights on issues relevant to India — RSJA strange thing happens when you are away on a break. One week you are sitting and wondering how many different things you can write about because of the flurry of events around you. US banks getting into trouble, Rahul Gandhi being denied bail, more curbs on US companies doing business in China, frenetic moves in semiconductor politics - you get the picture. And then you take a break. And everything slows down. First Republic Bank doesn't implode in a matter of hours like SVB. Instead, it drags its feet in a slow-motion death spiral. RBI pauses on its rate increases. Janet Yellen pulls back on US hostility towards China while cooing about how the two economies need one another. Things go to a standstill when you stop looking at the world with a weekly columnist's gaze. It is like the vibe of a still summer day in India takes over everything. Nothing moves. Once back, what does one write about? Well, thematically, there isn't any one thing that will do right now. So, I guess I will cover a few areas that could be of interest.The big story out of India last week was that we might have overtaken China in the population sweepstakes. This was kind of inevitable, and a million people here or there doesn't make a difference in the larger scheme of things. Yet, it is as good a moment as any to reflect on that elusive thing called the India opportunity. Now, we have devoted multiple editions to why having more people is a good thing. Somewhat to my relief, a lot of commentary in the last week has echoed this sentiment. There's the usual comparison of the relatively younger demographics in India with that of China and the advantage of being more aligned geopolitically with the West. And, of course, the governments in India don't do terribly arbitrary things like China did in the past couple of years to the tech sector. On this last point, I have my views, but we are using a really broad brush here, so I will let it pass. The general tone of these articles is that this is India's opportunity to lose—a far cry from my school days when the population was seen as a problem. I have three points to make in this context which are a bit different from the usual view of what India should do not to let this opportunity slip.First, there's the usual prescription that India should industrialise faster to take advantage of this dividend and avoid the middle-income trap. My usual take on this is how well do we know why India couldn't industrialise faster in the last 20 years when China took off. It is not like this is a fresh insight that wasn't known to policymakers then. So, what gets in the way of India to industrialise? My short answer will always be the state. Despite all the hype around Make in India and the rising ease of doing business rankings, it is still quite difficult to start and run a business in India. The state is deeply entrenched in controlling capital in India, and it enjoys the arbitrary power that it has over them that it is impossible to change this with just better optics of ‘single window', tax holidays or investment roadshows. In the last two decades, the state has retreated a bit in some areas, but paradoxically, with greater digitisation, it has more information and, therefore, greater power over industry. My general contention is that the state can continue with its welfarism (or whatever else you may call it) on the social and political front, but for India to industrialise, the state has to retreat on the economic control it wields. This looks very difficult today because the state's first goal is to perpetuate itself. It will require the PM to go back to some of his campaign promises of pre-2014 with real conviction. All Indian politicians of a certain vintage are instinctively socialist. And as the farm reforms saga showed, even a small vocal minority can derail a progressive reform. The other challenge has been the availability of capital for MSMEs to build their business and compete for global orders. For the most part, since 2009, we have had a twin balance sheet problem, and that has meant banks have been very choosy about whom to lend. Add to that the shallowness of the corporate bond market, and we end up having a manufacturing sector low on its ambitions. On this, we might be on a better footing now. Bank and corporate balance sheets are at their robust best, and the public digital infrastructure and GST network make it possible for better underwriting decisions using informational collateral. This is evident in the robust credit offtake reported in the MSME segment across the banking sector in the past year. My view is we will industrialise a bit faster than in the past, but we are going to fall short of the expectations of the kind of industrialisation that's expected for us to increase our per capita income from $2000 to $10,000 in the next 15 years. China traversed that exact journey between 2006-20, so it is possible. And it is possible to do it without making the same mistakes as China, where it went back on its decentralised model of growth that made regions and companies compete with one another to an overly centralised model now that will only hurt it further. We need a very specific retreat of the state from the economy with a regulatory framework that acts as an enabler rather than lording over it in a policing role. These seem to be difficult even for a PM and a party that's hugely popular and has no immediate threat of losing power. We will therefore continue to do a respectable 7 per cent growth over the long run than a tearing 10+ per cent. It is what it is. This growth is good but not good enough to take care of the employment aspirations of the people. So, we will have to contend with high unemployment or underemployment for the foreseeable future. What will compound this is automation and the speed of AI adoption in the industry. One of the things to watch out for is the increasing sophistication of AI tools that could automate the services sector. The short-term evidence of generative AI tools like ChatGPT or Dall-e shows how quickly lower-skilled white-collar jobs could be automated. Also, these tools are now getting ‘consumerised'; that is the AI use cases are no longer restricted to a business-to-business context. This will increase the ability of the end users to use them for their needs directly. And that will reduce opportunities in the services sector, which has been the growth engine of the Indian economy in the post-liberalisation decades. Separately, we have talked about the increasing market concentration among 4-5 corporate groups in India. This trend is only getting stronger, and I have explained in the previous edition how this is different from the ‘national champions' model of the Asian tigers. Simply put, unlike them, these national champions aren't using their monopoly to win in global markets. Concentration is a classic market failure that will eventually lead to higher prices and poor allocation of capital. There's a good argument on this that's been made, of late, on this by Viral Acharya. But it has gotten drowned in the usual nationalistic noise that any criticism of this government brings these days. The usual caution that would have come up at this stage would be about the social risks of a young and aspirational population being unemployed. As I travel across India, I find this risk to be somewhat overblown. The availability of cheap smartphones, cheaper data and a general increase in prosperity mean the youth is forever busy staring at their screens engaged in low-quality entertainment. We will continue to generate low-end services jobs to take care of the top tier of Indian society like the ‘home delivery of everything' model has already shown us. This ‘yajman' system of one rich Indian supporting ten others will be a feature of our economy.Lastly, we must realise that the surplus labour and surplus savings (we are already getting there) that we will have will need to find their use outside of India. We will be one of the few countries in the world to have these together and almost no one will have our scale of surplus labour and savings. Free trade and open borders will therefore play to our advantage. It will be counterproductive to champion protectionism or any kind of swadeshi brand of politics. It will just be bad economics and blunt our edge in the global economy. There is no shortage of things to solve if we want to make use of the demographic dividend. I have read the usual lament on how we must improve the quality of our labour pool, upgrade our education system, improve infrastructure and bring women into the workforce - the list is long. I think these are downstream factors that will mostly get taken care of if the state makes it easier for the enterprises to do business. That retreat when the state has enjoyed having capital under its thumb for decades is mighty difficult. India will do well because there is an overlap of trends that favour it uniquely. The giant leap it so desires will need more than just this happy coincidence to come its way.  