The US Under-Secretary for Defence, Elbridge Colby, stated in a tweet on 14 August, while referring to the 80th anniversary of the surrender of Japan, “That is the policy we are carrying to our allies in the Asia-Pacific.”
The US Under-Secretary for Defence, Elbridge Colby, stated in a tweet on 14 August, while referring to the 80th anniversary of the surrender of Japan, “That is the policy we are carrying to our allies in the Asia-Pacific.” Why the switch from ‘Indo-Pacific to Asia-Pacific?’ This was not corrected even after being questioned which implied it was intended. After all, it was Trump himself who coined the phrase in his earlier term as President. It could be argued that this message was aimed at Southeast Asian nations.
The logic does not hold ground, as Pete Hegseth, the US Secretary of Defence, addressing a similar audience at the Shangri La dialogue in Singapore in May this year mentioned, “It has to be clear to all that Beijing is credibly preparing to potentially use military force to alter the balance of power in the Indo-Pacific.” Something changed between May and now. Could it be deterioration in Indo-US ties or is it a signal of the US cozying up to Pakistan? Currently, Pakistan and China continue to refer to the region as ‘Asia-Pacific.’ Trump’s imposition of tariffs including additional ones for procuring Russian oil was termed as sanctions by the White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt. Simultaneously, Trump placed trade talks on hold.
Advertisement
Trump’s anger towards India increased after PM Modi rejected his statement of having brokered peace with Pakistan and refused his offer to visit the White House post the G7 summit, when he hosted Asim Munir for lunch. Most of Trump’s former advisors have cautioned him against targeting India, which they claim is essential to keep China at bay. Nikki Haley mentioned, “It would serve America’s interests to help India stand up to China.” She subsequently changed her stance and mentioned that India should consider the US demand on Russian oil seriously and work to resolve the trade dispute. Was this on a suggestion by the administration? Trump’s advisors including Trade advisor Peter Navarro, Secretary of Treasury Scott Bessent and Senator Lindsay Graham have been defending additional tariffs imposed on India.
Navarro has written on it in the Financial Times and has also given multiple interviews, all aimed at justifying the US action. Navarro mentioned in a media interaction, “They get cheap Russian oil and make refined products which they sell at premium prices in Europe, Africa and Asia. It is purely profiteering by the Indian refining industry.” He added, “India does not want to recognise its role in the bloodshed.” Why are members of the US administration working overtime to defend Trump’s decision? Only the guilty repeat the same lie, hoping it gets taken for the truth. Was this the intent? Navarro, Bessent and Graham have even demanded that Europe stop procuring refined oil from India and join the US on additional tariffs. Europe has refused to act.
The EU has imposed a ban on import of refined oil which is slated to come into effect from January 2026. Meanwhile French President Emmanuel Macron spoke with PM Modi. He tweeted, “On trade issues, we agreed to strengthen our economic exchanges and our strategic partnership in all areas; this is the key to our sovereignty and independence.” The Indian readout mentioned, “President Macron also conveyed support for early conclusion of the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) between India and the EU.” India and the EU continuing trade talks is contrary to American demands. At the same time Trump appointed his close associate and White House personnel chief, 38-year-old Sergio Gor as the new ambassador to India. He would also be Trump’s Special Envoy on South and Central Asian Affairs.
This is a first such trilateral appointment. India has not commented. Gor has no diplomatic experience nor any previous link with India, unlike most of his predecessors. He has yet to be confirmed by the US Congress. This appointment sends mixed messages. Gor could be a boon as he has direct access to the White House, which is beneficial during troubled times, as at present. Simultaneously, his additional task as Special Envoy indicates that the US would seek to play a larger role in the region, especially between India and Pakistan, something India has refused to accept. If he attempts to equate India and Pakistan in his secondary role, it could impair Indo-US ties. India has largely displayed maturity on US’s actions.
PM Modi has neither named the US in his statements on countermeasures being adopted to cater for the tariffs nor has he rushed to Washington to speak to Trump. India’s response has flowed from Foreign Minister Dr S Jaishankar. He has questioned US actions and justified India’s stand on different platforms. On illogical tariffs and justifying Indo-Russia trade he said: “The overall Russia-EU trade is bigger than the Russia-India trade. If the argument is energy, they (EU) are bigger buyers. If the argument is who is the bigger trader, they are bigger than us.”
On the Indo-US differences and trade agreement talks he laid down India’s red lines which were prioritizing interests of farmers, defending India’s strategic autonomy and mediation with Pakistan. Jaishankar also added, “If you have a problem buying oil or refined products from India, don’t buy it. Nobody forces you to buy it. Europe buys, America buys, so you don’t like it, don’t buy it.” The message to Washington could not have been clearer. India will not bend while seeking a balanced trade agreement.
Meanwhile, Indo-US defence ties remain robust. As per inputs, HAL and GE of the US are to shortly begin negotiations on producing fighter jet engines to power the Tejas Mark II aircraft. These are to include 80 per cent technology transfer, and less critical components be manufactured in India. Other defence procurements remain on track. This implies that both nations are determined to keep defence distinct from the on-going diplomatic and economic battle.
This is a good sign as it indicates that some strategic goals remain aligned. Currently both are exploiting the media to defend their actions. For India to insist its trade with Moscow is legitimate, while Washington believes that the road to resolution of the conflict flows through New Delhi. Both are displaying their options. India is moving closer to Russia and China while Washington refuses to back down, insisting that Europe join hands with it. The longer the differences linger the greater the damage. The world’s largest and oldest democracies need to talk and resolve their differences rather than blow things apart.
(The writer is a retired Major-General of the Indian Army.)
