US trade team reschedules visit to India for BTA talks
The US delegation's trip, originally scheduled for August 25–29, has been postponed, effectively delaying discussions on the proposed trade pact between the two nations.
'The visit is likely to be rescheduled,' said the official, adding that no new dates have yet been confirmed for the talks.
The cancellation comes against a complicated backdrop of mounting tariff pressures and growing geopolitical friction. Washington is considering a 50% reciprocal tariff on Indian exports, linked to New Delhi's continued purchase of Russian oil, adding urgency to the negotiations.
Commerce Secretary Sunil Barthwal had earlier indicated that clarity on the sixth round of talks would likely emerge only closer to the scheduled date of August 25. However, as of August 16, no official communication had been received from the US side regarding a cancellation or rescheduling.
The delegation, led by Assistant Trade Representative Brendan Lynch, was expected in New Delhi for the talks. For India, the sudden pause is a setback to its efforts to build momentum on the BTA, which negotiators had hoped would secure tariff concessions.
With the delay, the prospect of any meaningful tariff relief now appears remote. Nonetheless, despite tariff headwinds, Indian exports to the US have continued to show positive growth since April.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scroll.in
25 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
Trump-Putin summit: Land-for-ceasefire deal will be terrible for everyone
Hours before meeting Russia's leader Vladimir Putin in Alaska, Donald Trump said he wanted to see a ceasefire in Ukraine and was 'not going to be happy' if it wasn't agreed today. The US president appears to have left Alaska with no such agreement in place. 'We didn't get there', Trump told reporters, before later vaguely asserting that he and Putin had 'made great progress'. Trump is likely to return to the idea of engaging Putin in the coming weeks and months, with the Russian leader jokingly suggesting their next meeting could be held in Moscow. A land-for-ceasefire arrangement, an idea Trump has repeatedly raised as an almost inevitable part of a peace settlement between Russia and Ukraine, could still reemerge as a possible outcome. In fact, in an interview with Fox News after the summit where Trump was asked how the war in Ukraine might end and if there will be a land swap, Trump said: 'those are points that we largely agreed on'. Securing territorial concessions from Ukraine has long been one of Moscow's preconditions for any negotiations on a peace deal. Putin is likely betting that insisting on these concessions, while keeping Ukraine under sustained military pressure, plays to his advantage. Public fatigue over the war is growing in Ukraine, and Putin will be hoping that a weary population may eventually see such a deal as acceptable and even attractive. Russia launched a barrage of fresh attacks against Ukrainian cities overnight, involving more than 300 drones and 30 missiles. Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky, who was excluded from the Alaska summit, has maintained that Kyiv will not agree to territorial concessions. Such a move would be illegal under Ukraine's constitution, which requires a nationwide referendum to approve changes to the country's territorial borders. The assumption behind a land-for-ceasefire deal is that it would enhance Ukrainian and European security. Trump sees it as the first step in bringing Putin to the negotiation table for a broader peace deal, as well as unlocking opportunities for reconstruction. In reality, such a deal would do little to diminish the longer-term Russian threat. Moscow's efforts to shore up and modernise its defence capabilities and neo-imperial ambitions would remain intact. Its hybrid attacks on Europe would also continue, and Ukraine's capacity to secure meaningful reconstruction would be weakened. Whether or not Russia ever opts for a direct military strike on a European Nato member state, it has no need to do so to weaken the continent. Its hybrid operations, which extend well beyond the battlefield, are more than sufficient to erode European resilience over time. Russia's disinformation campaigns and sabotage of infrastructure, including railways in Poland and Germany and undersea cables in the Gulf of Finland and Baltic Sea, are well documented. Its strategic objectives have focused on deterring action on Ukraine and sowing disagreement between its allies, as well as attempting to undermine democratic values in the west. Europe is under pressure on multiple fronts: meeting new defence spending targets of 5% of GDP while economic growth is slowing, reducing the dependence of its supply chains on China and managing demographic challenges. These vulnerabilities make it susceptible to disinformation and have deepened divisions along political and socioeconomic fault lines – all of which Moscow has repeatedly exploited. A land-for-ceasefire deal would not address these threats. For Ukraine, the danger of such a deal is clear. Russia might pause large-scale physical warfare in Ukraine under a deal, but it would almost certainly continue destabilising the country from within. Having never been punished for violating past agreements to respect Ukraine's territorial integrity, such as when it annexed Crimea in 2014, Moscow would have little incentive to honour new ones. The government in Kyiv, and Ukrainian society more broadly, would