Course Advertisement: Admissions for the May 2023 cohort of Takshashila's Graduate Certificate in Public Policy programme are now open! Visit this link to apply.PolicWTF: Tariff ki Taareef Mein This section looks at egregious public policies. Policies that make you go: WTF, Did that really happen?— Pranay KotasthaneWe've cried ourselves hoarse that India's position on international trade in electronics is self-defeating. The consensus in India is that high tariffs, heavy customs duties, and other such barriers are a crucial pre-condition for creating world-beating Indian electronics companies. Another edition of this series titled “Tariff ki Tareef Mein” played out last week. On April 17, the World Trade Organisation (WTO) dispute settlement panel ruled that India's imposition of tariffs on mobile phones and electronic components violates its commitment under the Information Technology Act (ITA). The ITA is a plurilateral agreement of the WTO in which the signatories committed to reducing all tariffs and taxes on Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) products. Europe, Japan, and Taiwan raised these disputes separately against India. No surprise, the Indian government plans to challenge the ruling. In fact, government officials are signalling that the ruling won't have any impact because the appellate body of the WTO doesn't have enough judges to hear India's position. India's formal defence is based on two arguments: one is technical, and the other is ideological. The technical argument is that India signed the ITA in 1997 when mobile phones, chargers, and many of the now ubiquitous digital wonders hadn't emerged. So, the recent tariffs on new products that came to life after 1997 do not violate India's ITA commitments. However, a deeper ideological argument underlies the technical argument. The Indian government strongly believes that signing the ITA led to the decline of its domestic electronics industry. And as a result, import tariffs are critical for maintaining the current uptick in domestic electronics production. The commerce ministry website pulls no punches when it says:“India's experience with the ITA has been most discouraging, which almost wiped out the IT industry from India. The real gainer from that agreement has been China which raised its global market share from 2% to 14% between 2000-2011.In light of recent measures taken by the Government to build a sound manufacturing environment in the field of Electronics and Information Technology, this is the time for us to incubate our industry rather than expose it to undue pressures of competition. Accordingly and also keeping in view opinion of domestic IT industry, it has been decided not to participate in the ITA expansion negotiations for the time being.” As this official position indicates, the government seems to have internalised that the ITA was the reason that India's past attempts failed. (That line about incubating the industry rather than exposing it to “undue” pressures of competition transported me to the 1950s.)There are at least three problems with this line of thinking. One, it mistakes correlation for causation. It is true that Chinese companies decimated the domestic Indian manufacturers of cheap mobile phones by 2017. Indian domestic players couldn't match the “features per unit price” that Chinese companies were able to offer. The import of cheaper phones back then benefited millions of Indian consumers. The reason that domestic players couldn't compete wasn't the ITA but that they had no competitive advantage. Their business model relied on rebranding older phones sourced from China. Zero tariffs under ITA, in fact, made it possible for these companies to import components cheaply and climb up the assembly value chain. But without any significant investment in R&D or industrial innovation, these “domestic” players were easily wiped off the market. This story isn't unique to electronic products. Even in segments to which the ITA doesn't apply, such as machine tools, textiles, or toys, Indian companies couldn't stand international competition. Surely, the problem then lies in India's large-scale manufacturing troubles and not in signing the ITA. The much-lampooned ease-of-doing business factors, such as poor infrastructure, byzantine labour and land regulations, and a complicated tax system, can explain why production in India remained a challenge across sectors. Two, protecting domestic players will not produce world-beating champions. This is particularly true for electronics production, which relies heavily on cross-border flows of materials, machines, and humans. To export one type of electronic product, you need to import another type; atmanirbharta is impossible. By disregarding the ITA, products manufactured in India will not be able to compete in the international market. An analysis by the industry body of phone manufacturers shows that higher import tariffs have meant that a large portion of the money companies receives under PLI gets re-routed to pay these tariffs, ultimately making production cost-prohibitive. This is the reason why companies such as Apple have been trying to seek duty exemptions for some electronic components. It is also a major sticking point in the India-Taiwan Free Trade Agreement. A unilateral reduction in tariffs by following ITA is thus in India's interest.Three, India's vehement dismissal of the ITA places it at a disadvantage in future negotiations. India has opted out of the ITA-2 negotiations that sought to expand the list of ICT products on which tariffs were to be reduced. As a big manufacturer, China was able to get favourable exemptions in these negotiations. Instead of reducing tariffs to zero immediately, it was able to extract waivers that give it a gentle gliding path towards zero tariffs. India has a similar opportunity today, given that it is far more integrated into the global supply chain for electronics due to the manufacturing presence of players such as Samsung and Apple. The geopolitical situation, too, is far more favourable. But India's obstinate stance on the ITA makes the question of negotiating waivers a moot one.China signed the ITA in 2003. By then, it already had a strong electronics assembly and manufacturing setup. The ITA supercharged its powers and helped it become a global provider of ICT goods. Twenty years later, India, too, has been able to kickstart electronics assembly. It's now time to approach ITA more confidently instead of falling back to the tested-and-failed tropes of import substitution and infant industry protection. A basic rule of strategy is not to spread too thin on many fronts simultaneously. India's trade strategy seems to ignore this maxim. If our chief adversary is China, it's better to settle trade disputes with the EU, UK, Japan, Taiwan, and the US with minimal friction. Instead, we continue to treat every tariff reduction as a bargaining chip. Missing the woods for the trees shouldn't become India's guiding principle in international trade. Global Policy Watch: What Fed Learnt From SVB Failure Reflection on global policy issues — RSJOn the face of it, quite a lot. A 118-page report. As the Economic Times reports:“The Federal Reserve issued a detailed and scathing assessment on Friday of its failure to identify problems and push for fixes at Silicon Valley Bank before the U.S. lender's collapse, and promised tougher supervision and stricter rules for banks.In what Fed Vice Chair for Supervision Michael Barr called an "unflinching" review of the U.S. central bank's supervision of SVB, the Fed said its oversight of the Santa Clara, California-based bank was inadequate and that regulatory standards were too low.”It is useful to understand what policy lessons are learnt by a regulator from a setback. SVB was a small bank (16th largest) but a fairly important player in the valley. And it went down in a heap within hours because of a run engineered by the enlightened VCs who asked their investee companies to pull out their deposits. I have covered the saga in a previous edition. In its report, the Fed has identified the reasons for the bank failure, which in hindsight, is clear to everyone now. It points to three broader issues:“First, the combination of social media, a highly networked and concentrated