India kowtows to Trump. China leads the fight back

Exactly which world are Indian diplomats living in? They seem to have made surrender into performance art. In one discussion I had with a retired diplomat, it dawned on me that this monastic order does not understand the concept of solidarity. Echoing a well-trodden line made fact by rote, he accused China of always being a “Lone Ranger”, while indicating India had been sage and wise. 

Well, even the EU and Canada had put at least some card chips on the table by raising tariffs in response. If China is the Lone Ranger, then those who live outside the ivory towers of subcontinental elites will be admiring the chutzpah of their Asian neighbour, punching back, leading by example. 

Indeed, as India craves leadership of the Global South, it is China who is the de facto Chief of Operations. With its massive Belt and Road Initiative programme all over the planet (except India), it is definitely not isolated. Now, they enter the boxing ring, reluctantly. They would much prefer genuine diplomacy. 

Diplomacy as reality TV

Trump publicly assured us that “China will make the call,” like the other 70 leaders. When Beijing retaliated he then raised tariffs because, “They hadn’t shown respect.” The president is listening to bad advice. Peter Navarro and Gordon Chang are extreme anti-China experts, leading the new administration down into the darkness. Rare for Elon Musk, he got this one spot-on when he smacked Navarro down. 

Trump sees William McKinley (president from 1897 to 1901)  as his role model on tariffs. Trouble is, the US is no longer the premium manufacturing power it was then. It doesn’t have a ready-made skilled industrial workforce, nor infrastructure.  

Regarding China, some call this a reverse Nixon moment (1972) – when the US recognised Maoist China, as a full partner. The present mercurial leader could quite easily call the whole Tariff thing off once the pause period is over (or even before). It would not surprise me if there was a full-scale aerial offensive on Iran around then, providing media cover. Alternatively, they can double down on treating Mexico like a scene from Sicario (Trump has gone on record saying Mexicans bring drugs, rape and crime to the US). Anything is possible among the chaos. 

Cunning or unprincipled?

Delhi diplomats, leaders and media editors see this as an opportunity. 

Its commerce minister Piyush Goyal explained: “We stand at a moment in history where India is well poised to convert the current situation into an opportunity…an opportunity of a lifetime.” Rather than blame Trump, like the rest of the world was doing, he claimed, “The starting point of this [turmoil] actually goes to the beginning of 2000 when China was admitted as a member of the WTO.” India joined in 1995.

He backs Trump’s argument of blaming all things on China. He then looked rather foolish as Trump backed down and put a pause of 90 days.

Shekhar Gupta, editor and chair of The Print newspaper led with how India should not let a crisis (for China) go to waste. He advocates flinging the gates open to American agriculture, giving Trump a triumph so that he can concentrate his fire on China. A nuanced, calibrated strategy, but still part of a broad consensus the elite holds against the Dragon.  

If only the leaders could have a deep dialogue with their fellow developing countries? Why not talk to Anwar Ibrahim of ASEAN and convey subcontinental solidarity with the 600 million strong bloc? And co-ordinate a response? How about approaching China? Well, that is total anathema.

Meanwhile, Trump has already partially backed down on China, exempting smart-phones and other electronics from the absurd rate of 125 percent. Tamil Nadu leads India’s Apple iPhone assembly but it would take years and years to replace Apple production in China, which still constitutes 80 percent of total outsourced output. 

What now for Indian “opportunity”? Transparent expediency can backfire badly. 

A subcontinent in denial 

Naturally, poor countries cannot afford to suddenly lose a market as large as that of Uncle Sam. They expect some communication from their leaders with Washington, but what about talking to China, this time without the begging bowl? Evenhandedness with a medium-term perspective. 

Delhi should have rallied its immediate neighbours at the BIMSTEC get-together (everyone was aware of Liberation Day coming).  Modi could then have reached out to ASEAN or better still RCEP, the largest trade bloc in the world. Then smaller countries like Sri Lanka, Nepal and Bangladesh could have simultaneously messaged Washington for withdrawal of tariffs, while indicating the door was open for real negotiations (not surrender). 

Then there is BRICS where India could have linked with China and Brazil and the other members (excluding Russia, which had been exempted from the tariff tantrum). 

But, right on cue, on April 3rd, Rahul Gandhi railed against Modi and Jaishankar, for allowing their foreign secretary to have tea with the Chinese ambassador while “China holds 4000 square kilometres of our territory' on the Himalayas.” Has he noticed that 800 million Indians cannot survive without free food handouts? Even Modi realises that if India wants to industrialise, it needs Chinese technicians, components and investment to do so. It took ten years for Modi to learn that lesson. Note he quietly jettisoned the flagship programme Production-linked Incentive (PLI) for its failure to establish “Make in India”.

Whatever happens next, even if Navarro is unceremoniously dispatched to the gulag, South Asia must understand, as Vietnam is painfully, that the US market is no longer the holy grail. It once was in the 1990s and most of the 2000s. It remains the largest single national market, but remember that Bangladesh, for example, sells many more garments to the European Union than to the US.  That seems to have been lost in transmission. Now, diversification in Eurasia and Latin America must be the Order of the Day. 

The Chinese are actively conducting international diplomacy. Xi Jinping is touring Southeast Asia. His commerce minister is doing the same and will land in Dhaka among other places. Ostensibly for investment, on the back of a recent trip by Bangladesh’s temporary leader, it will lead to something else. 

Where does Bangladesh stand?

Last week, Xi Jinping emphasised the neighbourhood. The next decade will be about how much of China's factories relocate to the poorer parts of Asia, primarily South Asia. Now that Trump has politicised trade and investment, Beijing will also identify friendly countries where its companies should invest in. 

The Delhi self-congratulatory posture of “strategic ambiguity”, imitated by its bordering states, will no longer do. In an increasingly bifurcated world, leaders will have to lead. One of their tasks is to choose their primary ally, for economic development and industrialisation.  

Generation Z has brought out mammoth protests in the country against war in the Eastern Mediterranean, demonstrating solidarity over one global issue. They (along with Old Politics) have not joined the dots with the tariffs and the rapidly evolving World Economic Order. 

On this, are the present leaders of Generation Z out of touch with their supporters over China? New Politics remains under the shade of permanently westward-facing Old Politics. They are talking exclusively on domestic reforms and domestic democracy. How about also joining the struggle for global reforms and global democracy?●

Farid Erkizia Bakht is a writer and analyst.