After
more than two decades of bipartisan effort to transform the
relationship between New Delhi and Washington, including during his own
first term, U.S. President Donald Trump is now in the process of
dismantling this painstakingly built relationship.
In recent weeks, the administration has:
- Halted trade negotiations with India and imposed (via social media post) a baseline 25 percent tariff while giving China another extension—a contrast between “friend” and rival not lost on anyone in New Delhi.
- Announced on August 4 that it will raise the 25 percent tariff higher still and will impose secondary penalties
on India’s oil purchases from Russia. This step will be viewed in New
Delhi as blunt coercion, gross interference in Indian foreign policy,
impractical given India’s oil import needs, and a cynical effort to
“blame India” for the West’s (and Trump’s own) collective failure to get
Moscow to stop its war on Ukraine.
- Threatened still more tariffs on India for its participation in the BRICS
grouping with Brazil, China, Russia, South Africa, and others. Not
surprisingly, New Delhi views this, too, as gross interference and
coercive.
- Criticized and threatened U.S. companies that manufacture in India—a
major priority for the government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi—while
encouraging them to invest in the United States instead or else face
financial penalties. This has sharpened the intuitive and inherent
contradiction between Trump’s “America First” and Modi’s “Make in India”
visions.
- Hobnobbed at the White House with Pakistan’s Army chief within weeks of a terrorist attack on India while giving Islamabad a preferable tariff rate of just 19 percent and a pledge to jointly explore Pakistan’s oil reserves.
- Continued to tease a new American technonationalism
in which technology sharing with foreigners is viewed with skepticism.
Some around the president have a penchant for keeping American
technology close to home while curtailing exports and co-innovation with
foreign partners.
It is certainly easy to dismiss Trump’s threats against India, and experienced people are doing so on five grounds:
First, as former assistant commerce secretary Ray Vickery has put it, the president blusters before making deals, so at some point a Trumpian “trade deal” is likely to reduce India’s 25 percent baseline tariff rate.
Second, as my Carnegie colleague Rudra Chaudhuri has rightly written, the ecosystem of commercial, technology, and societal ties
between Americans and Indians is deeper than Trump, with billions in
two-way investment, numerous tech firms working together, and tens of
thousands of Indian and American engineers and venture capitalists
intensively engaged with one another.
Third, as leading strategic affairs analyst C. Raja Mohan notes, India needs structural reforms, so Trump’s hardnose tactics could even provide the impetus for India to reset.
Fourth, as the Hudson Institute’s Walter Russell Mead suggests, there are persistent, enduring, and perhaps even permanent “pain points” that have caused rancor and throw up obstacles to cooperation even in the best of times.
Finally,
in the real world, geopolitical threats still matter, so the shared
concerns Secretary of State Marco Rubio has identified about the rise of
Chinese power will invariably yield some strategic convergence.
But these caveats ignore the two most fundamental facts: domestic politics nearly always trumps foreign policy, and foreign policy arguments almost never prevail unless they are anchored by a strong domestic political foundation.
American
commercial, technology, and societal ties with China became far deeper
than they are with India. Yet after four decades of exponential growth
and deep connections, those ties have rapidly unraveled in a few short
years amid shifting strategic calculations and changed domestic
politics.
Remarkably,
and for the first time in two decades, Trump’s actions, statements, and
coercive tone have made relations with the United States a combustible
domestic political issue in India. The opposition, the media, and the
Indian public have put the government on notice to avoid showing
weakness in the face of Trump’s threats.
And
given that large segments of the American body politic seem to follow
Trump wherever he goes, can it be long before relations with India also
become a football in American domestic politics? Issues that directly
touch India are among the most partisan and explosive in Washington,
including immigration and deportation, H1B visas for tech workers,
offshoring and overseas manufacturing by U.S. companies, and technology
sharing and co-innovation with foreigners.
This bodes ill for the next
two decades of U.S.-India relations, because overcoming domestic
politics and partisanship has been perhaps the signal achievement since
the first decade of the 2000s.
And
as the U.S. deputy assistant secretary of state overseeing U.S.-India
ties at the end of former president George W. Bush’s administration, I
can personally attest that it took a hell of a lot of work by a hell of a lot of people in both countries
to overcome the overhang of partisanship, politicization, and history.
In fact, the last time domestic politics nearly derailed the
transformation of U.S.-India relations wholesale was during this period.
In
July 2008, after three years of stalling on a landmark 2005 civil
nuclear deal with Washington, the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) of
former prime minister Manmohan Singh nearly lost a vote of no confidence
when the Left Front, which supported the government from outside the
coalition, withdrew its support over the deal. Indian politics
fractured. And ironically, parties that had long supported closer
U.S.-India ties voted against the government to bring it down. Singh survived,
and the deal moved forward—but only because of votes from parties
outside the UPA coalition, such as the Samajwadi Party, a regional party
with a stronghold in the northern state of Uttar Pradesh.
Today,
too few of those who rah-rah about the U.S.-India strategic partnership
seem to remember how close the nuclear deal came to being lost. But
these two lessons are clear: Once domestic politics gets in the way,
good intentions and good ideas can fail; and trust is hard to build,
harder to sustain, and hardest of all to rebuild once it evaporates in a morass of politicization.
U.S.-India
relations may now become a political football, especially in New Delhi.
And the core understandings that enabled closer U.S.-India relations
may also be at serious risk:
One,
New Delhi largely presumed that Washington would take political risks
to strengthen the relationship. Trump has not and clearly will not.
Two,
the United States and India often differ on Pakistan, but Washington
had been sensitive to New Delhi’s equities and tried to shape U.S.
policies accordingly. Trump’s fulsome praise for Islamabad and
dealmaking with Pakistan’s army and government now raise obvious
concerns in New Delhi that this too has gone by the wayside. And these
concerns have been amplified exponentially because Trump’s moves came
within weeks of the April 22 terrorist attack that killed twenty-six
Indian civilians in Pahalgam and led to a new outbreak of hostilities
between the two countries.
Three,
both capitals mistrusted the other’s intentions with third parties but
learned not to make it an obstacle to closer relations. New Delhi
fretted about Washington’s dealmaking with Beijing and Islamabad. The
United States was roiled by India’s ties to Iran, Myanmar, and later
Russia. Trump and his administration are now moving to sanction and
tariff India over its oil trade with Russia. This significantly shifts
the bar for bilateral relations.
Four,
despite that long-standing mistrust, both sides moderated their
language and tone. Trump has done no such thing, slamming India and even
calling it a “dead economy.”
Five,
and most important, both sides and leaders of all major political
parties worked hard to ensure a bipartisan anchor. So it is ironic that
the Congress Party, which led the nuclear deal with Washington in 2005,
now spearheads bashing U.S.-India relations in New Delhi, while Bush’s
Republican Party successor bashes India in near-daily social media
barrages.
To those
who think America and India have much to gain and even more to lose in a
rupture, the repoliticization of U.S.-India relations is a slow-motion
catastrophe.