Who's the Nato chief to warn India on trade?
This provocative statement directed at sovereign nations, including India, coming from the head of a military alliance, instantly raises questions about diplomatic overreach and propriety.And to top it all, the sheer doublespeak.The threat looms over countries like India, but strangely, the hammer never seems to fall on European nations, even though they're still buying Russian oil themselves. In the third year of the Russia-Ukraine War, Europe's fossil fuel imports from Moscow dropped by just 1% year-on-year. So, who exactly needs the lecture on responsible trading?This is why Rutte's bid to dictate India's trade policies is purely misguided.NATO IS NOT A TRADE POLICEMANMark Rutte is the Secretary General of Nato, which is a military alliance focused on collective defence, and not a body governing global trade.His warning to India, a sovereign nation with no Nato affiliation, oversteps his mandate.Rutte's comments followed Trump's announcement of new weapons for Ukraine. This hints that there is an alignment of Nato with the US policy, which is not at all surprising.Trump has seen Brics as an anti-US bloc that is trying to bring in a currency that would undermine the American dollar.Not to forget, the US is a Nato member, and its biggest contributor.In fact, Trump has been arm-twisting other Nato members, pushing them to spend more on defence needs.Does Rutte's warning actually reveal his abject surrender to Trump's threats?Trade disputes and their resolution belong in fora like the World Trade Organisation (WTO), which, although, face their share of criticisms of bias, has the jurisdiction to address such issues. Nato's role is security, not economic coercion, and Rutte's foray into trade threats, parroting US President Donald Trump, confirms the obvious.INDIA NEEDS NO LECTURE ON PEACE, NON-ALIGNMENTadvertisementRutte's call for India to "make the phone call to Vladimir Putin" to push for peace is patronising and dismissive of India's diplomatic efforts. India has consistently advocated for peace, with Prime Minister Narendra Modi stating, "This is not the era of war", during global summits.Why should India, China, or Brazil be the ones calling Putin? Did Trump's battering of Zelenskyy not work last time, or is the "daddy's" desperation to grab a Nobel Peace Prize getting more intense?India has balanced its strategic autonomy by abstaining from UN resolutions condemning Russia while engaging in dialogue with all parties. Rutte's allegation that India is not doing enough is not only unfounded but also insults New Delhi's proactive role in trying to foster dialogue between Russia and Ukraine.In August 2024, Modi called up Russia's Putin, a day after he spoke to US President Joe Biden. The calls come close on the heels of his trip to Ukraine.Such a tone towards a strategic partner doesn't foster cooperation. It only alienates them. Though frankly, it's no surprise. The US and its administrations, including Trump's, have used this kind of language, or even harsher, for their own so-called "closest allies" before.advertisementNATO CAN'T SANCTION. AND SHOULDN'T TRYThreatening India with sanctions for buying Russian oil, described as "slamming back in a massive way", is coercive, not diplomatic messaging. It aligns with Trump's aggressive tariff threats, but Nato certainly lacks the authority to impose sanctions.India's increased imports of discounted Russian oil since 2022 is a pragmatic move driven by energy security, not an alarming alignment. Threatening a sovereign nation for prioritising its economic interests, especially when Western countries have historically done the same, frankly reeks of hypocrisy.Rutte's warning comes suspiciously close to the Brics summit, hosted by Brazil last week. The Brics' growing influence, expanding footprint, with discussions on alternatives to the petrodollar system gaining traction.Rutte's statement, following Trump's frustration with the Brics' "anti-American policies", appears less about Ukraine and more about countering the bloc's rising clout. This timing of the warning suggests it is also looking to tame the Brics' success, rather than a genuine call for peace.NATO IS STRAYING FROM ITS MANDATEThe use of Nato, a security alliance, to meddle in India's bilateral trade policies blurs critical lines between diplomacy and coercion.US senators are pushing a bill for 500% tariffs on countries trading with Russia. It also hints towards a broader Western agenda.advertisementNato's involvement in economic threats risks tarnishing its credibility as a security-focused entity, and casts Rutte as a mouthpiece for Washington's trade office rather than one of the security establishment.INDIA'S ENERGY POLICY IS NOBODY'S TO DICTATERutte's, in the warning, perhaps assumes India's energy policy is overly reliant on Russia. It is misleading. India has diversified its oil imports, sourcing from the Middle East, Africa, and the US. Meanwhile, it leverages discounted Russian oil to stabilise domestic prices. That's India's pragmatic approach of balancing economic interests with global diplomacy.Expecting India to abandon this strategy to align with Western demands ignores its energy security needs and the realities of a multipolar world.The world is no longer unipolar, it's not even bipolar any more. We're clearly heading toward a multipolar order.Rutte's warning to India is a clear violation of diplomatic boundaries. It is a condescending tone toward a sovereign nation, and a misuse of Nato's authority. It misreads India's independent global posture and its balanced approach to the Russia-Ukraine war.India, as it has for decades, acts responsibly. It prioritises its energy security and advocates for peace without succumbing to external pressure. As the External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar has, on multiple occasions, pointed out, the world must engage with India as an equal partner, not issue ultimatums through inappropriate channels. He said India did not need preachers, but partners.advertisementRutte's statement wasn't just disrespectful. It was the wrong message, delivered in the wrong way, by absolutely the wrong person.- Ends
