 We are aware that what has happened at the country to you and the fact that the Dho Haram and specific aspects of the Dho Haram including this whole issue of special and different country to developing countries. All of these events that have happened may be made in the recent past. We know that President Trump of the U.S. has in certain senses used the impacts of the World Peace Organization to push through his agenda which includes the e-commerce agreement, the world by the end of the e-commerce agreement. The dispute settlement body in the WTO has been meeting and we are seeing that there has been a shift away from multilateral negotiations to bilateral negotiations. The WTO is divided up into three distinct compartments. The first one is the dispute settlement thing. The second is the negotiations and the third one is the committee work through which countries keep an eye on each other and to what extent other members are complying with the WTO regulations. Now as you would all agree negotiations lie at the heart of it and if negotiations are not taking place dispute settlement takes a secondary position in the background and of course the committee work then becomes fairly insignificant. Negotiations have not really been going on since 2013 in any area except for two. One of them is e-commerce in which there is some progress but there is basically different countries which have joined a negotiating initiative which is outside the WTO. This is a plurilateral initiative in which about 70 odd countries have joined and this is not taking place within the ages of the WTO. So to that extent it is not a regular negotiation which is taking place in the WTO. The second point is India is not a party to that. India has not joined the negotiations on e-commerce. The third thing is on e-commerce there are still a lot of differences amongst let's say the European Union, the US, China. China is a member of that plurilateral group and these differences are basically quite wide even at the moment and this negotiation which is going on will pick up steam and momentum if India joins. Because India is holding back a large number of African countries and poorer developing countries from joining in the negotiations. Because once India joins then that support base will no longer be there behind it and they will then be put in the background. They will just remain then as takers of whatever agreement is negotiated amongst the larger countries. So that is what is holding up to a certain extent the e-commerce negotiations. Agriculture is in so much distress that agriculture today if anything needs to be reinforced from any participation in global trade. So I don't know how they will do zero duty on dairy products and others coming from New Zealand, Australia. I think it's very manufacturing maybe to some extent. There is some talk that India may negotiate a back loading of reducing tariffs to zero. I think there is some talk that initially will in phases and China may or may not agree. But again I find it very odd that all these years in WTOV been arguing that services are main competitive advantage. But in RCEP there is no talk of services. They don't negotiate services. So I don't know why India should at all negotiate RCEP without some assurance on services at some stage. I think we should back load zero tariffs on a whole range of products and try to sort of the timeline, try to sort of correspond it with opening of services. So suddenly what has happened today that suddenly services which is our main negotiating plan is missing in RCEP. I find that completely illogical and at this rate and the last point I want to make is when the 2008 crisis happened, India could actually withstand that crisis because as Dr. Reddy those days used to point out that the financialization of all various asset classes whether it was stock markets, real estate, housing derivatives for instance. We actually did not allow many of those things to hit the Indian shores but today I find with post demonetization and now I am making this whole campaign which the Modi government embarked on of formalization and financialization of the economy which was greatly appreciated in the US at that time by Ball Street, Bill Gates everybody was very gungo about this great financialization, formalization of the economy. I feel that if today there is a crisis of the kind that happened in 2008 a lot larger portion of our economy will be linked to because of this formalization, financialization and because of weakening of our informal sector. In 2008 the non-tradable sector like small construction all did well. In India I remember I used to interact with Dr. Subbarov, RBI had conducted a study. He used to have a pre-monetary policy meeting with some people from media also. So they had done a study which showed that in small town India real estate prices hadn't crashed. Real estate prices had only gone down in Delhi bomb metros because of the market crash and the various asset classes going down, prices going down. It may not be very far in the future when we see that India too is targeted by the Trump administration because now whatever we had to do with China that has got exhausted. And usually we have found that before the presidential election countries like India, all these large markets are usually targeted. So I think we should all be prepared for any kind of move on any pretext. And all these the tariff escalation, the tariff war that the US has initiated is a completely violation of the WTO. Normally what would have happened is and China has also done it like I mentioned because this is the third dispute that they have taken to the WTO. Normally the way it would have played out is that the disputes would have played themselves out in the WTO. At the end of the day because these measures are completely violation of the WTO, the WTO dispute settlement body