depositor base, and technology may have fundamentally changed the speed of bank runs. Social media enabled depositors to instantly spread concerns about a bank run, and technology enabled immediate withdrawals of funding.Second, as I have previously stated, a firm's distress may have systemic consequences through contagion—where concerns about one firm spread to other firms—even if the firm is not extremely large, highly connected to other financial counterparties, or involved in critical financial services.Third, this experience has emphasised why strong bank capital matters. While the proximate cause of SVB's failure was a liquidity run, the underlying issue was concern about its solvency.”All good, so far. And therefore, the question: So, what have they learnt from it? Well, the key “takeaways” summed up are here:“1. Silicon Valley Bank's board of directors and management failed to manage their risks.2. Supervisors did not fully appreciate the extent of the vulnerabilities as Silicon Valley Bank grew in size and complexity.3. When supervisors did identify vulnerabilities, they did not take sufficient steps to ensure that Silicon Valley Bank fixed those problems quickly enough.4. The Board's tailoring approach in response to the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (EGRRCPA) and a shift in the stance of supervisory policy impeded effective supervision by reducing standards, increasing complexity, and promoting a less assertive supervisory approach.”The Board and the management take a large portion of the blame. And then it appears like the Fed is holding itself accountable by calling out the weakness in supervisory standards. Till you read the fine print. It is largely throwing a small team of SVB-specific supervisors under the bus, thus making it sound like a specific instance of dereliction of duty. SVB failed because the Fed raised interest rates too quickly without asking what could be the possible risks of such a move. It didn't do its homework for its actions on the banking system. And when it realised the likely vulnerabilities that it hadn't anticipated, it went easy on the rate hikes than the hawkish stand it had taken only a week earlier. Had it been only an SVB-specific issue, what explains the slow unravelling of the First Republic Bank? It is one thing not to anticipate the unintended. It is another not to acknowledge it and search for lessons which won't help you the next time around. Or maybe it knows what went wrong, and it is too proud to admit it went wrong. Either way, it comes out of this poorly. India Policy Watch #2: Devil and the Deep SeaInsights on issues relevant to India — Pranay KotasthaneOver the last couple of weeks, the Congress' new election slogan, “Jitni aabaadi, utna haq”, has caused quite a flutter. Bluntly speaking, it is a pre-election promise to expand reservations for Other Backward Classes (OBC). We've seen this movie before. As was the case with the last election, it means that the grand narrative that's been put forward to counter Hindutva majoritarianism is “backward” caste mobilisation. But this time around, the mobilisation comes with some clear demands: a caste census, an expansion of OBC reservation, and a dedicated ministry for the empowerment of OBCs.In his characteristically edifying column, political scientist Pratap Bhanu Mehta explains why these three demands for caste mobilisation will not translate to social justice. Social justice needs good public institutions of education and inclusive economic growth, combined with strong affirmative action for the Dalits and some deeply marginalised sections of OBCs. Instead, political parties have reduced the logic of “social justice” to one and only one item: expansion of OBC reservation. In his words:“The most important things that are required for social justice do not require caste data. Making quality education available to all, the creation of public goods in which all can participate, the design of welfare or other cash support schemes, the best mix of subsidies and income enhancing measures, and most importantly, an expanding economy that creates mobility do not require the framework of caste. The mistake of the social justice agenda was that it forgot Ambedkar's lesson that to effectively attack caste you have to (for the most part) strongly but indirectly attack the range of material deprivations that make its logic so insidious. Second, we have to express the blunt truth on so much of what went under the name of social justice politics in North India.”…“In my years of dealing with higher education, it was rare to come across a social justice party that shed a single tear for the decimation of public education or the destruction of universities. But all their social justice outrage was focused on the one single point of reservations. So in Bihar you got the RJD that, for all its tapping into the politics of dignity, decimated the governance structures that could have empowered marginalised groups. In UP, under the garb of social justice agenda, we tolerated parties that had little interest in governing. What was called the deepening of democracy in North India did not lead to deepening of governance or inclusive growth.” [The Indian Express, April 21]As you would imagine, that article ruffled many a feather. Writing in the same newspaper, Manoj Kumar Jha (a Rajya Sabha member of RJD) and Ghazala Jamil mounted a defence with these words:“The RJD and other opposition parties that he accuses of reducing social justice to distributing “government largesse based on officially reified caste identities” and “decimating public education and destructing universities” have, in fact, invested heavily in school education systems so that the marginalised sections can simply reach public universities. The quantum of ambition in Bihar's youth for competitive exams for public jobs and their presence in all sectors of the private economy across India and abroad today is a testament to the massification of education, despite suffering from the effects of uneven development and the failure of cooperative federalism.” [The Indian Express, April 27]To claim that RJD and opposition parties' biggest success is increasing the “number of youth writing competitive exams for public jobs” proves Mehta's point. With quotas as the primary instrument of action, government education institutions merely become vehicles to distribute positions along caste lines. Of course, Mehta's article is a lament that the opposition is using one form of majoritarianism to counter another form of majoritarianism. But those in favour are desperate to show that their project is morally superior. Both these views are somewhat orthogonal to how this issue will resonate with the electorate in 2024. As of now, we are stuck with the politics of religion versus the politics of caste.HomeWorkReading and listening recommendations on public policy matters* [Article] Ajay Chibber's take on fiscal decentralisation has useful comparisons:“India's share of sub-national (state plus local) spending at 60 per cent of total spend is quite high at its level of development. Other large federal states spend less. Brazil spends around 50 per cent at the sub-national level, Germany 46 per cent, the United States around 40 per cent, and Indonesia around 35 per cent. Only Canada and China spend more than 70 per cent at the sub-national level. …Going forward, where India must focus is the share of local government, which remains very small. India's local government spend is less than 4 per cent of total government spending. This share is much smaller than in most advanced economies, but also much lower than in centralised authoritarian governments like China, where local government spending exceeds 50 per cent of total spending by government. China is an outlier in this, but in most advanced economies, the share is much higher than in India. The 28 countries in the EU spend 23.2 per cent at the local level, Canada 21 per cent, the US 29 per cent. In Latin America, local government spending is around 12.7 per cent and most analysts feel it should be much higher.” [Business Standard, April 20]In this context, we earlier discussed a framework for decentralisation in edition #186. * [Podcast] A Puliyabaazi on the population question. Is India really overpopulated?* [Paper] The Information Technology Agreement, Manufacturing and Innovation – China's and India's Contrasting Experiences by Dieter Ernst is THE starting point to understand the debate on India's protectionism in electronics. *From the poem Opportunity by Raymond Garfield Dandridge This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit publicpolicy.substack.com

