India's conversations with the US have been marked by startling contradictions of late. While the tonality has improved amid renewed progress on a trade deal, the policy directive on H-1B visas goes against the new momentum. And, yet, the US has put a 'technical hold' on a China-Pakistan proposal to sanction Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) in the UN, while at the same time doing away with the waiver to India on Iran sanctions for making the Chabahar port.
Also, having taken the extreme line of losing India to China following the SCO summit, Donald Trump himself went on to exude newfound warmth with Xi Jinping over the possibility of a TikTok deal. He has been silent on Quad, put AUKUS on review, leaving Australia and Britain on tenterhooks over a White House endorsement despite them having met every other demand.
This may all look flummoxing. But the problem is with the frame through which the world has seen, interpreted and understood the US. And it's a frame that the US itself has projected for decades, which others, in due course, accepted. This rested on a political understanding of 'who's good and who's bad' in the world, and that the US was always the force that 'stood with the good'.
The 'good-bad' frame is how allies and adversaries were sorted. The list had its share of regular amendments. Later, with the Cold War's end, it had its own shades of grey. But, broadly, the US persisted with this political frame. Until now.
Trump's Washington appears to have a new construct: the 'winner-loser' frame. Here, it's vital that the US must not just win, but also be acknowledged 'winner' in every deal. Which means that every transaction stands on its own merit, largely divorced from any bigger geopolitical picture, but each adding to a string of wins firmly linked to Trump's domestic agenda and political projection.
Take the decisions on India. The H-1B order caters to a MAGA constituency that visualises India through the phenomenal success of the Indian diaspora, particularly its tech achievers - and not only as a strategic partner in the Indo-Pacific, which would necessitate certain exceptional treatment. Similarly, the Chabahar project ran into Trump's domestic positioning on Iran and its nuclear programme. Just like India's oil purchases from Russia were built up as a leverage New Delhi should use in influencing Moscow's actions in the Ukraine conflict.
Trump has politically conveyed a domestic win on these fronts by showcasing the $100K H-1B visa fee, as well as 50% tariffs on India, besides bringing its assets in Chabahar under the ambit of Iran sanctions. At the same time, there's room for conversation beneath the surface of these victories. This is why trade talks are still in play and a clarification on the prospective implementation of the H-1B order could be made within 24 hours of the announcement.
So, how does one continuously prise open this space for negotiation, while fielding political onslaught from Washington? Three elements hold the key:
Conveying autonomy: It's important to establish autonomy of action and decision-making as a strategic player. This essentially translates into being able to make maximum political and economic play with other actors. The SCO summit was one such occasion, where India conveyed it can work with China and Russia who seek to challenge US dominance.
Demonstrate derisking: It's clear that the Trump regime had sought to exploit dependencies of allies and partners to its political advantage. Forcing concessions out of this set of countries is like low-hanging fruits that give quick wins that can be championed domestically. Hence, substantive outcomes for India with other geographies, like firming up the trade deal with the EU, are critical to building redundancies - a win-win deal, which gradually reduces dependence on the US.
Negotiating wins: Trump's claims on wins, perhaps as a tactic, are mostly premature. He has done so with India on several occasions already. It was also seen in trade deal claims with Japan and the EU, where the details were still not closed when he announced it. So, the way forward is to count on the micro-negotiations that follow, where a lot of ground can possibly be recovered, like the H-1B clarification.
Saudi Arabia's nuclear security deal with Pakistan is a good instance of how countries, despite their overall dependence, are deploying these methods in tandem to build strategic redundancies. For Riyadh, the problem was whether it could fully rely on US security guarantees after Israel's attacks in Qatar. Also, there's no foolproof evidence that Iran's capabilities to make a nuclear bomb have been destroyed.
In this backdrop, Saudi Arabia has invoked a partner in Pakistan, which is significantly dependent on its financial support, to extend its nuclear umbrella. If nothing, it allows Saudi Arabia to signal to the Sunni world that its main religious centre is protected as matters hot up in the region.