see any accompanying security guarantees as fragile at best and temporary at worst. The result would probably be a deepening of Ukraine's vulnerabilities. Some Ukrainians might support doubling down on militarisation and investment in defence technologies. Others, losing faith in national security and reconstruction, could disengage or leave the country. Either way, in the absence of national unity, reconstruction would become far more difficult. Making reconstruction harder Ukraine's reconstruction will be costly, to the tune of US$524 billion (£387 billion) according to the World Bank. It will also require managing a web of interconnected security, financial, social and political risks. These include displacement and economic challenges brought on by the war, as well as the need to secure capital flows across different regions. It will also need to continue addressing governance and corruption challenges. A permanent territorial concession would make addressing these risks even more difficult. Such a deal is likely to split public opinion in Ukraine, with those heavily involved in the war effort asking: 'What exactly have we been fighting for?' Recriminations would almost certainly follow during the next presidential and parliamentary elections, deepening divisions and undermining Ukraine's ability to pursue the systemic approach needed for reconstruction. Ongoing security concerns in border regions, particularly near Russia, would be likely to prompt further population flight. And how many of the over 5 million Ukrainians currently living abroad would return to help reconstruct the country under these conditions is far from certain. Financing reconstruction would also be more challenging. Public funds from donors and international institutions have helped sustain emergency energy and transport infrastructure repairs in the short term and will continue to play a role. But private investment will be critical moving forward. Investors will be looking not only at Ukraine's geopolitical risk profile, but also its political stability and social cohesion. Few investors would be willing to commit capital in a country that cannot guarantee a stable security and political environment. Taken together, these factors would make large-scale reconstruction in Ukraine nearly impossible. Beyond fundamental issues of accountability and just peace, a land-for-ceasefire deal would be simply a bad bargain. It will almost certainly sow deeper, more intractable problems for Ukraine, Europe and the west. It would undermine security, stall reconstruction and hand Moscow both time and a strategic advantage to come back stronger against a Ukraine that may be ill-prepared to respond. Trump would do well to avoid committing Ukraine to such an arrangement in further talks with Putin over the coming months.
The Hindu
25 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Lahar Singh petitions ECI on audio clip in which a Congress MLA allegedly speaks on cash distribution to voters
BJP Rajya Sabha member Lahar Singh Siroya has urged the Election Commission of India (ECI) to investigate an audio clip allegedly featuring Congress MLA for Arsikere K.M. Shivalinge Gowda discussing cash distribution for voters during the 2024 Lok Sabha polls. Citing his earlier complaint on former Union Minister C.M. Ibrahim's admission of buying 3,000 votes to ensure Chief Minister Siddaramaiah's victory in the 2018 Assembly elections from Badami, Mr. Lahar Singh said: 'These repeated revelations expose the Congress' deep-rooted vote chori culture, even as its leader Rahul Gandhi accuses others of electoral malpractice.' 'Now, there is another audio making news in my State (I have not independently verified the authenticity of the audio). In this clip, Mr. Shivalinge Gowda is heard speaking, apparently to a Congress Rajya Sabha MP, on how much money should be distributed per voter in the Hassan Lok Sabha seat to ensure their candidate's victory. This was in connection with the 2024 Lok Sabha polls,' he said. Taking a dig at Mr. Rahul Gandhi, he said: 'The irony is that Mr. Rahul Gandhi is shouting vote chori unaware that his own partymen are masters in the game. The fact that Mr. Rahul Gandhi makes wild allegations without worrying about what his party and partymen are all about is proof that he is desperately trying to remain relevant in the Indian political landscape.' Mr. Lahar Singh appealed to the ECI to probe the audio clip along with his earlier complaint related to purchase of 3,000 votes.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
25 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Alaskan encounter: Only Russian President Putin gained from the meeting
At most, it offers more compelling evidence of the US's abdication of its role as a principled interlocutor in global conflicts Business Standard Editorial Comment Listen to This Article Hopes for an early end to the three-year war between Russia and Ukraine were comprehensively dashed following United States (US) President Donald Trump's much-anticipated meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska. Even given the low expectations from this meeting, the result could not have been worse for embattled Ukraine, for the signals it sends to countries with irredentist ambitions, notably China (Taiwan) and the US (Greenland). At most, it offers more compelling evidence of the US's abdication of its role as a principled interlocutor in global conflicts. After affording Mr Putin a lavish welcome, including a red