In this episode Brendan and Charelle take a look at the changing global trade order, while also trying to understand what the World Trade Organisation (WTO) actually is. To this end, they are joined by Clara Weinhardt, Assistant Professor of International Relations at FASoS. Whose recent research explores this topic, specifically the strategies that Brazil, India, and China have adopted when responding to the pressure to change their trade privileges in the WTO by developed countries. If you want to learn more, have a listen! Secondary Sources: - Till Schöfer and Clara Weinhardt research on the divergent strategies of Brazil, India and China at the WTO - Faces of Trade Diplomacy --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/maastricht-diplomat/message

India Needs a Holistic and Effective Techplomacy Strategy— Arjun GargeyasEarlier this year, the Takshashila Institution published the Techno-strategic Doctrine for India. The doctrine outlined the fundamental principles India must follow to springboard as a technology superpower. As the doctrine mentions, one of the critical approaches for India to reach the status of a technology superpower is by becoming a vital node in the global technology ecosystem and building strong links with states that share its interests and values and with which it enjoys economic complementarities.Takshashila's newly released discussion document titled India's Approach to Technology Diplomacy by Arjun Gargeyas provides a clear and well-defined pathway for India to become a global technology player. A summary of the arguments is the highlight of this edition ofTechnopolitik.India Needs a Holistic and Effective ‘Techplomacy' Strategy Technological advancements in the 21st Century have heightened the role of technology in the diplomacy arena. Technically adept nation-states are developing their own strategies to integrate technology with their foreign policy and diplomatic initiatives. But how can technology be used as a credible diplomatic plank by the Indian State to further its national and geopolitical interests? The government of India, driven by the nation's technological growth, has gradually embraced the concept of integrating technology into achieving national and geopolitical goals. Official government documents, departmental strategies and policy changes have increasingly focused on how science and technology can shape diplomatic efforts in the near future. The Science, Technology and Innovation Policy (STIP) 2013 was one of the instances that an intersection of technology and diplomacy found a mention in an official government document. The document states that the 'policy framework will enable strategic partnerships and alliances with other nations through both bilateral and multilateral cooperation in science, technology and innovation. Science diplomacy, technology synergy and technology acquisition models will be judiciously deployed based on strategic relationships.This was further cemented in the most recently released draft STIP-2020 document. It discusses the role of science and technology (S&T) in reorganising India's foreign policy priorities and shaping the global technology ecosystem.There has also been considerable movement on the political front regarding the role of technology in diplomacy itself. In 2015, Prime Minister Narendra Modi asserted that science and technology would be put at the forefront of India's diplomatic engagement in the future. In 2020, the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) created technically specialised divisions, such as the Cyber Diplomacy Division, E-Governance and Information Technology Division, and the New Emerging and Strategic Technologies Division. Apart from India's policy directives, the government has ensured that technology has been incorporated into different diplomatic agreements, especially with established technological powers. These agreements are in the interest of utilising outside support to build India's technical competency and technology-based alliances. While these decisions have showcased movement on the techplomacy front, the Indian state needs a more comprehensive and well-rounded approach to using technology in the diplomatic space. This can be achieved through a three-fold strategy focusing on the pathway for any current and future administration to employ technology as a strategic diplomatic tool. The three principles are explained below.Principle 1: Focus on Areas of Strengths in India's Technology Stack The Indian state should focus on critical areas of strength in its technology ecosystem, which can serve as potential tools of diplomatic leverage. The primary task of employing technology as a soft power tool is to pinpoint certain tech-driven areas in which the country has built expertise. Once identified, these areas can be concentrated and developed further. Investment by the state (both financial and human resources) in these critical areas that India has developed a comparative advantage in can cement the country's leadership credentials in that particular domain. These areas of strength, when identified and developed, can translate into Indian influence in the global tech landscape. A framework India can use for this is to analyse the export capabilities and domestic IP innovation levels in certain areas of technologies. If India can export specific technology products on a large scale, it can positively impact the diplomatic aspect of the country as well. The biotech space, including vaccines and drugs, is an area that India can focus on. The other criterion is the ability of the Indian domestic tech industry to own IP and have a high level of innovation in a specific area of technology. The fintech ecosystem, including the digital payments arena, is where India has created a name for itself and has managed to penetrate external markets with international acceptance (UPI and RuPay are now accepted in over five different countries). A framework for assessing India's technological strengthsPrinciple 2: Foster Multilateralism as a Necessity for Tech Development The concept of self-sufficiency in emerging technologies must be re-examined with the Indian state championing and fostering multilateral efforts in its tech diplomacy outreach. It should be noted that there are no national industries but the existence of global supply chains. So the role of diplomacy will be central, not secondary.In the technology sphere, diplomacy is not about seeking entry into an exclusive alliance or club but about maximising a state's integration with the existing global value chains. Multilateralism in different critical and emerging technology fields should be more of an entrepreneurial decision to improve access and combine scientific or technical knowledge. In that regard, promoting the growth of open source technologies (and built on open standards) with very little or no entry barriers in the form of licences and royalty fees must be prioritised on the multilateral front. This can engage more stakeholders, improve accessibility, and increase multilateral efforts toward technology dissemination. But even with the case of open technologies, India must walk the talk. During the development of Covid-19 vaccines, there was a call by the developing countries to remove the intellectual property and licensing restrictions on Covid-19 vaccine research for public health reasons. However, even after the conversation on open vaccines at the World Trade Organisation (WTO), the Indian government did not open up the tech behind India's indigenous vaccine, Covaxin. Hence, if India wants to lead and engage in multilateral efforts, opening up its domestic technology IP to the world should be a priority. Principle 2: Foster Multilateralism as a Necessity for Tech DevelopmentThis expansion of the technology-oriented Sinosphere has made other states take cognisance and increase diplomatic outreach to counter China's ever-increasing growth. However, India, as a responsible technological power, can learn from China's tech-driven influence in two ways.Export Tech Infrastructure through Foreign Policy Projects: The Chinese government has exported digital infrastructure (hardware, software, networks and systems) with the help of their domestic private sector giants to many BRI partner countries. India can rely on its own foreign policy projects and initiatives to build digital infrastructure beyond its borders. This will ensure two things: One, it will build and support a robust domestic technology industry capable of competing on a global scale. Two, these digital infrastructure projects using Indian technologies (equipment, software etc.) will serve as strategic assets for the state and help increase the footprint of the Indian technological ecosystem. Focus on Key Battlegrounds of Digital Competition: The Chinese state actively pushes for their consumer tech to be adopted in regions such as Africa, Central Asia and South East Asia. The state has actively used its foreign policy projects, such as the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), to get more partners on board and convince them to use technologies developed by China and its technology companies. The Indian state's main focus should be diplomatic outreach through its domestic private sector firms to help set up infrastructure in regions still developing technologically. For example, Indian telecommunication firms such as Airtel and Jio can be used to set up 5G networks in regions like Africa and Latin America, which rely on foreign import of technology.Taking Tech-Diplomacy ForwardTech-diplomacy can only succeed when there is a push within the government, specifically the Ministry of External Affairs. A primary objective would be a foreign service officer within the government who can serve as the state's official ‘tech diplomat'. The position of Tech Ambassador within Denmark's Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the UK Consul General who serves as a Technology Envoy are specifically given the responsibilities of technology outreach. France's position of Digital Ambassador handles all international technology cooperation and diplomatic engagements as a state representative. The government of Australia appointed its first-ever Ambassador for Cyber Affairs and Critical Technology in 2021. These are some templates the Indian state can follow and curate a position specifically within the Indian Foreign Service (IFS) to handle technology negotiations for advancing India's national goals and interests. The role of existing Science and Tech (S&T) Counsellors under the Science Wings programme at embassies in Berlin, Tokyo, Moscow and Washington DC can be expanded to include technology outreach focusing on strategic cooperation, military applications and governance frameworks related to emerging and strategic technologies. The number of these counsellors should be increased and provided adequate technical knowledge or expertise to understand certain technologies' geopolitical and geoeconomic aspects. This can help increase engagement and ensure India drives forward conversations on technology-related foreign policies.  Finally, now that the MEA has specific divisions that have been created (such as NEST and the Cyber Diplomacy Division) under the ministry, a nodal agency can be established by the Indian state which can coordinate between the different MEA divisions, S&T counsellors and other foreign service officers specifically handling technology outreach at the multilateral level. The nodal agency can also rope in the help of the private sector's international footprint to put forth the country's case at global technology forums. The agency can eventually take on the role of coordinating India's tech diplomacy initiatives.India, in the long run, will benefit from being integrated into the global technology ecosystem and engaging with other like-minded nation-states through diplomacy. This would achieve its key objectives of economic integration and governance participation in the technology realm. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit hightechir.substack.com

