International Economy and Development

12 September 2025, NIICE Commentary 11702 Subarna Moni Pradhan In August 2025, the United States implemented a sweeping 50% tariff on a broad spectrum of Indian imports. These included textiles, pharmaceuticals, automotive components, agricultural goods, and information technology products. The U.S. government justified this measure by expressing deep concerns regarding India's ongoing purchase of Russian oil. This occurred despite repeated diplomatic warnings and mounting international pressure, particularly from Western allies, to reduce such transactions. This bold and unprecedented action marked a dramatic turning point in U.S.-India relations. The relationship had previously been defined by decades of strategic cooperation, robust defense partnerships, and mutually beneficial trade expansion. The abrupt introduction of tariffs sent shockwaves through established supply chains. This led to significant disruptions in the timely movement of goods, delays at ports, and an immediate spike in operating costs for businesses on both sides. Prices of affected Indian products surged in the U.S. market, making them less competitive. As a result, American companies began seeking alternative suppliers from other emerging economies. The uncertainty triggered by the tariffs caused notable volatility in stock markets and a decline in investor confidence. There was widespread concern among multinational corporations with cross-border interests. Furthermore, the ripple effects extended far beyond bilateral relations. Global trade networks experienced heightened instability as governments, international organizations, and multinational corporations scrambled to reassess their trade policies, commercial alliances, and long-term strategic plans in light of rapidly shifting geopolitical dynamics. Geopolitical Realignments The tariff conflict has compelled India to reassess its foreign policy and strategic priorities. Historically, India has balanced relationships with Western powers, deriving benefits from technology transfers, defense cooperation, and trade agreements. The current crisis has exposed the vulnerabilities associated with dependence on a single bloc, prompting New Delhi to pursue new international partnerships. In direct response to U.S. sanctions and the broader realignment of global power, India has intensified its diplomatic and economic engagement with alternative global actors, most notably Russia and China. Recent months have seen the signing of new long-term energy agreements with Russia and the inauguration of expanded trade corridors through Central Asia. India has also increased participation in regional security dialogues such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and BRICS summits, which operate outside the Western sphere. India is seeking to deepen its ties with resource-rich African nations and key economies in the Middle East. It is exploring joint ventures in energy infrastructure and advanced manufacturing. This multi-pronged approach is a clear demonstration of India’s commitment to strategic autonomy. It also shows its pursuit of a truly multipolar world order. At the same time, U.S. trade policies have created friction not only with India but also with several key international partners, including NATO allies. Countries such as Germany, France, and the United Kingdom have openly expressed concerns about Washington’s willingness to bypass multilateral frameworks for protectionist measures. These nations fear such actions could undermine the credibility and authority of institutions like the World Trade Organization. This could erode the legal and normative foundations that have governed global commerce for decades. The resulting discord within the Western bloc highlights the formidable challenge of maintaining unified alliances. This is especially difficult in an era marked by rising economic nationalism, shifting priorities, and growing protectionist sentiment. Impact on Strategic Partnerships The U.S.-India tariff conflict has significantly undermined the previously robust partnership in the Indo-Pacific region. While defense cooperation, including joint training and intelligence sharing, remains largely intact, economic relations have deteriorated. The tariffs have rapidly curtailed trade, adversely affecting key sectors such as textiles, pharmaceuticals, gems, agriculture, and information technology services. In response to mounting losses and heightened competition, Indian exporters have intensified efforts to access alternative markets in the Middle East, Southeast Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Several firms have diversified their product portfolios and invested in supply chain resilience to mitigate ongoing disruptions. The U.S. policy stance has also sparked considerable debate among Indian policymakers and business leaders, prompting a reassessment of participation in Western-led initiatives such as the Quad security dialogue, the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework, and international climate action agreements. As India asserts its interests in a fragmented and rapidly evolving global landscape, its approach to these partnerships may undergo significant transformation, potentially resulting in new regional alliances and a recalibration of its role in global governance. The U.S.