Are India-US Relations at a Crossroads?
In the wake of a terrorist attack in late April targeting tourists in Pahalgam in Indian-administered Kashmir, a series of military skirmishes took place between India and Pakistan. These involved extensive artillery barrages along the Line of Control (the de facto international border in the disputed state of Jammu and Kashmir), the use of drones and missiles to attack a range of targets, and the use of air power.
Following this four-day conflict, Pakistan alleged that it had shot down as many as six Indian combat aircraft. General Anil Chauhan, India's chief of defense staff, confirmed that the Indian Air Force had lost some aircraft but did not specify the number.
After the hostilities concluded, U.S. President Donald Trump claimed that he had successfully persuaded both India and Pakistan to agree to a ceasefire. To that end, he asserted that he had threatened to impose significant trade sanctions on both countries, thereby inducing them to end the ongoing hostilities.
Pakistan lauded his public remarks and even briefly nominated him for the Nobel Peace Prize. (After Trump's decision to attack three nuclear facilities in Iran, Pakistan's political opposition asked its government to rescind the nomination.) India, for its part, has repeatedly and categorically denied that the ceasefire was a product of Trump's intervention.
It is both difficult and unnecessary to adjudicate the veracity of either claim. What matters is that Trump's attempt to insert himself into this latest India-Pakistan crisis has set off alarm bells in New Delhi about the state of India-U.S. relations.
Before Trump proclaimed his role in ending the brief, intense conflict, Vice President J.D. Vance had stated that the India-Pakistan crisis was 'none of our business.' Trump subsequently claimed the U.S. acted as mediator in defusing India-Pakistan tensions.
The latter statement raised hackles in New Delhi owing to its long-standing aversion to external efforts to resolve its differences with Pakistan. Finally, to New Delhi's dismay, Trump decided to host General Asim Munir, the Pakistan Army's chief of staff, for lunch at the White House. Although little of substance emerged from the meeting, the optics were a source of considerable misgiving in New Delhi.
Several Indian political analysts and commentators have argued that Trump's statements and actions suggest a return to the much-disliked U.S. policy of hyphenation: linking India and Pakistan in its dealings with the two antagonistic neighbors. Indeed, this had characterized U.S. policy toward the subcontinent during much of the Cold War.
It was only under the late U.S. Ambassador Frank Wisner in the mid-1990s that Washington decided to de-hyphenate its relations with the two countries. Wisner, who served as the ambassador to New Delhi between 1994 and 1997, was able to pursue this strategy because of India's growing economic clout in the wake of its fitful embrace of economic liberalization in 1991. Subsequent administrations, for the most part, adhered to this policy.
Even after the renewal of a Pakistan-U.S. security relationship following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, in the United States, Washington maintained a cordial and mostly robust relationship with India. The India-U.S. partnership even survived Secretary of State Colin Powell's maladroit designation of Pakistan as a 'major non-NATO ally' in 2004, despite causing its share of unease in New Delhi.
What, in considerable part, redeemed the India-U.S. relationship was President George W. Bush's monumental decision in 2005 to pursue the India-U.S. civilian nuclear accord. This accord, for all practical purposes, exempted India from the strictures of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) of 1970 and allowed it to maintain its nuclear weapons program. All prior U.S. presidents had, to varying degrees, sought to cajole, persuade and even browbeat India to eschew its nuclear weapons program and accede to the NPT.
Bush's decision to make an exception for India amounted to what scholars of international relations refer to as a 'costly signal' — namely, one that requires the expenditure of significant domestic and international political capital. In its wake, India-U.S. relations had been placed on a far more secure footing.
Subsequent administrations, both Democratic and Republican, steadily built upon the solid foundations that Bush had constructed during his second term in office. The Barack Obama administration, for example, during its first year in office, neglected India. However, Obama visited India in 2010. During the visit, much to the surprise of his interlocutors in New Delhi, in a speech to the Indian Parliament he publicly stated that the United States, at some point, would look forward to including New Delhi as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. Since this was a long-standing Indian goal, his announcement came as a very pleasant surprise to the Indian political leadership.