In this episode of the IDS Between the Lines podcast, IDS Fellow Amrita Saha interviews James Bacchus about his book: Trade Links: New Rules for a New World. James is a Distinguished University Professor of Global Affairs and Director of the Center for Global Economic and Environmental Opportunity at the University of Central Florida.In the book and podcast, James argues that the World Trade Organisation (WTO) can survive and continue to succeed only if the trade links among WTO members are revitalised and reimagined. He explains how to bring the WTO into the twenty-first century, exploring the ways it can be utilised to combat future pandemics and climate change and advance sustainable development, all while continuing to foster free trade.About this podcastDiscussing the latest ideas shaping development.This podcast series explores books with ideas for positive social and environmental change. Each month we feature a book and an interview with its author. The discussions give an insight on the themes covered in the book, exploring the challenges and discoveries, and why the issues matter for progressive and sustainable development globally.Send your comments and episode suggestions to betweenthelines@ids.ac.uk See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

This week, EURACTIV's agrifood team talks you through the EU's pesticide framework revision and the 12th World Trade Organisation (WTO) ministerial meeting. We also spoke to Simonas Šatūnas, head of cabinet of the EU's environment Commissioner Virginijus Sinkevičius, about nature restoration targets and we had a very special tasting session of this week's flavour of the week: the first insect approved in EU for human consumption.

Mr. Chandorkar is director of Bengaluru-based policy think tank Smahi Foundation of Policy and Research. He was recently appointed to the post of Counsellor, Permanent Mission of India (PMI), World Trade Organisation (WTO), Geneva (at DS/Director level) for a period of three years. In this episode, he speaks about the view from the inside on the functioning of the Indian government and geopolitics. With his appointment to the WTO, Mr. Chandorkar expresses his unique insider perspective on multilateral trade relations, how other countries are dealing with a post-COVID world, how much of the perception of India is being built by Western media and more. This podcast is available on YouTube, Apple, Google, Spotify, Breaker, Stitcher, and other popular platforms. If you like this episode, then please rate, subscribe and share! For more information, do check out www.bharatvaarta.in. Join this channel to get access to perks: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfBfBd-1kvCOPxVll8tBJ9Q/join

Mr. Chandorkar is director of Bengaluru-based policy think tank Smahi Foundation of Policy and Research. He was recently appointed to the post of Counsellor, Permanent Mission of India (PMI), World Trade Organisation (WTO), Geneva (at DS/Director level) for a period of three years. In this episode, he speaks about the view from the inside on the functioning of the Indian government and geopolitics. With his appointment to the WTO, Mr. Chandorkar expresses his unique insider perspective on multilateral trade relations, how other countries are dealing with a post-COVID world, how much of the perception of India is being built by Western media and more. This podcast is available on YouTube, Apple, Google, Spotify, Breaker, Stitcher, and other popular platforms. If you like this episode, then please rate, subscribe and share! For more information, do check out www.bharatvaarta.in. Join this channel to get access to perks: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfBfBd-1kvCOPxVll8tBJ9Q/join

Kamau Wairuri hosts Sylvanus Wekesa to discuss Kenya's Foreign Policy during the presidency of Uhuru Kenyatta (2013 - to date). We have a wide ranging conversation ranging on the impact of President Kenyatta as Kenya's foremost diplomat. We discuss the anti-ICC politics as well as the mixed results of Kenya's foreign efforts including the pursuit of the Chairperson's position in the African Union (AU), leadership of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) seat. We also note the regional politics -- East African Community (EAC) and the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD). Sylvanus Wekesa is a Research Associate and is currently pursuing his Doctorate in Leadership Studies with reference to Security and Development at King's College London. Our discussion is based on a blog article in his blog Africanist view (https://www.africanistview.com/). Sources: Does the lack of candidates in the upcoming AU elections signal the waning interest by Kenya in continental affairs?

Economic and bilateral ties are to top the agenda of discussions between Nigeria and Vietnam when Vice President Yemi Osinbajo undertakes an official visit to the South-East Asian nation later in the year. The country, with a 70 percent ease-of-doing-business ranking as of 2020, is ranked in the developing/emerging country group with a lower-middle-income economy, with the nominal gross domestic product (GDP) in excess of $355 billion and a purchasing power parity of $1.142 trillion in 2021. With a population of 97.46 million by 2019, and an unemployment rate of 3.3% by 2020, the economy of Vietnam is a socialist-oriented economy, which is the 36th largest in the world as measured by nominal gross domestic product (GDP) and 23rd largest in the world as measured by purchasing power parity (PPP). Vietnam is a member of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), and the World Trade Organisation (WTO)

The Institute of Economic Affairs was delighted to host The Rt Dr Liam Fox MP, Conservative Member of Parliament for North Somerset, in the latest episode of our In Conversation series. This webinar took place on Monday 24th May, and was chaired by IEA Director General, Mark Littlewood. Dr Fox is the Member of Parliament for North Somerset. He was first elected as the MP for Woodspring in 1992. He has held several ministerial roles, such as being the Constitutional Affairs Spokesman (1998-1999), Shadow Health Secretary (1998-1999), Shadow Health Secretary (1999-2003), Shadow Foreign Secretary (2005) and Shadow Defence Secretary (2005-10), and Secretary of State for Defence (2010-11). In the wake of the United Kingdom’s vote to leave the European Union, Dr Fox was appointed as the first Secretary of State of International Trade by former Prime Minister Theresa May. He served that position, as well as being the President of the Board of Trade, from 2016-2019. In 2020 the UK government nominated Dr Fox as a candidate for Director General of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) which saw him reach the last five in the election.

