For New Delhi, an America First challenge
US PERSPECTIVE Washington wants India to go slow with Iran and Russia even as officials in Delhi are trying to figure out Donald Trump
WASHINGTON: As President Donald Trump winged his way to Singapore for a summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, a sense of relief was wafting through some parts of New Delhi.
If all went well and the two leaders emerged with anything that resembled a joint statement, there would be one less demand from Washington to isolate, sanction and punish another country.
The US had wanted India to shut down its tiny embassy in Pyongyang and snap all ties as it sought to mount pressure on Kim. Breaking ties, redrafting trade agreements, cancelling deals or having to start worrying afresh about the consequences of not abiding by unilateral sanctions imposed by another country can become irksome.
“The distinct possibility of one less country to sanction, punish and isolate,” one Indian official had said when asked what New Delhi would be expecting from the Singapore dialogue. Fortunately, Trump and Kim got along famously, and they plan to meet again soon.
There are at least two similar torchand-scorch demands on the table from the US: cut crude oil imports from Iran, India’s third largest supplier, and don’t make big ticket defence purchases from Russia, both countries that have had long and trusting ties with India.
Then there are trade-related asks – cut tariffs on American imports such as, famously, Harley Davidson motorcycles, reduce the bilateral trade deficit, grant more market access to American companies, revamp your intellectual property rights regime, and, finally, quit protesting and learn to live with tighter rules governing the H-1B visa programme.
Some of them are legacy issues bequeathed by one American president to another, such as wider market access. Others such as Russia-related sanctions are mandated by US Congress.
Left to himself, Trump would not have ordered it, given how he feels about alle- gations of Russian interference in the 2016 polls that earned it the curbs.
But the rest owe their origin to the Trump administration’s overarching “America First” vision that is narrowly focussed on America’s interests than earlier constructs of a similar nature used by preceding administrations for dealing with the rest of the world in politics, diplomacy and trade.
Therefore, for instance, protectionist tariff barriers on steel and aluminium, aimed at all big and small suppliers — Canada, China or India.
There are no unintended targets here. This New York businessman can’t tell the difference. And it’s a part of a broader undertaking by him and like-minded aides who believe America has foolishly squandered away its competitive economic and business edge through a mix of multilateral pacts, misguided policies and anti-business taxes.
As they go about fixing these problems, Trump and his aides have shown a willingness to question, revisit and rattle close relationships such as with ally Canada, alliances such as NATO, and trade pacts and arrangements such as the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement with Canada and Mexico and WTO.
They have not been hesitant to exit arrangements they said are unfair to the US and its interests, such as the Trans-pacific Partnership, Paris climate accord, the Iran nuclear deal, and the UN Human Rights Council.
To critics at home and abroad, Trump’s US appears to be a global power in retreat, withdrawing into a shell of “unisolationism”, as the French ambassador to the UN, François Delattre, tried to frame it for The Washington Post in May, as a “mix of unilateralism and isolationism”. To allies and supporters, including Trump’s power base at home, the US is a power in review-and-reorient mode, going through a harsh reality check. Indian officials, like their counterparts around the world, are trying to get a measure — even after 18 months — of this most unpredictable of American presidents who through his own words and actions has sought to accord India a key role in Afghanistan, called out Pakistan’s deceit on counter-terrorism, described India as a world power, renamed the US Pacific Command as the Indo-pacific Command, and sought to re-energise the Quad.
None of this came with largesse or changed the world map. But New Delhi felt loved.
Trump has been characteristically blunt in his rhetoric at the same time. He stunned Indians when he accused the country of demanding billions for agreeing to climate change targets, just days before his first meeting with Prime Minister Narendra Modi. That was a sobering moment for Indians still swooning over Trump’s remarks at a campaign rally that he was a big fan of India and that India and the US will be “best friends”. That was then. It’s Harley Davidson now. And side-eyed remarks about the “beautiful man” who tried to sell him his tariff cuts on motorcycles.
Trade differences and a tariff war, as India retaliated to the US levy on steel and aluminium imports, pose the most serious challenges to bilateral ties.
In the ongoing crackdown on H-1B misuse and abuse and the tightening of rules, the Trump administration is impelled by its “America First” vision to save American jobs. But it is scaring away young Indians, who see an intemperate America slamming doors in the face of foreigners and immigrants, some of whom were separated from their kids.
Experts are currently in disagreement if India-us ties are as bad as the commentary triggered by the sudden cancellation of the 2+2 meeting by the US just days before Washington was to host it.
Alyssa Ayres, of the Council on Foreign Relations, was alarmed enough by the cancellation, which she said no other US president in recent memory would have done, to say she was worried about the ties. A former state department official in the Obama administration, she had felt upbeat about ties under Trump because of the president’s South Asia policy. But trade differences and 2+2 did it for her. Milan Vaishnav of Carnegie wants to wait. He described the ongoing issues as “minor irritants”, which, he said, could “metastasise” if Trump continues to take a short-term transactional view of relations with India in contrast to the longterm approach adopted by past administrations, both Republican and Democratic. In fact, Shailesh Kumar of Eurasia Group, a former official of the treasury department which is spearheading Trump’s America First agenda on trade, said ties with India are “actually one of the strongest at the moment” compared to US relations with its traditional allies. Until recently, the Us-india relationship under Trump had represented a rare example of policy continuity from the Obama administration—a warm partnership with particularly strong momentum on the defence side. But what we’ve seen in recent months are tensions on the economic side, long the Achilles heel of Us-india relations, threatening to spill over into the defence side, which has long formed the glue of the partnership.
Despite the tensions of recent days, the relationship will be fine; there’s plenty of goodwill and trust to see it through the bumps in the road. But we’re also getting a reminder that in the Trump era, even the most sound and stable relationships are prone to shocks. The relationship under Trump has been on a positive trajectory overall, despite the recent hiccup with tariffs. At the onset, it seemed that Trump would be more favourable towards India than past presidents given his overall posture and comments regarding India relative to statements he made about other nations. Similarly, the US stance on Pakistan has been in near unison with India’s, and the closest any US administration has come to declaring Pakistan a state sponsor of terror. Accordingly, the US sees South Asia much through the prism of India which in macro terms shows close alignment between both governments. However, in a few months, the warmth has cooled a bit with limited high profile interactions between the two – we would have expected a Trump visit to India at this point of time. There’s also the issue of tariffs, but we should not consider that as an example of a deterioration of Us-india ties. For example, Trump’s comments on India are the lightest and softest he has given of any country that has a trade surplus with the US. Thus, on a relative basis, his comments regarding India should not be seen in a negative light. Instead, we should look towards, again, the US attitude towards Pakistan and the fact that it is almost entirely aligned with India’s.