-India tariff conflict stands as a direct and forceful challenge to established international trade norms and the authority of multilateral institutions. By imposing broad and punitive tariffs without recourse to dispute resolution in global bodies such as the World Trade Organization, the United States has set a controversial precedent. This threatens to upend the rules-based order underpinning global commerce. Observers warn that this approach may embolden other nations facing political or security disputes to adopt similar protectionist measures. Countries could use trade policy as a lever to advance geopolitical or national security objectives. Such a shift risks further weakening the multilateralism that has defined the post-World War II era. It accelerates the fragmentation of the global trading system as countries increasingly favor bilateral or regional agreements over complex, rules-based frameworks. The resulting uncertainty has already begun to erode trust in the international mechanisms that have supported decades of global economic growth, investment, and integration. The conflict also starkly illustrates the growing intersection of international trade with broader geopolitical strategy. The United States is using trade measures to influence India’s energy policy, specifically its continued reliance on Russian oil. This reflects a wider trend of utilizing economic instruments to achieve strategic objectives. This politicization of trade raises significant concerns among policymakers, business leaders, and economists. It threatens to disrupt established supply chains, create unpredictable commodity market volatility, and undermine the stability of the global economic system as a whole. The use of tariffs as a form of leverage in geopolitical disputes marks a sharp departure from traditional norms. It adds a new layer of complexity and risk to international commerce, investment planning, and cross-border cooperation. Conclusion The U.S.-India tariff conflict extends far beyond a conventional trade dispute. It represents a pivotal juncture in the evolution of the post-Cold War international order. The crisis has compelled nations worldwide to reassess their trade policies, strategic alliances, and broader approaches to economic diplomacy. In the ongoing fragmentation and multipolarization of the global system, the fundamental principles of multilateral trade, collective security, and international cooperation face unprecedented tests. The outcome of this trade conflict will have far-reaching ramifications, not only for the future trajectory of U.S.-India relations but also for the evolution of global governance structures. It will affect the credibility and effectiveness of international institutions and the broader rules and norms that sustain international relations. Whether this crisis leads to renewed efforts at global cooperation or further fractures the world into competing blocs will profoundly shape the future of economic growth, peace, and stability worldwide. Subarna Moni Pradhan is a PhD Scholar in the Department of Peace and Conflict Studies and Management, School of Social Sciences, Sikkim University, India. The views expressed here are the author's personal views ...

As India looks towards the future, it should plan its agricultural policies as much as possible around the WTO-sanctioned flexibilities, which bolster their legitimacy when the country argues its position in multilateral spaces ...

31 July 2025, NIICE Commentary 11514 Sunil Kumar Chaudhary The world of international trade is a high-stakes driver of economic relations among the nations. The latest moves by the US have left observers wondering if they are witnessing a masterstroke or a miscalculation. The imposition of a 25% tariff on Indian goods, coupled with an unspecified “penalty” for India’s ongoing trade with Russia, has sent shockwaves through both economies. Is this an effort to rebalance a perceived unfair trade relationship, or is it a calculated power play designed to bend India to America’s will? The answer, it seems, is a complex mix of both. The official justification for the tariffs is familiar, echoing a rhetoric that has defined US trade policy for some time. The President cited India’s “far too high” tariffs and “strenuous and obnoxious non-monetary trade barriers.” He pointed to the goods trade deficit, which reached an estimated $45.7 billion in 2024, as evidence of an unbalanced relationship that needs to be remedied. From this perspective, the tariffs are a straightforward policy tool - a stick to be wielded to force a more reciprocal trade agreement. The goal is to open up India’s vast and growing market for American products, particularly in politically sensitive sectors like agriculture and dairy, where India’s protective policies have long been a source of frustration for Washington. The tariffs are a blunt instrument, and their application to a country like India, which the US has long courted as a strategic partner, suggests a deeper, more geopolitical motivation. The inclusion of a penalty for India’s trade with Russia is a particularly telling detail. This is an explicit attempt to use economic leverage to influence India’s independent foreign policy. India has maintained a delicate balance in its relationships with global powers, and its ties to Russia. Russia is a major supplier of defense equipment and, more recently, discounted energy, which are a cornerstone of this approach. By linking tariffs to these ties, the US is essentially saying: “Choose us or face the consequences.” This is where the argument of a “policy blunder” comes into play. The US, in its desire to punish Russia and bring India into its orbit, may have underestimated India’s resolve. The Indian government has made it clear that its primary objective is to protect its national interests, including the livelihoods of millions of farmers and small businesses that would be devastated by an influx of cheap American goods. India’s commerce minister has repeatedly stated that a trade deal will only be signed if it is fair, balanced and mutually beneficial. This firm stance, coupled with a renewed focus on domestic manufacturing and export diversification, suggests that