In this Podcast we discuss with Ruth Bergan from Trade Justice whether trade deals are often done in secret and equally often conflict with climate change goals. Trade is neither just or fair. Greenhouse gas emissions and carbon dioxide concentrations are increasing at an ever faster rate. As a result, weather patterns are changing, leading to extreme drought in some areas and rainfall in others, with serious implications for human, animal and plant life. But binding trade rules govern significant areas of the economy in which countries need the freedom and flexibility to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. For example, investment protection provisions, either in Bilateral Investment Treaties or chapters in trade deals, can be used as both a sword and a shield to protect and advance investments in fossil fuel extraction, shipping and consumption. Existing trade rules, agreed at the World Trade Organisation (WTO) or bilaterally, place trade promotion and liberalisation ahead of climate goals and threaten to undermine key climate targets. And ISDS (corporate courts) and the lack of democratic scrutiny mean that openness and transparency is absent. Ruth Bergan leads the Trade Justice Movement’s strategic direction in partnership with 70 member organisations and board, including managing the organisation’s response to Brexit. She works with partner organisations to develop new and innovative work on economic justice issues. In particular: exposing the injustice in international investment treaties and highlighting links between climate change and trade. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/globalnet21/message

As part of this week’s “News Maker” show of Sarah’s Country, Stephen Jacobi from NZ International Business Forum discusses China’s updated FTA with NZ and how the UK wants to join the CPTPP. The Brexit agreement and the start of the new year signal the moment has come to get serious with negotiations on two key issues: retention of the EU sheep meat and beef quotas determined by the World Trade Organisation (WTO) in the 1986-1994 Uruguay round and separately, free trade agreements (FTAs) with the UK and EU. Although the two matters are clearly linked, Meat Industry Association chief executive Sirma Karapeeva is adamant they must be dealt with separately, because the quota must be addressed sooner rather than later.  Equally, New Zealand does not want to be in a situation where, as part of the FTA negotiations, it is offered some minor compensation for what has already been removed unilaterally. To read more, visit the article on Farmers Weekly: https://farmersweekly.co.nz/topic/opinion/view/meaty-matters-time-for-fta-progress To watch the interview, visit www.sarahscountry.com Subscribe to Sarah’s Country on the podcast and if you love us, please leave a review! Sarah’s Country is produced in a strategic alliance with Farmers Weekly - New Zealand’s most trusted source of agri-journalism - www.farmersweekly.co.nz Contact the show: sarah@sarahscountry.com Follow Sarah’s Country on: Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/sarahperriam Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/sarahscountry

China's state-controlled media has bluntly warned Australia's warships to stay out of the South China Sea or risk the “bitter pill” of confrontation.In an ominous threat to Prime Minister Scott Morrison, China is doubling down after the furore over a shocking doctored image depicting a grinning Australian soldier slitting the throat of an Afghan child.In an editorial published overnight inThe Global Times, Australia is described as “the war hound” of the United States.“As a warhound of the US, Australia should restrain its arrogance. Particularly, its warships must not come to China's coastal areas to flex muscles, or else it will swallow the bitter pills,'' the editorial states.“Australian special forces murdered 39 Afghan civilians and prisoners. Killing innocent people is trampling on human rights no matter what. But Canberra has the nerve to put itself on the moral high ground of human rights. How arrogant and shameless the Morrison government is!”China maintains a maritime militia in the South China Sea - officially called the People's Armed Forces Maritime Militia (PAFMM) that plays a key role in Beijing's strategy to enforce its disputed sovereignty claims.Asia Institute fellow Rowan Callick told news.com.au that the Global Times editorial was a clear reference to the South China Sea.“Australia has refused to do these freedom of navigation protocols. It's a warning that if we change our strategy and participate in these freedom of navigation cruises something may or may not happen,'' he said.Beijing's foreign ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian posted a falsified image of an Australian soldier slitting the throat of a child and said China condemned the murder of Afghan civilians.Source:SuppliedHMAS Parramatta conducts manoeuvres with amphibious assault ship USS America, guided-missile cruiser USS Bunker Hill and guided-missile destroyer USS Barry in the South China Sea. Picture: Department of DefenceSource:Supplied“I don't think the Global Times is the vehicle to place highly strategic messages. It's one to place general sentiment. If People's Daily was to editorialise on this, that Australia's ships should watch out, that would be more disturbing. This is disturbing enough.”Former Labor MP Michael Danby said the editorial represented a clear warning and follows recent activity involving HMAS Ballarat.“That's a threat. HMAS Ballarat was in the South China Sea recently with the US taskforce,'' Mr Danby said.“That's very ominous. It's suggesting there might be an incident.”According to the US Navy, the HMAS Ballarat conducted drills, integrated tactical training, and warfighting scenarios and a combined transit to the Andaman Sea through the Strait of Malacca in late October.“We find tremendous value in sailing alongside our close allies of Australia, as well as our other allies and partners, in support of a free, open, secure, and prosperous Indo-Pacific Region,” Commander Ryan T. Easterday said.Commanding Officer of Ballarat, Commander Antony Pisani was also quoted as praising the chance to “hone our warfare and mariner skills and develop our ability to operate and communicate together”.HMAS Ballarat conducted drills in the South China Sea recently.Source:SuppliedIn July, Australian warships sailing near the disputed Spratly Islands in the South China Sea were confronted by the Chinese navy.It was reported at the time the HMAS Canberra, HMAS Hobart, HMAS Stuart, HMAS Arunta and HMAS Sirius all remained outside 12 nautical miles of the contested islands, unlike recent so-called “freedom of navigation” exercises conducted by the US navy to challenge Beijing.The previous year, Australian navy helicopter pilots were hit by lasers during exercises, forcing them to land as a precaution.Firing a fresh broadside at Australia, the Global Times editorial also threatens trade ties, noting Australia is considering taking complaints toward China's trade imposition to the World Trade Organisation (WTO).Will y...

