The differences in the two approaches can be more consequential than many realise. In our neighbourhood, the US has aided and armed Pakistan despite openly acknowledging its lack of trust. Indians were left bewildered by this seeming contradiction. However, the US was just being transactional, Pakistan was uniquely placed to help the US combat its arch enemy in Afghanistan — first the Soviet military and then the Taliban, who harboured Bin Laden.
In its dealings with China, India learnt that its otherwise sound diplomatic approach does not work well when the counterparty harbours motives other than friendly relations — such as Hegemony for instance. Not too long after PM Modi was seen on a swing with China’s Xi perched next to him like two long lost lovers, China betrayed the emotion with its incursions into Indian territory.
The recent statement of Dr. S. Jaishankar, India’s Minister of External Affairs, during an interview, which distanced India from the BRICS agenda has led to some commentators claiming that it was a blunder to concede a bargaining chip for nothing. Was it really?
President Trump has been a man in a hurry reaching out to every trouble spot which threatens US interests and demanding a deal under the threat of imposition of tariffs. While India may have been spared a similarly hostile threat for now, Trump has shown a remarkable even handedness, threatening friends, allies and foes alike and his public utterances had already signalled his intent to stamp out the BRICS currency initiative.
Dr. Jaishankar’s statement that India will remain under the American financial architecture was therefore a well conceived move to preempt an inevitable all or nothing confrontation later with Trump. Another such pre-emptive move came with the Union Budget when the tariff on Harley-Davidson motorcycles was brought to realistic levels.
It must surely be apparent that such pre-emptive steps give away nothing. The market for Harley-Davidson is less than silicon thin and the punishing duty rate would have yielded next to nothing. Similarly, the viability of the BRICS currency is a question mark.
If and when the BRICS currency were to come about, it would be of little use unless the BRICS countries themselves form yet another trade bloc. The possibility of India and China forming a trade bloc, given their present state of relations between the countries is remote. The huge trade imbalance with China should in any case make India think long and hard about such a move which would only play further into China’s hands.
India has initiated its own version of the ‘Belt and Road’ which would not remain the prime focus if it was a part of a trade bloc with China. As for Russia, at least those commentators were of the view that US sanctions on Russia left it with no choice but to ally closely with China should now realise that ‘Trumpian USA’ is more likely to be able to tear away Russia from its reliance on China.
And, while it can only be conjecture at this point I dare say that Trump has already reached a tacit understanding with Putin on the state of US-Russia relations and existing sanctions, if Russia gets to keep a large swathe of Ukraine but most definitely Crimea and Donbas which are predominantly Russian in any case.
Even if what this author suspects is ultimately far fetched, there is no doubt that the formation of an alternate trade bloc is unlikely to upset the predominance of the US dollar. The EU with its single currency is already a far more unified trading bloc but has not made a dent on the supremacy of the US dollar.
Critics of Dr. Jaishankar’s “revelation” or “concession” as you may prefer, also fail to note the importance of the forthcoming visit of President Trump to the Quad nations. While the Quad is not going to transform into an Asian NATO, it can be a regional alliance with much more on it’s plate than just making the right noises.
Such developments can be of immense importance to India’s security which is presently worrisome — considering China’s ‘string of pearls’ — and far more important than the almost meaningless concessions to President Trump meant to prevent the latter’s misgivings about India. The pre-emptive declaration of Dr. Jaishankar is therefore much more than India revisiting its past idealism and learning to also be transactional. It is a well thought out move on the chess board of geopolitics. Richelieu and Guicciardini would be proud.
—The author, Percival Billimoria, is a Senior Advocate practicing at the Supreme Court of India, and an expert in international law. The views are personal.