Also, at the initiative of then-Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, the administration designated India as a 'Major Defense Partner,' thereby easing defense acquisitions from the United States.
Even the advent of the first Trump administration did not lead to substantial policy changes. India, it appeared, had for all practical purposes become a mostly bipartisan issue. The Joe Biden administration, despite expressing some misgivings about democratic backsliding and human rights in India, continued to deepen and broaden the strategic partnership, especially because of its concerns about an increasingly assertive, if not downright revanchist, China in Asia.
Trump's return to office in 2025, however, has seen some disturbing signs, largely because of his propensity to use trade as a weapon or at least a source of leverage. Unlike in the past, perhaps cognizant of Trump's inclination to exploit the trade deficit with India as a political blunderbuss, the Modi government indicated a willingness to make certain trade concessions. These trade negotiations, though initially promising, have yet to result in an accord.
Meanwhile, Trump's maladroit remarks and his hosting of General Munir have cast a pall on the India-U.S. relationship. It is, of course, possible that New Delhi is needlessly tying itself in knots about these ill-advised statements from the White House. They may simply reflect Trump's proclivity for self-aggrandizement and a degree of policy incoherence.
That said, given Trump's mercurial disposition, New Delhi's concerns about the future of the relationship may well be understandable. Much of the progress that has been achieved in India-U.S. relations could suffer a setback owing to Trump's ill-advised remarks.
Originally published under Creative Commons by 360info™.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yomiuri Shimbun
38 minutes ago
- Yomiuri Shimbun
Trump Is Set to Cement a Budget-Busting Legacy, Adding to the National Debt
President Donald Trump on Thursday cemented one of the most consequential – and expensive – economic legacies in modern American presidential history, as his Republican allies in Congress approved a second sweeping tax cut that will deepen the nation's fiscal imbalances for years to come. In the president's first term, Trump oversaw a roughly $8 trillion increase in the federal debt, which surged due to his first-term tax cuts and emergency spending approved by Congress during the coronavirus pandemic. Trump's second term began with billionaire Elon Musk in the administration vowing to reduce the federal debt by cutting government spending by more than $1 trillion, following substantial increases to the debt during the Biden administration. But those efforts fizzled as Musk has left the administration, and the second Trump tax cuts are projected to add more than $4 trillion to the national debt, once interest costs and likely policy extensions are accounted for. Taken together, the Trump tax laws mark one of the most significant fiscal expansions in peacetime U.S. history. Economists disagree about the extent to which Trump has exceeded the deficit binge of his predecessors, in part because nobody knows how much revenue the White House will ultimately raise in new tariff revenue. But the One Big Beautiful Bill, which centers on trillions in tax cuts across income brackets, represents the biggest component thus far of the president's deficit-increasing policies. When interest costs and likely extensions are included, the legislation is more expensive than the combined cost of Trump's first-term tax law, the 2020 covid stimulus package, and President Joe Biden's 2021 stimulus plan, said Jessica Riedl, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a center-right think tank. Riedl said that Trump's deficit increases surpass all prior presidents since at least Lyndon B. Johnson, in the 1960s. Other economists, including former Obama official Jason Furman, said George W. Bush probably added more to the deficit overall, though Furman also pointed out that Bush did so while inheriting a budget surplus – whereas Trump took office while deficits were already high. Already, the national debt as a share of the economy was larger last year than it was anytime outside of World War II, the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis or the covid pandemic. Deficit concerns contributed to Moody's downgrading of the U.S. credit rating in May – the third major credit agency to do so – over lack of progress on deficits. 