India

As the US-India episode plays out, the Donald Trump administration has recently hammered India on four fronts - tariffs, drug abuse, immigration and religious freedom, applying maximum pressure across the board. A report released on March 31 by the Office of the US Trade Representative criticized India's trade policies in areas such as agriculture, intellectual property, data and healthcare, while placing India on the "Priority Watch List." Meanwhile, India now faces a 26 percent tariff hike after the Trump administration's recent announcement of "reciprocal tariffs" on all foreign goods.

It is obvious India is facing unprecedented pressure from Washington. 

This could place their bilateral relationship in a state of heightened uncertainty.

Against the backdrop of the China-India border disputes, the US had both the motivation and opportunity to employ a strategy historically favored by Anglo-Saxon maritime powers facing rising continental states - a strategy of offshore balancing. Specifically, the US aimed to incite India to contain and exhaust China, simultaneously exploiting India's relatively weaker and dependent position by turning it into a captive market for weapons and energy products, ensuring maximum benefits under all circumstances. Additionally, the US viewed India as an alternative to China in the global supply chain, hoping to foster a production system within India firmly under American control.

As long as India demonstrated potential for replacing Chinese production capacity, it continually received American technology, investment and diplomatic support, effectively allowing India to sell its future strategic value to the US for immediate gains. The US, valuing India's strategic capability to counterbalance China, provided India with more rights and fewer obligations.

However, entering Trump's second term, this arrangement has become increasingly unsustainable. 

Geopolitically, compared to Biden's administration, the current US administration adheres more closely to isolationist policies, significantly scaling back America's global footprint and even exhibiting tendencies to retreat to the North American continent. This shift indicates a marked decrease in American interest in containing China through the "Indo-Pacific Strategy," thus reducing America's willingness to pay for India's strategic value and future potential.

Economically, the US administration's emphasis on manufacturing reshoring has led to trade disputes even with neighbors like Canada and Mexico, effectively nullifying nearshoring and friendshoring strategies. Consequently, instead of offering India special consideration in global supply chains, the US under Trump has imposed the latest tariffs on India, forcing economic concessions. 

Moreover, the Trump administration has not only withdrawn earlier US support but also pressed India to purchase substantial quantities of American weapons, energy products and technologies, compelling India to sacrifice its longstanding ties with countries like Russia and France to satisfy American demands.

Fundamentally, Trump's policy toward India revolves around maximizing its profits with minimal obligations, extracting every possible advantage without sharing responsibilities. This strategy brutally exposes India's vulnerable strategic position to the entire global community. This also explains the Narendra Modi government's frustration and regret toward recent US-India interactions. And this frustration and regret can hardly be eased despite the two countries having a series of interactions later this month and beyond, such as the upcoming India visits by the US vice president and national security advisor.

Interestingly, countries closely aligned with the US often become prime targets of its exploitation, while those maintaining autonomy actually gain more leverage. 

Consequently, India's foreign strategy recently has increasingly favored improved relations with China, as this shift serves India's interests by increasing its bargaining power with the US and freeing resources previously tied up in border confrontations. 

The author is an associate researcher at the International Cooperation Center of the National Development and Reform Commission. opinion@globaltimes.com.cn