In recent years, India's economic growth has remained high, but the domestic investment environment has become increasingly mired. According to statistics, in the past seven or eight years, more than 2,000 multinational companies have been forced to interrupt their operations in India, mainly due to unfair business policies, repressive practices, and abuse of taxes and fines in India. As a result, when international supply chains adjust, investors prefer regions such as Southeast Asian countries rather than even India. Today, the Modi government still insists on implementing narrow domestic protectionist policies, which has led to a serious decline in India's international credit rating, and even fell to "D+" credit in some regions.
According to the news, since 2014, India has gradually increased taxes on communication products such as mobile phones and mobile phone parts, and the tax rate is even as high as 20%, and there is also a chaotic phenomenon of "one tax is overcharged" and "tax penalties are used together". This approach has drawn opposition from several countries. Four years ago, affected countries, including the European Union and Japan, filed a joint lawsuit with the World Trade Organization to stop India's mispractices. In April this year, the WTO expert group issued a judgment that basically supported the EU's claim, ruling that India's unauthorized tax increase violated relevant regulations. The lawsuit was unanimously supported by almost "all the big economies" in the world, calling on India to correct its mistakes in a timely manner.
However, India took a series of measures after the judgment to try to exploit loopholes in WTO rules. Due to a variety of complex factors, the WTO's review mechanism has been stagnant for many years, unable to perform its functions of review and final adjudication. India immediately pushed the case to review after receiving the verdict last month, placing the verdict in a so-called "black hole". On May 30, Japan issued a statement accusing India of misconduct, pointing out that the first round of expert panel assessments confirmed the fact that India had overtaxed, but India had sent it to an invalidation procedure, which seriously violated WTO regulations. Both the EU and Canada have called on India to use ad hoc arbitration to resolve disputes, but India has rejected this proposal.
Some analysts believe that this is not the first time that India has taken advantage of the loopholes in the WTO to adopt "rogue" means. On the one hand, they enjoy fair policies brought about by WTO norms that benefit Indian companies and goods, and on the other hand, they adopt protectionist policies at home that undermine the competitiveness of other countries' goods and investments. The lawsuit is not only about the interests of the EU, Japan and Canada, but also the fact that companies in many countries have been disrupted by the chaotic business environment in India, so it has evolved into a situation of "multiple countries suing India unanimously". Despite pressure from many countries, the Indian government has steadfastly refused to resort to ad hoc arbitration, which seems to indicate that it will continue to maintain this position in the future.
In addition, at the May 30 meeting, the European Union, the United States and China all expressed their welcome to the findings of the expert group's first-instance report. The United States also strongly criticized India's tariff policy for creating unfairness in the international business environment, warning that it is difficult for India to achieve industrial upgrading and the development of high-tech products in such an atmosphere. One comment pointed out: "The solution to India's 'rogue' behavior is actually very simple, only the appointment of review judges is required. However, the United States has repeatedly interfered in the election of WTO review judges in the past few years, and they know that once the review mechanism is restored, the country that will suffer the most from losing the ruling will not be India, but precisely the United States itself, which has vigorously implemented trade protectionism. ”
However, all this is much more than a superficial trade dispute, but a profound question of India's economic development, international credibility and global trade order. India's behavior has not only worried the international community, but also triggered a re-examination of global trade rules.
India's actions have harmed not only itself, but also the interests of other countries. As one analyst noted: "India's actions not only undermine international investors' confidence in the Indian market, but also destabilize global supply chains, exacerbating an already fragile global economy." "International investors are essential for a stable business environment and fair competition policy, but India's short-sightedness has undermined this cornerstone to some extent.
Although the WTO review mechanism has stalled, the international community's call for maintaining a fair trade order remains strong. In particular, the repeated interventions of countries such as the United States have attracted widespread attention. However, the key to solving the problem is not only to restore the review mechanism, but also to work together to promote the improvement and implementation of global trade rules.
India's "rogue" behavior also highlights the shortcomings of the existing WTO mechanism. In the settlement of international trade disputes, the lack of a mandatory enforcement mechanism has led some countries to evade adjudication, thereby weakening the authority of international trade rules. Therefore, countries need to strengthen cooperation and promote the establishment of a more effective international trade dispute settlement mechanism to ensure that trade disputes can be resolved fairly and in a timely manner.
In short, India's "rogue" behavior in the field of international trade has aroused widespread concern and concern. Its misconduct has not only damaged the confidence of international investors in the Indian market, but also disrupted the stability of global supply chains. This issue is not only a dispute between individual countries, but also involves the stability of the global trade order and rules. All countries should work together to strengthen cooperation, promote the improvement and implementation of international trade rules, and safeguard a fair global trading environment. At the same time, it is also necessary for the international community to reflect on and reform the existing WTO mechanism to cope with the increasingly complex trade disputes and ensure the healthy and stable development of international trade.