The far too many contradictions in Trump's foreign policy make it difficult to assess its substance. It is not even clear if it is a "policy", because Trump has himself said that he relies on his instincts and not process. He announces major decisions on social media - his Truth Social platform - an extremely unorthodox way of conducting foreign affairs, not to mention domestic affairs, too. It appears that even the senior members of his administration become aware of the position of the US on ongoing issues through Trump's social media posts.
Any serious foreign policy making has to, of course, address immediate issues, but the fall-out of decisions in a longer term perspective has to be carefully considered. It is unclear whether Trump has adequately thought through the consequences of the decisions he makes. These seem impulsive, erratic, and self-projecting. He seems to want to "win" in dealings with others, and hence he reduces foreign policy to a strong-arm competition.
Trump's Misconceptions
This explains why even when he engages others with declared positive intent, he also issues threats. He believes the US is so powerful that it can set the benchmarks for the behaviour of others and threaten chastisement if his declared quest for peace is, in his view, obstructed or rejected against his wishes or expectations.
In India's case, he has quite recklessly damaged bilateral ties by his refrain of India being a tariff king and not approving an interim trade deal worked by the negotiators on both sides because it was not one he could boastfully present as a one-sided US success. Obviously, unlike the EU, Japan, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, India did not promise to purchase billions worth of LNG from the US, invest there, and buy defence equipment as well.
Also Read | How Much Will India's Fuel Bill Rise If It Stops Russian Oil Imports?
His decision to impose 25% tariffs on India and the threat to impose an additional 25% later for buying Russian oil and defence equipment was aimed at coercing India into diluting its red lines and opening up more of its agriculture and dairy sectors. With the penalty tariffs, he was trying to kill two birds with one stone - that is, besides pressuring India, the move was also to pressure Putin to make concessions on the Ukraine front under the threat of compelling one of the largest buyers to cease buying Russian oil, and thus deprive Russia of much-needed oil revenues needed to sustain its military offensive in Ukraine.
A Contradictory Approach
He has since imposed the 25% penalty tariffs, delivering a body blow to trustful relations with India built painstakingly over the last two decades. This highlights again the contradiction in his approach to foreign relations. He imposes this penalty on India while he is himself engaging Russia not only to resolve the Ukraine conflict but also to pursue the nuclear disarmament dossier, cooperation in the Arctic, and some areas of economic engagement. Putin has outlined publicly areas in which the two countries could cooperate, such as the oil sector, and has said that US and Russian companies are in touch. Exxon seems to be interested in returning to Sakhalin, from which it reluctantly withdrew.
One would have thought that Trump would see the absurdity of sanctioning India for its relations with Russia while he is himself engaging with it. Not only that, China is the biggest buyer of Russian energy (oil and gas), but Trump has not economically sanctioned it. The EU is the biggest buyer of Russian LNG and Turkey of Russian refined petroleum products, but both have been spared. The US itself buys refined petroleum products from India derived from Russian crude, not to mention importing key metals from Russia.
Taking the cue from Trump's irrational targeting of India, others in his entourage have joined the chorus, such as Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, the Deputy Chief of Staff in the White House, Stephen Miller, and, most egregiously, White House Trade Adviser Peter Navarro. The narrative is that India has bought more oil than it needed and that a couple of its major business houses profiteered from refining discounted oil and selling the products to other countries. They also claim that with India continuing to buy Russian oil, it has become responsible for the killings in Ukraine, that the Ukraine war has now become 'Modi's war', and that - according to the ineffable Navarro - the road to peace goes through New Delhi.
Who, Really, Is The Profiteer Here?
This is losing all sense of proportion and showing complete indifference to the damage being inflicted on India-US ties by such absurd rhetoric. This bombast is being resorted to when Trump has agreed to sell $90 billion worth of arms to Europe for transferring to Ukraine. Trump has also approved the sale of 3,350 Extended Range Attack Munition (ERAM) Missiles to Ukraine. Europe is determined to support it with arms and funds to make sure the conflict ends only on Ukraine's terms. Europe, on its part, has made Ukraine's position on the conflict its own and is trying to put a wrench in Trump's peace efforts because they have been excluded from US-Russia negotiations.
India, on the other hand, has all along pressed for dialogue and diplomacy to end the conflict, with Modi insisting that today is not an era of war. India has played a mobilising role in the Global South to press for peace in Ukraine.
Also Read | Trump's Hollow Claims: Here's Where India - And China - Really Buy Their Oil From
Russian oil has not been sanctioned, only price-capped. As for profiteering, the US defence companies have earned windfall profits from the Ukraine conflict, not to mention other wars. They have profiteered from trading Ukrainian grain, the purchase of agricultural land, as well as mining rights in the country. Even the US has bought refined products from India. Importantly, India has not forced any country to buy its refined products, unlike the US, which had a hand in blowing up the Nord Stream pipeline to pave the way for Europe to buy American LNG. In the US-EU framework trade agreement, Trump has forced Europe to buy $750 billion of LNG from the US in the next three years. So, who is profiteering?
The 'Dealmaker' Needs A Recap
Trump's hectoring of India will have longer-term consequences for bilateral ties. If Trump thinks that foreign policy can be handled as a real estate deal, and that after hard and ruthless bargaining the sides would shake hands and all would be well, he is mistaken. The paradigm is not that of the disreputable real estate deals in central Manhattan.
There is no doubt that India will re-assess the future of its ties with the US. The loss of confidence in the US is real. But the relationship will endure, as there are many interests that bind the two countries in areas of trade, services, investment, technology, innovation, defence, diaspora, etc. But, as India develops its own capabilities, becomes more self-reliant, innovates, and, of course, grows economically, the equations with the US will change. The dynamics of US-China ties will of course impact India-US ties too.
SCO Is A Message, But Don't Overstate It
Too much should not be made of Modi's visit to China for the SCO summit. Modi has already met Xi Jinping at the BRICS summit in Kazan in 2024, following which some re-engagement with China has begun. With the Chinese Foreign Minister's recent visit to India and talks with our NSA as the Special Representative for border talks and with Jaishankar, some steps have been announced. But the fundamentals of our issues with China have not changed.
Modi's visit to China is not a bilateral visit, which, if it were, would have acquired a different dimension and there would be expectations of the visit producing significant results. This is not the case now, though some forward looking general understandings would result. The overall atmosphere of relations would no doubt improve.
For India, at this juncture when Trump is hitting India, a message does go out to the US establishment that India may veer towards China and undermine US strategy in the Indo-Pacific. Some in the US may argue that if Biden pushed Russia into China's arms, Trump may push India in China's arms, which would also strengthen the BRICS challenge to US hegemony.
India will not choose China over the US but will do all it can to preserve and strengthen its strategic autonomy.
(Kanwal Sibal was Foreign Secretary and Ambassador to Turkey, Egypt, France and Russia, and Deputy Chief Of Mission in Washington.
Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author