'President Trump has added more red ink than any president since at least LBJ, and he is doing it on top of deficits that had already been soaring,' Riedl said. Biden also added to the national debt, primarily with a $1.9 trillion stimulus package during the first year of his administration. Biden also attempted to cancel roughly $400 billion in student debt, though that effort was later blocked by the Supreme Court. The White House has adamantly rejected economists' criticisms, arguing that the new tax bill does not worsen the nation's fiscal outlook and that the administration's agenda overall improves it. A White House memo last month pointed to more than $1 trillion in cuts to Medicaid and other programs in the legislation, which amount to the largest spending reductions on the U.S. safety net in modern history. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and other officials have also pointed to the administration's broader strategy, which includes higher tariff revenue, cuts to federal regulations they say will unlock growth, and other spending cuts not yet approved. In total, the White House memo says, these measures will reduce federal deficits by up to $6.9 trillion over 10 years. The memo also contends that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office's projections of the deficit impact of the bill are misleading, because they assume the expiration of the 2017 Trump tax cuts. The administration says that assumption isn't politically realistic. On its own, the memo claims, the new tax bill actually reduces projected deficits by over $1.4 trillion over the next decade, in part by spurring additional growth. Budget experts on the left, center and right, as well as on Wall Street, have strongly disputed these claims. Trump's tax law locks in trillions of dollars in revenue losses without equivalent spending cuts, widening structural deficits at a time when the nation's debt is already historically high, these analysts say. While the administration says factoring for economic growth decreases the bill's price tag, the legislation could also cause the Federal Reserve to leave interest rates higher in response to the fiscal stimulus, which would in turn slow the economy. When factoring in economic growth, the Penn Wharton budget model, the Yale Budget Lab and the CBO all found that the House tax bill would become more, not less, expensive. 'This bill is very clear: There are a certain number of tax cuts, there are a certain amount of spending cuts, and they don't offset each other,' said Martha Gimbel, executive director and co-founder of the Budget Lab at Yale. 'No amount of assumptions about the amount of growth we'll get will overcome the reality on the ground.' The implications of these decisions will be felt long after Trump leaves office. Larger deficits will probably constrain the government's ability to respond to future emergencies and place pressure on core federal programs like Social Security and Medicare. With baby boomers retiring and health costs rising, the fiscal space consumed by these tax cuts could crowd out other policy options for years. Under the legislation, the interest payments on the debt will rise to $2 trillion per year, according to the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. Furman, who served as chair of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Barack Obama, pointed out that the Trump tax bill could also make it harder for lawmakers to rein in the debt. In the aftermaths of the Bush tax cuts and those from Trump's first terms, Democrats largely sought to roll back breaks for the wealthy and reallocate some of the savings to deficit reduction or new programs. By contrast, Democrats will want to respond to this new legislation by restoring Medicaid funding, clean energy incentives and other policies repealed by Trump's bill. Those efforts will cost more than the legislation's cut for the rich and corporations, Furman said. Trump's tax bill not only extends existing policies with bipartisan support – a higher Child Tax Credit; a larger standard deduction – but it includes new populist giveaways, including a provision to end taxes on tips and a $6,000 tax deduction for millions of seniors. If those measures are extended, as seems likely, the nation's fiscal imbalance will only grow beyond the bill itself. 'The next Democratic administration will want to make this in some ways fiscally better, but in more ways want to make it fiscally worse,' Furman said. 'It is both worse than current policy and will prove hard to undo.'