would have come and ruled that US is violating its commitments under the WTO. And this is where the issues that Jonathan mentioned about the US making the appellate body, the WTO dispute settlement appellate body completely limp now is almost going to be passe. This becomes relevant. So now we have a situation that although China has gone to the dispute settlement body, the panel, the dispute settlement panel will hear this dispute out. But there will be no final redress that the China would get because you do not have an appellate body. There is not going to be any appeal process in the WTO. So the main function of the WTO, which was there the last few years because the negotiating function of the WTO was finished many years back, almost more than a decade back. The negotiating function was finished. And now the arbitration function, and it was a very important part of the multilateral trading system, now that is being effectively finished off. So there is no way that countries can find their way through this problem if they are targeted by the US. So I have no doubt that because of all these actions that the US administration is taking, the already fragile global economy is going to be forced into a recession far quicker than any of these global agencies had predicted which was about 2020. IMF said that the growth rates will be lower in 2020. But now I think we are looking at very serious prospects of recession because the eurozone is in crisis. Germany has recorded negative growth in the last quarter and the eurozone is barely growing. It is about 0.2%. And so with all the kind of uncertainty which is now being brought in by the Trump administration, surely the global economy is in serious problem. Since 2012 China has actually dramatically reduced its export dependence on the United States who has shifted to developing Asia. Within developing Asia, it has expanded its trade services with I think 12 out of the 16 countries that I looked at. Very, very dramatically. In the case of India, our deficit with China has tripled with the largest single. But it has basically shifted its attention. It has also shifted its reliance on developing Asia for the elements that it gives to export to the North accordingly. In other words, Chinese exports have fallen globally, but its imports have fallen even more. Chinese exports to developing Asia have not fallen. Chinese exports from developing Asia have collapsed. But in very few countries, but in Philippines and I think Vietnam is it. So that's number one. Number two, there are some countries that actually have been able to take advantage of this trade war between the US and China because of production relocation. I mean, a number of multinationals are doing it. They have talked about it. We are not among them. Again, Philippines and Vietnam are the major gamers. They've had massive increases in their trade services with the US. They have had significant investments, relocative investments from various countries, from China and from elsewhere into their countries. India is not among them and we are not likely to be. At the same time, we are exposed to very significant and volatile trade flows. The FIIIs are happily moving out. Their foreign portfolio flows have been negative for four months now, I think. Actually more than that. More than that. Okay, but leading, leading for the last two months. And I think the last two months alone account for 80% of the outflows since the beginning of the year. So very significant outflows. Our stock market is sustained only because all of us have these horrible little monthly investment programs that everybody made us join. Even if you had 50,000 rupees in the line, you were told, go out there and do a monthly investment. And it is basically the retail consumer, the retail investors of India, which is all the middle class salary holders, who are putting in these monthly savings products, which are showing up a stock market that otherwise would have collapsed. Otherwise foreign portfolio investors used to dramatically shift it. So we are holding the baby. And of course that baby also used to get home, but you know, still holding it. Okay, so this is all the bad news. Now in this context, what do we gain from an asset? We will open a market to a set of economies that already have trade services with us and to China. Mr. Deep mentioned dairy and agriculture. But I think we forget that we have escaped even more Chinese imports into the economy, only because we put very strict rules of origin in our agreement with ASEAN. And if we actually allow an asset, I think our manufacturing sector, such as it is, would be completely finished. I mean even cows, you know, even the things that we claim that we are globally competitive and so on. So I think I really cannot see any gain in terms of either market access and I can see many, many losses in terms of employment losses and so on. The other thing we have to bear in mind is that I have no idea what the investment provisions are in ASEAN. Of course none of us gets access to any of this information. But if you look at China's agreements that it has signed with countries along the Belt and Road Initiative, those are really scary. Those are pretty much TPP plus. Yeah, but tough. They are very stringent. They protect Chinese investors like anything. If that is the case, I think we can expect the ASEAN provisions to be also fairly problematic as far as... ASEAN is taking CPTPP. Yeah, there you go. So then that's very bad news in terms of the investment provisions as well. What's the option for India? I believe that this is a period in global trade where you can pretty much do what you like. If you have an imaginative and progressive leadership. I've already said now why you can't do it in India. But let's for a moment imagine that we had a progressive and imaginative leadership. This would be a