Nigeria’s candidate for the leadership of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), Dr. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, has called on multilateral institutions and developed countries to increase their support for low income countries, especially Africa, by providing more concessionary funding.She said this on Thursday on the sidelines of the ongoing IMF/World Bank Annual meetings, at the CNBC Debate.She also stressed the need for global collaborative efforts towards acquiring and distributing COVID-19 vaccines when they are ready.She advised the developed countries to rethink their approach to global development because as long as people in developing countries and poor nations are unsafe, nobody in the developed countries will be safe.--- This episode is sponsored by · Afrolit Podcast: Hosted by Ekua PM, Afrolit shares the stories of multi-faceted Africans one episode at a time. https://open.spotify.com/show/2nJxiiYRyfMQlDEXXpzlZS?si=mmgODX3NQ-yfQvR0JRH-WASupport this podcast: https://anchor.fm/newscast-africa/support

President Muhammadu Buhari on Tuesday in Abuja assured Nigeria’s former Minister of Finance, Dr. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, that the country would deploy its entire energy to ensure that she becomes the Director-General of World Trade Organisation (WTO).--- This episode is sponsored by · Afrolit Podcast: Hosted by Ekua PM, Afrolit shares the stories of multi-faceted Africans one episode at a time. https://open.spotify.com/show/2nJxiiYRyfMQlDEXXpzlZS?si=mmgODX3NQ-yfQvR0JRH-WASupport this podcast: https://anchor.fm/newscast-africa/support

The US has imposed sweeping new sanctions on Iran, this time targeting its major banks as the Trump administration continues its strategy of "maximum pressure." We'll hear from Barbara Slavin, Director of the Future of Iran Initiative at the Atlantic Council. Also in the programme, the selection of a new director general of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) is entering its final stage and with both the final candidates being female, whoever gets it, it will be the first time the job has been taken by a woman. We'll hear from Annamie Paul, the new leader of the Green Party of Canada on her vision for how the economy can be overhauled to create sustainable jobs. And we'll hear from one entrepreneur who has taken the pod-serving idea of coffee machines like Nespresso, and used it to serve different kinds of whiskey. All through the show we'll be joined by financial professional Jessica Khine in Malaysia and Complete Intelligence economist Tony Nash in Texas. (Picture credit: Getty Images)

The European Union (EU) governments on Monday expressed support for Dr. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, Nigeria’s candidate for the position of the Director-General (DG) of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) as the race enters the final month. Bloomberg also disclosed that the EU governments selected the South Korean candidate, Yoo Myung-hee, who is the country’s trade minister, as the second contender for the job, the bloc would be supporting. --- This episode is sponsored by · Afrolit Podcast: Hosted by Ekua PM, Afrolit shares the stories of multi-faceted Africans one episode at a time. https://open.spotify.com/show/2nJxiiYRyfMQlDEXXpzlZS?si=mmgODX3NQ-yfQvR0JRH-WA Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/newscast-africa/support

As trade relations have become increasingly politicised and global trade has collapsed during the Covid-19 pandemic, this podcast discusses the future of the rules-based trade system and what role the World Trade Organisation (WTO) should play. How can trade rules be updated to reflect the changing character of how countries trade with each other in the digital age? How can US and European concerns about China's trade policies and practices be addressed? These and other questions will be discussed by David Henig from the European Centre for International Political Economy, Thomas Duesterberg, Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute in Washington D.C. and Marianne Schneider-Petsinger, Senior Research Fellow at the US and the Americas Programme, Chatham House, who will present findings from a joint publication available at: https://www.chathamhouse.org/publication/reforming-world-trade-organization-prospects-transatlantic-cooperation-and-global-trade /// Angesichts der zunehmenden Politisierung globaler Handelsbeziehungen und dem Zusammenbruch des Welthandels während der Covid-19 Pandemie diskutiert die Podcast-Episode die Zukunft des regelbasierten Handelsystems und welche Rolle die Welthandelsorganisation darin spielen soll. Wie können Handelsregeln aktualisiert werden so dass sie die veränderte Art und Weise wie Staaten im digitalen Zeitalter miteinander handeln besser berücksichtigen? Wie soll mit US-amerikanischen und europäischen Bedenken bezüglich Chinas Handelspolitik und -praxis umgegangen werden? Diese und andere Fragen werden von den folgenden Experten diskutiert: David Henig, European Centre for International Political Economy, Thomas Duesterberg, Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute in Washington D.C. und Marianne Schneider-Petsinger, Senior Research Fellow, US and the Americas Programme, Chatham House London, die auch Ergebnisse der gemeinsamen Publikation zu dem Thema präsentiert, welche online verfügbar ist: https://www.chathamhouse.org/publication/reforming-world-trade-organization-prospects-transatlantic-cooperation-and-global-trade

Singapore has long been a global hub of business, uniquely positioned in the world of economics at a crossroads serving multiple time zones and business interests. While the highly developed city-state is home to the world’s second busiest port, it has no natural resources and relies largely on international trade for its economic prosperity. How does a new reality of limited travel and pandemic restrictions look from Singapore and what changes can we expect in the global marketplace? What role will it play in regional economic recovery, and is there still a place for a green economy? His Excellency Mr Kwok Fook Seng is Singapore’s High Commissioner to Australia. From 2011 to 2014, he was Singapore’s Permanent Representative to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) in Geneva. As Ambassador for Climate Change from 2014 to 2016, he worked on the Paris Agreement at the 21st Conference of Parties of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in December 2015. Host: Matt Smith Recorded 25 August 2020.

In this episode host Patrick Ryan talked with Tomas Baert, Head of Trade and Agriculture of the European Union Delegation to the United States based in Washington, DC. They talked about US-EU trade, Brexit, multilateral relations and issues of the day. If you want to know insights about Brexit -- the separation of the UK and the EU -- you won't get elsewhere take a listen to this interesting Podcast that will bring you up to date on the hot topics in European Union developments. Check out these important references: Delegation of the EU to the US https://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/united-states-america_en EU-US Trade https://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/countries/united-states/ Biography Tomas Baert is the head of the Trade and Agriculture section at the Delegation of the European Union to the United States. Between 2016 and 2018, Tomas was the Head of Unit for Trade Strategy at the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Trade (DG Trade). He led the team responsible for the development and implementation of the 2015 Trade for All strategy and the 2017 Communication on A balanced and progressive trade policy to harness globalisation. In this capacity, he also coordinated DG Trade's work on questions relating to the withdrawal of the UK from the EU, including the preparatory discussions on the future EU-UK trade relationship. Prior to becoming a Head of Unit, from 2014 to 2016, Tomas was an assistant to Director-General for Trade Jean-Luc Demarty, advising on a number of trade priorities such as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and World Trade Organisation (WTO) negotiations in the run-up to the tenth Ministerial Conference in Nairobi, Kenya. Tomas holds an MSc from the London School of Economics (LSE) and an MA from the Catholic University of Leuven (KUL), Belgium. He spent a term at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva, Switzerland and completed the Mastering Trade Policy program at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.