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
8 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Had ceasefire due to common sense of both govts: Pakistan ex-foreign minister
'We had a ceasefire because both governments had the common sense, and they decided that enough was enough,' said former Pakistan foreign minister Khurshid Mahmud Kasuri, while addressing a seminar virtually on India-Pakistan relations in New Delhi on Saturday. 'Give credit where it is due. It was not any DGMO. It was the highest level of India and Pakistan that wanted the war to an end,' added the former minister, who served under President Pervez Musharraf. On statements of President Donald Trump regarding mediating a ceasefire, Kasuri said that 'this wasn't the first time, but the fifth time (that the US had intervened between India and Pakistan),' starting from former US defence secretary Robert Gates, former President Bill Clinton, former US Secretary of State Colin Powell and former President Barack Obama. Ever since the ceasefire on May 10, President Trump has repeatedly claimed that he brokered peace between India and Pakistan after the four-day military hostilities. New Delhi has consistently maintained that the two sides halted their actions following direct talks between their militaries without any mediation by the US. The seminar, titled 'India Pakistan Relations: Dialogue For Peace', organised by Delhi-based Centre for Peace and Progress, came in the wake of the Pahalgam terror attack and Operation Sindoor, and had speakers from India and Pakistan interacting virtually on the future of ties. It also came just a day after the US designated The Resistance Front — a shadow outfit of banned terror group Lashkar-e-Taiba, which had claimed responsibility for the Pahalgam attack — as a foreign terrorist organisation. Kasuri also batted for 'discreet, back-channel National Security Advisor-level talks' between the two countries. 'If NSAs are not acceptable, anybody who has the confidence in the two governments, the two Prime Ministers should be (holding talks)… with the sole purpose of preventing the next war,' he said. Tanvir Sadiq, NC MLA from J&K, among the speakers from the Indian side, said there is stalemate right now in the ties, with the two countries just coming back from the brink of war. However, he said, 'Do you think this is an appropriate time for India and Pakistan to talk? Sadly, no. But do India and Pakistan have to talk? Definitely, yes.' However, without naming any third country, Sadiq batted for 'friends' of both countries to bring them together for talks. 'If you think India and Pakistan will sit on the table and discuss things that won't be possible. We will have to get friends of both India and Pakistan to make sure the two neighbours sit on the table,' added the legislator from Srinagar's Zadibal. Former Indian High Commissioner to Pakistan, T C A Raghavan, said that the present crisis comes from a problem of a structural nature. 'Across the political spectrum in both countries, every shade of political opinion at some point of time or the other has been in government, and during those times, there has been an India-Pakistan problem,' he said, adding that it is not something which has happened only now. For 35 years, the nature of the structural problem has focussed itself on terrorism, he said. 'No formula can resolve it; you can live with it or work around it… There was a greater understanding of that problem in Pakistan 20 years ago than it is now,' he said, referring to ex-Pakistan President Musharraf assuring India of not using terrorism to advance his political aims. Divya A reports on travel, tourism, culture and social issues - not necessarily in that order - for The Indian Express. She's been a journalist for over a decade now, working with Khaleej Times and The Times of India, before settling down at Express. Besides writing/ editing news reports, she indulges her pen to write short stories. As Sanskriti Prabha Dutt Fellow for Excellence in Journalism, she is researching on the lives of the children of sex workers in India. ... Read More
Indian Express
8 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Embassy: Students to US should keep social media public for visa duration