moment in which you could actually bring in trade and industrial policy. Because frankly, nobody at this point, I mean, gets jumped up and down, dropped me institutes, supporters, et cetera, et cetera. It doesn't matter anymore. This is a free for all at the moment. And it's a free for all in a period of global crisis. So if you don't do something, you're really going to get smashed and then beaten once you're down. But on the other hand, if you do something, there's less in terms of the negative fallout that you would have normally got in that period of very stable global economy and very firm international architecture. So this is actually where we are on the eve of our set, so to speak. And I wouldn't say China is an elephant is the room. China is actually very much penetrated in the economy. It's very clearly today once market capture in India. It sees India as a market that it wants to enter. And I think the balance of force along the globe gives India very little. I mean, you know, as as Professor, Professor Dhar did say that finally India signed up on everything. We might achieve a graded, you know, say we lower tariffs with China and manufacturing over five years. But that's about as long as it will last. It will be graded five years in which China will penetrate Indian markets. And the point that Professor Koch made about China's capacity to set up supply lines and do them dynamically, flexibly and very fast, we have just the reverse. We have all the dynamism, the flexibility and the speed to destroy supply chains, which is what we did through demonetization. So in a sense, that's actually where our where our economy is placed. If we could at all sort of, you know, imagine a progressive future. I would say we don't use the word of data localization, but we talk about data sovereignty. So rent data sovereignty is defined as owned by the political community that produces that data. So it's not just about localization, but it's also very clearly as as as as as you laid out. We need to focus on both ownership and control over that data, not just that it be Indian. Because India, I think as we all recognizes means different things. There is one India of Mukesh Ambani and there's an India of the rest of us. But you know, I'll stop here. This is I think the critical challenge that we face. I'll just add one more point. We see in our headlines that the auto industry is the worst hit, but actually the worst hit is the truck industry. Which is the sign of the other stuff? Which is actually the sign of the real economy down to food grain supply, down to capital goods transfer. Yeah, I mean auto finally doesn't, you know, creates jobs for people below the top 10%. But, you know, doesn't doesn't really go in any way beyond that. It creates a, you know, really low quality jobs while the decline of collapse 50%. The truck industry year on year is down to 50% of production. Yeah, the aggregate, the aggregate is down to 50%, which indicates that there's a very deep crisis in the economy. And, you know, we are about to enter into the RCEP in the midst of that. It's from a very, very weak position. This time, if RCEP happens, it's not only going to hit the plantation crops and so on, which were hit when the WTO came in. This time it's going to be the food security crops. And wheat, rice, sugarcane, all these crops are going to be hit very hard. Dairy is an organized sector. It can still voice its concern. But what about wheat? What about rice? Who's going to fight for these kind of crops? In fact, Punjab farmers are worried that, you know, on the one hand, we have autonomous policies, autonomous policies, which are saying that we must withdraw the MSP procurement kind of a system. And on the other hand, we have the RCEP being signed. And then, as you rightly mentioned, Australia, New Zealand, all these countries have their interest focused on India. So this time it's not going to be farmers only in the South Indian portion who will be affected. It will be farmers in the North. And I don't know what particular implication it will have. President Trump has been promising his farmers that he's going to bail them out with what, $12 billion in the first stage, second I think for $16 billion or so, $16 million. Yes, sir. So in the second stage and so on. But it's still, the situation is very bad in America. And if you read the reports every other day, you find agriculture is in a terrible state there in America. This, if China says that to India, and if they agree on it, I think it will be suicidal. It will be suicidal. We have to be very watchful with what China says. Somebody talked about apples from China. Today, 40% of the American markets of apple is in the hands of China. And Chinese apples, if you go to America, you don't find much of Washington apples there. Washington apples comes to India, country like India. But there you find the Chinese apples. So, and similarly, dairy. Dairy is a huge, huge growing sector in China. And they're going to eat us up if we open up on dairy also. But most other crops, including apple, are to answer his question. Who is the biggest importer of apple? I don't know whether India is the one, I don't know. I'm not sure whether they are the biggest importer. Are they? I mean, they, okay, fine, fine. But the point I'm trying to make is we will, China has lots and lots of interest where we wouldn't be able to stand. So if we open up, let's say for soybean, that's one area which is being discussed, that you know, Indians would be a gainer if American trade war with America goes on for long. But there would be other sacrifices that we'd have to make, which I think would be, including wheat. And although at present they are importing, but we don't know what's going to happen in the future. So I think with China, we must be watchful, we must be careful. And nobody knows where things are going.