India will not be easily swayed by a pressure-driven approach. Moreover, the new tariffs put India at a significant competitive disadvantage compared to its regional rivals. While countries like Japan and South Korea have negotiated more favorable tariff rates with the US, India is facing a blanket 25% duty on virtually all its exports. This could have a devastating impact on labor-intensive sectors like textiles, gems and jewelry, and petrochemicals, which are key drivers of employment in India. The move also complicates the efforts of American companies, like Apple, that have been building a manufacturing base in India as an alternative to China. This inconsistency - pushing for a decoupling from China while simultaneously making Indian exports less competitive. It raises questions about the long-term coherence of the US’s trade strategy. The timing of the tariffs also adds to the complexity. They were announced just before a pre-set deadline for a trade deal, and a US delegation is scheduled to visit India for further talks. This timing suggests that the tariffs are indeed a negotiating tactic. This is a dramatic escalation designed to create a sense of urgency and force India’s hand. From this perspective, the tariffs are not the end of the story, but the beginning of a more intense phase of negotiations. The hope in Washington may be that the economic pain of the tariffs will push New Delhi to the negotiating table with a greater sense of compromise. However, this is a dangerous game. For India, a country with a proud history of strategic autonomy, giving in to such pressure could be seen as a sign of weakness. It could embolden other countries to try similar tactics, and it could damage the political standing of the government at home. The Indian market has not crashed, and while there is concern in export circles, there is also a sense of defiance and a belief that India can weather the storm. The long-term vision is to diversify away from a reliance on any single market, including the US, and to build a more resilient and self-sufficient economy. Whether Trump’s tariffs are a policy blunder or a power play will depend on the outcome. If they lead to a comprehensive trade deal that benefits both countries, they could be seen in retrospect as a necessary, if heavy-handed, negotiating tactic. But if they lead to a prolonged trade war, a deepening of distrust, and a further distancing of India from the US’s strategic goals, they will be remembered as a costly misstep. The path forward for both nations is narrow and fraught with risk. The true test will be whether they can navigate the geopolitical currents and find common ground, or whether the current tensions will prove to be a defining moment that drives them further apart ...

India, with its expanding global footprint and aspirations to become a manufacturing powerhouse, must now navigate the shifting sands of U.S. tariff policies with both caution and creativity ...

25 June 2025, NIICE Commentary 11350 Abhimanyu Bhardwaj For decades, it has been believed—or at least vigorously propagated—that the United States functions as a global force for good. The narrative of American exceptionalism has served as the ideological backbone of U.S. foreign policy since the Second World War. As Charles Krauthammer asserted in Things That Matter, “If someone invades your house, you call the cops. Who do you call if someone invades your country? You dial Washington... In the unipolar world, the closest thing to a centralized authority, is America—American power.” In this view, the U.S. was not just a superpower, but a custodian of the liberal international order, wielding both soft and hard power under the guise of benevolent leadership. In essence, U.S. hegemony was justified not as dominance, but as moral responsibility. However, the emergence of Trumpism has exposed the underlying hypocrisy of this mythos. Far from being a rupture, Trump’s foreign policy represents a discursive shift rather than a strategic one. Washington’s longstanding practices of coercion and regime destabilization were no longer disguised in multilateral language. Instead, threats became explicit. Recently on his Truth Social platform, he infamously wrote: “We know exactly where the so-called ‘Supreme Leader’ is hiding. We are not going to take him out (kill!)—at least not for now… Our patience is wearing thin.” Minutes later, he followed up with “UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!” Such rhetoric marks a shift from hegemonic subtlety to imperial bluntness. Yet, the global response to this shift has been largely mischaracterized. Analysts and commentators often interpret this phase as a deviation from the norm, when in fact it is a continuation of American hegemony, only without the pretense. The discomfort with Trump’s rhetoric stems not from a divergence in objectives but from the collapse of the moral framing that once legitimized those objectives. What is now perceived as American brazenness is not a new pathology but a long-concealed ethos now laid bare. The Myth of Benevolence: Origins and Persistence After the end of the Second World War, and more definitively following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States emerged as the uncontested hegemon in international politics—a position it sought not merely to occupy, but to justify through the moral language of benevolent hegemony. The transition from the Monroe Doctrine’s selective isolationism—which nonetheless included aggressive interventions in Latin America and the Caribbean—to the Truman Doctrine’s active internationalism marked a paradigmatic shift. No longer content with hemispheric dominance, the U.S. rebranded itself as the indispensable guarantor of a liberal world order. This was codified in its Cold War