CEOs vote to take USIBC out of US chamber

WASHINGTON: The board of US-Indian Business Council (USIBC) comprising CEOs of some top American companies has voted to severe ties with the powerful US chamber of commerce laying bare years of simmering tensions, including over clashing policy priorities.

The rupture has left the fate of the USIBC and its staff uncertain for the time being as the US chamber of commerce has no intention of letting go of it, as was stated by its president and CEO Tom Donahue in a letter Tuesday. “The USIBC is a part of the Chamber, and the Chamber does not plan to transition it anywhere,” Donahue wrote in the strongly worded letter, adding, sternly, “The USIBC has no separate existence and its board has no legal authority.”

If reconciliation efforts slated for next week don’t succeed, members of the USIBC appear prepared to start a separate body. “We are ready to form an alternate entity, with far more independence and autonomy,” said a source, who would speak only on condition of anonymity.

Donahue went on to announce that Mukesh Aghi, the USIBC president, had left last month and that the chamber had launched a search for his successor. Khush Choksy, a senior vice-president at the Chamber, would serve as interim president until then.

Aghi quit late last month, the day 29 members of the USIBC board voted to split with the chamber. They included Indra Nooyi of Pepsi, John T Chambers of Cisco, Ajay Banga of MasterCard and Warburg Pincus co-chief executive Charles R. “Chip” Kaye.

The chamber and the council had serious differences over some policy issues, going back by several years — specially on market access, free trade issues and intellectual property rights, according to several past and present affiliates of the council.

Several past and present USIBC officials have said they have felt “uncomfortable” by the chamber’s aggressive position on certain issues, including asking the US trade representative to designate India for punitive trade measures.

The chamber did not respond to request for comments on these questions, and pointed to Donahue’s letter for all those and other issues.