This week, Sarah is interviewing Cecilia Malmström, a Swedish politician who has served as European Commissioner for Trade since 2014. ​In her function as Trade Commissioner, she is representing the EU in the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and other international trade fora and negotiates bilateral trade agreements between the EU and third countries.​In our conversation, we talk about the challenges she has been facing as Commissioner, what role the EU should play in today’s changing world and how we can empower women through international trade.

In our recent report Protectionism 2.0: Digital forces driving the new protectionist agenda we highlighted how measures restricting data flows crucial to businesses pose as much a threat to international trade as cruder, traditional tools of trade protectionism. There is widespread consensus that the World Trade Organisation ("WTO") needs modernisation in order to tackle the challenges presented to free trade by both traditional and digital protectionism. Such reform is being considered against a backdrop of concern as to the viability of the WTO dispute resolution process and the use of such practices as forced technology transfers. In the UK, the WTO is now attracting attention as a 'fall back' proposition, should there be a 'no deal' Brexit. We aim to bring you up to speed with the latest developments in this area; we consider possible outcomes for the rules-based multi-lateral trading system and time table of reform; addressing in particular the proposals for WTO reform put forth by the EU and its allies on 26th November. In what seems at times a polarised world, we explore the likelihood of emergence of a consensus between players as diverse as China and the US.

In a ruling from the WTO, published on 10 August 2018, several of Russia’s arguments regarding the alleged incompatibility of the EU’s energy policy measures with multilateral trade rules were dismissed. But was it a total defeat for Russia? In this podcast Moritz Wüstenberg, a researcher at the University of Eastern Finland, discusses the ruling and its wider implications. Following Russia’s withdrawal from the Energy Charter Treaty in 2009, the World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules offer the only comprehensive regulatory framework for EU- Russia energy trading, which means that the compatibility of WTO rules with the EU energy policy is vital. The key ambition of the Third Energy Package was to advance the integration of the internal energy market, and thus it contains legislation on unbundling – the separation of energy supply and generation from the operation of transmission networks, non-discriminatory access to energy infrastructures and the independence of national energy regulators. Russia had claimed that the EU was discriminating against Russia in the Package with regard to Russian pipeline transport services, service suppliers, and Russian natural gas. What standing does Russia have following the findings in WTO’s panel report? Should the findings of the report be refuted? Take a listen to our podcast to find out more. For the WTO report on the case, please follow the link: https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news18_e/476r_e.htm and for a brief history of the case, from the EC perspective, click on: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/wtodispute/show.cfm?id=644&code=2

AHDB's Amandeep Kaur Purewal. Martin Grantley-Smith and Eleanor Holdsworth discuss results from an AHDB-funded report into the future of the milling and malting industries. **Scrutinising future of UK milling and malting** A new report suggests Brexit will have a considerable impact on the UK’s milling industry under a range of trade scenarios but the malting sector is in a far better position to weather the storm.  The ‘what-if’ analysis was commissioned by AHDB to help millers and maltsters with their business strategies ahead of Brexit. It also aims to help give insight into long-term implications on planting and highlight potential impacts on grain prices. The report – Brexit scenarios: Impacts on the UK’s milling and malting sectors – assesses the impact of three post-Brexit trade scenarios on supply and demand for milling wheat, malting barley, flour and malt. Firstly, a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with the EU agreeing zero tariffs, secondly a unilateral approach where imports are tariff free but exports are subject to tariffs and thirdly mutual application of World Trade Organisation (WTO) tariffs in the case of a ‘hard Brexit’. UK flour trade is likely to experience significant disruption post-Brexit, even if a FTA is negotiated. This is partly due to UK mills’ reliance on global imports of high-quality milling wheat, which may which may disqualify UK flour from preferential access to EU market. This will impact mills on the British mainland if they lose free access to this market via the cross-border trade. By far the biggest impact could be the loss of trade with the Republic of Ireland, which currently receives two thirds of its flour from mainland British mills. The outlook is more positive for the malting sector. With almost all UK malt currently exported to non-EU countries, trading arrangements with the EU would have little impact. Brexit may also provide an opportunity for UK growers to displace malting barley imports by growing six-row malting varieties. Dr Martin Grantley-Smith, Strategy Director for Cereals & Oilseeds, said: “There could be some tough decisions to be made by UK millers and maltsters in the near future depending on how Brexit pans out. “This is a timely report providing some early warning of how the challenges may play out, so that businesses can revisit some of their options for post-march 2019. “Up to now our trading arrangements with the EU have been of critical importance and this report clearly shows, whatever the outcome of Brexit, business-as-usual is not going to be an option.” To download the report, alongside all AHDB’s Brexit tools and resources, visit www.ahdb.org.uk/brexit Photo by Patrick Fore on Unsplash

As global trade war continues to unfold, Bruegel director Guntram Wolff is joined for this Director's Cut of 'The Sound of Economics' podcast by Bernd Lange MEP, chair of the Committee on International Trade (INTA), to discuss Europe's options. Increasingly it appears that the EU will have to choose between standing strong with the established laws of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), or striking a deal for a permanent reprieve from the US trade tariffs. There is no question that [the tariffs have significant implications for European industry](http://bruegel.org/2018/03/which-sectors-would-be-most-vulnerable-to-eu-us-trade-war/). Indeed, as the US and China brandish lists of further products on which they would consider imposing tariffs, the full scale of the potential future damage to EU exporters is unclear. Yet there remains some hope that the EU could align with other nations to use the WTO to bring US President Trump back on side. To discuss what opportunities as well as threats this current stand-off presents to the EU, Bernd Lange - member of the European Parliament and chair of the Committee on International Trade (INTA) - joins Bruegel director Guntram Wolff in this instalment of 'The Sound of Economics'.

In 2001, China entered the World Trade Organisation (WTO), a watershed in the history of globalisation. Fully integrating China into the global economy had profound consequences, both positive and disruptive. Domestically, Beijing applied WTO rules to promote far-reaching market-based economic reforms. Internationally, China’s strong export industry has led to the decline of old-line industries in advanced economies. Recently China has adopted a number of technological and economic policies and practices which will have new implications for international markets. ​​​​​​​ On 5 July the Lowy Institute hosted journalist and author Paul Blustein and East Asia Program Director Dr Merriden Varrall in a discussion China’s changing engagement with the global economy and the dangers facing the trading system. A Senior Fellow at the Centre for International Governance Innovation, Paul has written widely on economic issues for more than 35 years, including for The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post, and is the author of five books on international economic institutions.