With the new academic season in the US starting next month, all international students applying to study in the country will need to keep their social media profiles public not only while applying for a visa but also during its validity period — in effect, during their entire study course. 'All student and exchange visitor visa applicants (F, M and J visa classes) are requested to adjust the privacy settings on all of personal social media profiles to 'public' in order to facilitate vetting necessary to establish the applicant's admissibility to the United States,' said a spokesperson from the US Embassy in New Delhi in response to a query from The Indian Express. 'Security vetting runs from the time of each application, through adjudication of the visa, and afterwards during the validity period of every issued visa, to ensure the individual remains eligible to travel to the United States,' the spokesperson said. Last month, the Embassy had cited 'public safety and national security' in the visa process while mandating those applying to study in the US to make their social media profiles public. The F category visa in the US refers to the F-1 student visa, meant for international students who wish to pursue academic studies at a US institution, while the M visa (M-1) is a non-immigrant visa for individuals pursuing vocational or other nonacademic studies. The J-1 enables foreign nationals to come to the US to teach, study, conduct research, or receive on the job training for periods ranging from a few weeks to several years. In 2023-24, Indian students formed the largest cohort of international students in the US, with 3.31 lakh enrolments. In the Financial Year 2024, the US issued 4,00,737 F-1, 6,322 M-1 and 3,22,820 J-1 visas, according to State Department data. In May, the Donald Trump administration had asked US embassies around the world to stop scheduling appointments for student visas as it expanded scrutiny of applicants' social media posts following widespread protests on campuses against Israel's bombing in Gaza. At the time, The Indian Express had reported that the decision had led to anxiety among Indian students preparing to begin their studies in the US and those already enrolled in American universities. Several of these students had said they were reviewing their digital footprints to secure their academic future. On June 18, the State Department announced the resumption of student visa interviews. 'Our overseas posts will resume scheduling F, M and J non-immigrant visa applications soon. Applicants should check the relevant embassy or consulate website for appointment availability,' it had said. Asserting that 'US visa is a privilege, not a right', it had said: 'We use all available information in our visa screening and vetting to identify visa applicants who are inadmissible to the US, including those who pose a threat to US national security. Under new guidance, we will conduct a comprehensive and thorough vetting, including online presence, of all student and exchange visitor applicants in the F, M and J non-immigrant classifications.' According to the Embassy, the rule is mandated for all countries and, since 2019, the US has required visa applicants to provide social media identifiers on immigrant and non-immigrant visa application forms. Divya A reports on travel, tourism, culture and social issues - not necessarily in that order - for The Indian Express. She's been a journalist for over a decade now, working with Khaleej Times and The Times of India, before settling down at Express. Besides writing/ editing news reports, she indulges her pen to write short stories. As Sanskriti Prabha Dutt Fellow for Excellence in Journalism, she is researching on the lives of the children of sex workers in India. ... Read More
Indian Express
8 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Fishers' body slams Govt for allowing deep-sea vessels
The All India Deep Sea Fishers' Association has come out against the Union Fisheries Ministry's decision to allow large vessels to operate in deep-sea areas beyond India's sovereign maritime zone. In a letter to Union Minister for Fisheries, Animal Husbandry & Dairying and Panchayati Raj Rajeev Ranjan Singh, the association said the decision will impact the fortunes of small-scale traditional fishing vessels. Association chief Charles George said the decision to allow Indian-owned vessels in deep sea was part of the Blue economy policy of the Union Government unveiled in 2020. 'We request the Union government… revitalise small-scale and traditional fishermen through modernisation, cooperative strengthening and fair subsidies.'' Urging the government to reject the push for industrial deep-sea vessels, the association said such a move will only worsen ecological and economic crises. George said as per Central government data, 3,14,677 fishing vessels operate within India's Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). 'However, sustainable fishing practices require only 93,287 vessels… Yet, we cannot outright claim that we have crossed sustainability thresholds because we have predominantly small-scale and traditional vessels.'' The body rejected the government stand that allowing large vessels for deep-sea fishing will help tap the hitherto untapped resources. 'Only 4 per cent of India's fish wealth lies in deep waters… due to scarcity in deep waters, these vessels eventually encroach into near-shore zones. Now, with 1.5 to 4 lakh-watt LED lights at the huge vessels attracting fish from coastal waters, the pressure on already strained near-shore ecosystem will intensify… devastate thousands of small-scale boats operating in deep waters, where 64,000 fishermen are working,'' said the association chief.