posture: to act as the global “policeman against communism”, shielding “free peoples” from the forces of totalitarianism. Whether it was military intervention in Korea (1950), the prolonged war in Vietnam (1955–1975), or the covert destabilisation of governments in Latin America, the United States consistently justified its actions as being in service of a greater global good. Later interventions followed the same template but adapted to new enemies: the Global War on Terror post-9/11, airstrikes in Pakistan and Afghanistan to the full-scale invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003. Each of these operations was justified in the name of international security and democracy promotion. Yet, this belief system rests on a deeply selective historical memory and a well-calibrated machinery of soft power. American benevolence has been less a reality than a strategically cultivated myth, sustained through Hollywood narratives, public diplomacy, and an overwhelming dominance in global media discourse. As Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky famously argued, the U.S. has long relied on its ability to “manufacture consent”—not just domestically, but globally.  The Reality Behind the Rhetoric: A Legacy of Interference and Intervention U.S. foreign policy, far from being grounded in idealism or the spread of universal values, has consistently been guided by the imperatives of national self-interest and strategic dominance. While the rhetoric of democracy and freedom has remained central to its public diplomacy, American actions have often contradicted these lofty pronouncements. As political scientist Dov H. Levin meticulously documents, between 1946 and 2000, the U.S. engaged in at least 81 instances of electoral interference globally—ranging from covert funding of political parties to disinformation campaigns and more overt interventions. One of the most well-known examples of this interference was in Russia, where the U.S. played a decisive role in shaping the 1996 re-election of Boris Yeltsin. The manipulation was so overt that Time magazine ran a cover story hailing U.S. advisors who “saved” Russia’s democracy—oblivious to the irony of undermining democratic sovereignty in the name of democracy. At the same time, the United States has demonstrated an institutional inability to confront its own atrocities, both past and present. It remains the only country in history to have used nuclear weapons in war, targeting the civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945—an act that resulted in the deaths of over 200,000 people, mostly non-combatants. American alliances have not been contingent upon human rights or democratic values, but upon strategic utility. The apartheid regime in South Africa, military dictatorships in Pakistan, and the occupation policies of Israel have all enjoyed unwavering American support, despite widespread international condemnation.  Perhaps one of the most chilling articulations of American disregard for accountability came in 1988, when the U.S. Navy cruiser USS Vincennes shot down Iran Air Flight 655, a civilian passenger plane, killing all 290 people on board. In response, then-Vice President George H.W. Bush unapologetically stated, “I will never apologize for the United States. I don’t care what the facts are.” This chilling statement encapsulates the pathological confidence with which U.S. foreign policy often operates—prioritizing strategic impunity over moral responsibility. Enter Trump: The Naked Emperor Donald Trump’s “America First” doctrine did not signify a radical departure from the traditional goals of U.S. foreign policy—namely, the preservation of global primacy, and protection of strategic economic interests. Rather, it marked a rhetorical rupture, wherein long-standing imperial objectives were no longer obscured by the language of liberal internationalism. His infamous statement in October 2019, regarding U.S. troops guarding oil fields in Syria—“We're keeping the oil. I’ve always said that. We want to keep the oil.”—was not a strategic misstep but an unvarnished declaration of resource extraction as policy. While prior administrations had pursued similar objectives covertly, Trump simply made them explicit. Likewise, his staunch defense of arms deals with Saudi Arabia, even after the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, highlighted the transactional logic that undergirds U.S. alliances.  In the context of the Russia-Ukraine war, Trump once again broke with diplomatic precedent. During a televised event alongside Senator J.D. Vance, he openly chastised Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, insisting that Kyiv express more gratitude for U.S. assistance. Trump’s accusation that Zelensky was “gambling with World War Three” by rejecting ceasefire proposals brokered by Washington was not just a deviation from the established tone of alliance solidarity—it was an explicit indictment of U.S. aid as conditional patronage, not principled support. Yet the central point remains: Trump is not an anomaly. He is the logical extension of a system that has long prioritized power over principle, merely articulated with unprecedented bluntness. His administration made explicit what others had executed discreetly—supporting coups, arming despots, and enforcing sanctions that disproportionately harmed civilian populations. In that sense, Trump didn’t break the system—he simply broadcast it. Abhimanyu Bhardwaj is a Senior Research Scholar at Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi ...

The future will not be defined merely by who claims sovereignty, but by who controls the infrastructure that defines it. And that makes sovereignty not a fortress, but a flow — one that must be guarded not just by walls, but by wisdo ...