Japan Times
an hour ago
- Japan Times
Trump hammers away at Japan for a third day, threatening 35% duties
U.S. President Donald Trump on Tuesday continued to unload on Japan for a third straight day, this time threatening to take tariffs on Japanese goods to as high as 35%. 'We've dealt with Japan. I'm not sure if we're going to make a deal. I doubt it with Japan. They're very tough. You have to understand they're very spoiled,' Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One. As with his earlier broadsides — the first in a Fox News interview Sunday and the second via Truth Social on Monday — the president complained about how little American rice and how few American cars Japan imported, and went on to say that he might simply end negotiations and set a duty rate for Japanese products. 'What I'm going to do is I'll write them a letter saying, 'We thank you very much and we know you can't do the kind of things that we need. And therefore you'll pay 30%, 35% or whatever the number is that we determined,'' Trump said. Japan is currently subject to a 25% additional tariff on vehicles and auto parts and 50% on steel and aluminum. On most other products, the United States charges a 10% "reciprocal" tariff that could rise to 24% if no deal is struck by July 9. 'It's going to be essentially 'Congratulations, and it's going to be an honor to allow you to go and do business in the United States of America,'' Trump went on. 'Because it really is an honor to be able to do that. But we never viewed it that way in this country.' In April, Ryosei Akazawa, Japan's chief tariff negotiator, met with Trump in the Oval Office , wore a red "Make America Great Again" cap and gave the president two thumbs-up. Japan had been fast-tracked, the U.S said. Last Friday, in Washington for his seventh round of tariff talks , Akazawa had a fruitless 65-minute discussion with Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick — plus two short follow-up phone calls — and left town empty-handed. That's when Trump's three days of commentary on Japan and tariffs began. In Tokyo, Trump's recent statements have been met with silence. Akazawa declined to say anything on Monday and Tuesday about the remarks, and Deputy Chief Cabinet Secretary Kazuhiko Aoki had no comment on Wednesday. TV Asahi reported on Wednesday that Akazawa may return to Washington this weekend for an eighth round of talks. Trump's contentious remarks about Japan signal that the U.S. is losing patience after months of unproductive talks, and is now trying to force Japan to make concessions to claim a win. Japan should keep dragging out the talks and avoid making major compromises , observers said. 'The Trump administration is clearly hitting a wall on this issue and on many others,' said Ryo Sahashi, a professor at the University of Tokyo's Institute for Advanced Studies on Asia, in an interview Tuesday. 'From the U.S. side, Japan probably just looks like it's sitting there, and no one can tell what it's really thinking. And that's fine. It's better to drag this out.' In a Fox News interview Tuesday, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who was appointed by Trump to lead negotiations with Japan, said that a deal with Japan might not happen anytime soon. 'We are rebalancing the world's trading system and making it fairer to the American people. And if the deal is not fair for the American people, President Trump has told us not to take it,' he said in reply to a question on the current situation with Japan. U.S. tariff talks have not been progressing as hoped. So far, the U.S. has only managed to strike a deal with the United Kingdom , a country that runs a trade deficit with the U.S. The U.S. claimed progress in the U.S.-China talks, "saying something about rare earths being a 'big deal,' but nobody really sees it that way,' Sahashi said. 'Overall, things just aren't going well.' 'But even so, Japan can't afford to flinch. If we get intimidated by their threats, we lose.' Takahide Kiuchi, executive economist at Nomura Research Institute, pointed out the lack of progress in the U.S. tariff talks with most countries. Given potential consequences, the chances that the U.S. would suddenly notify Japan alone of higher-rate tariffs seem low, he wrote in a Wednesday report. 'After all, Japan has never even hinted at retaliatory sanctions and is seen as a compliant partner,' Kiuchi wrote. 'The Trump administration may find it difficult to take a hard-line approach using tariffs so easily. In the end, it would likely be constrained by market forces.' "Japan is not going to walk away from the table, but that initial eagerness to strike a deal quickly — that feeling Japan had at the very beginning, when it jumped in expecting to secure relatively favorable terms — that sentiment has now significantly diminished,' Sahashi said. 'It's not falling apart. It's more like making sure it doesn't look like it's falling apart — that's kind of Japan's specialty,' Sahashi added. 'You can't just 'boldly exit' trade negotiations."
Nikkei Asia
an hour ago
- Nikkei Asia
'Mr. Japan' refuses to call Trump 'daddy,' and good on him
Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba, left, never flatters U.S. President Donald Trump. The two held a joint news conference at the White House in Washington on Feb. 7. © Reuters William Pesek is an award-winning Tokyo-based journalist and author of "Japanization: What the World Can Learn from Japan's Lost Decades." If only Shigeru Ishiba had gifted Donald Trump a fancy 747 jet. Or if the Japanese prime minister were willing to call the U.S. president "daddy," Tokyo might be having an easier 2025.
