bilateral-trade

Chicago [US], September 26 (ANI): The Trump administration’s aggressive stance against India’s purchases of Russian oil marks a stark departure from the Biden era’s pragmatic tolerance, potentially jeopardising bilateral trade negotiations and raising questions about Washington’s reliability as a partner for New Delhi, according to Paul Poast, Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Chicago.

Speaking to ANI on Friday, Poast highlighted how former US President Joe Biden’s “realpolitik” approach allowed India flexibility on energy imports as it played a critical role in the Quad alliance, which was formed to counter China’s assertiveness in the Indo-Pacific region.

“Biden had a realpolitik view of foreign policy… With India, Biden noted that India is doing what it thinks is in its best interest, and moreover, Biden had a lot of knowledge and expertise in foreign policy. That’s why he was Obama’s vice president. He could say, we’re going to tolerate India buying this energy from Russia because we need India in the Quad to be able to balance against China,” Poast explained.

According to Poast, this approach sharply contrasts with Donald Trump’s uncompromising position, which views these oil imports as direct support for Russia’s war machine against Ukraine.

“Trump has a bit of a different view… Trump has long made it a focal point that if Russia is this threat, you don’t buy energy from them… This is something that, since the beginning of the war, India has played the key role of, being willing to buy the energy from Russia largely out of their own interests… But I think Trump again has more of this view that no, that is how Russia’s thriving and I don’t care if you’re India, I don’t care if you’re the European countries, I don’t care who you are, if you’re buying that, that’s not an acceptable policy,” Poast added.

Commenting on the ongoing US-India trade negotiations, Poast said it was unlikely that trade deals would move independently of the Russia oil issue, noting that the Trump administration has a history of prioritising optics over substance in trade negotiations.

“I would tend to think that they’re going to go in tandem. The two things can’t be fully separated… The deals that they (the Trump administration) have reached so far on trade haven’t really been trade deals. There have been more framework deals, where they have an agreement on the issues, where they eventually have some provisions for discussions and adjustments. Many of these have been more of these framework deals… So I wouldn’t be shocked if, after all the dust settles with these negotiations, it’s going to be like, there’s a new deal which allows Trump to claim there’s a deal, but fundamentally, it just caused a lot of consternation or not really much of an outcome in terms of actually changing anything,” he said.

He compared the potential India trade deal to recent US agreements with Vietnam, the UK, and the EU, which he described as “more symbolic than transformative”.

“You could level that with the agreement with Vietnam, the UK, the EU… I think a deal with India is going to be in the same camp, in that it’s going to allow Trump to be able to say, okay, we’ve got this great deal and India is a terrific partner and etc., but it’s not going to fundamentally, there’s still going to be a lot of questions,” he added. (ANI)

Source

The article has been published through a syndicated feed. Except for the headline, the content has been published verbatim. Liability lies with original publisher.