Trump's 'winner-loser' frame, when applied to each transaction, is likely to undermine the US' traditional role as guarantor of global commons, its security, and a willingness to intervene where necessary. This could impact key frameworks of cooperation, from terrorism to proliferation and maritime security. Response of countries not invested enough in security matters will be in the form of increased defence expenditure, proliferation, weapon building, and bilateral/regional military guarantees.
But for Trump, that's a problem for another day. Domestic wins are critical to sustain and fuel a changing new polity in the US, a shift that informs the core of the geopolitical upheaval unleashed by the Trump White House.
Add Now!
Also, having taken the extreme line of losing India to China following the SCO summit, Donald Trump himself went on to exude newfound warmth with Xi Jinping over the possibility of a TikTok deal. He has been silent on Quad, put AUKUS on review, leaving Australia and Britain on tenterhooks over a White House endorsement despite them having met every other demand.
This may all look flummoxing. But the problem is with the frame through which the world has seen, interpreted and understood the US. And it's a frame that the US itself has projected for decades, which others, in due course, accepted. This rested on a political understanding of 'who's good and who's bad' in the world, and that the US was always the force that 'stood with the good'.
The 'good-bad' frame is how allies and adversaries were sorted. The list had its share of regular amendments. Later, with the Cold War's end, it had its own shades of grey. But, broadly, the US persisted with this political frame. Until now.
Trump's Washington appears to have a new construct: the 'winner-loser' frame. Here, it's vital that the US must not just win, but also be acknowledged 'winner' in every deal. Which means that every transaction stands on its own merit, largely divorced from any bigger geopolitical picture, but each adding to a string of wins firmly linked to Trump's domestic agenda and political projection.
Take the decisions on India. The H-1B order caters to a MAGA constituency that visualises India through the phenomenal success of the Indian diaspora, particularly its tech achievers - and not only as a strategic partner in the Indo-Pacific, which would necessitate certain exceptional treatment. Similarly, the Chabahar project ran into Trump's domestic positioning on Iran and its nuclear programme. Just like India's oil purchases from Russia were built up as a leverage New Delhi should use in influencing Moscow's actions in the Ukraine conflict.
Trump has politically conveyed a domestic win on these fronts by showcasing the $100K H-1B visa fee, as well as 50% tariffs on India, besides bringing its assets in Chabahar under the ambit of Iran sanctions. At the same time, there's room for conversation beneath the surface of these victories. This is why trade talks are still in play and a clarification on the prospective implementation of the H-1B order could be made within 24 hours of the announcement.
So, how does one continuously prise open this space for negotiation, while fielding political onslaught from Washington? Three elements hold the key:
Conveying autonomy: It's important to establish autonomy of action and decision-making as a strategic player. This essentially translates into being able to make maximum political and economic play with other actors. The SCO summit was one such occasion, where India conveyed it can work with China and Russia who seek to challenge US dominance.
Demonstrate derisking: It's clear that the Trump regime had sought to exploit dependencies of allies and partners to its political advantage. Forcing concessions out of this set of countries is like low-hanging fruits that give quick wins that can be championed domestically. Hence, substantive outcomes for India with other geographies, like firming up the trade deal with the EU, are critical to building redundancies - a win-win deal, which gradually reduces dependence on the US.
Negotiating wins: Trump's claims on wins, perhaps as a tactic, are mostly premature. He has done so with India on several occasions already. It was also seen in trade deal claims with Japan and the EU, where the details were still not closed when he announced it. So, the way forward is to count on the micro-negotiations that follow, where a lot of ground can possibly be recovered, like the H-1B clarification.
Saudi Arabia's nuclear security deal with Pakistan is a good instance of how countries, despite their overall dependence, are deploying these methods in tandem to build strategic redundancies. For Riyadh, the problem was whether it could fully rely on US security guarantees after Israel's attacks in Qatar. Also, there's no foolproof evidence that Iran's capabilities to make a nuclear bomb have been destroyed.
In this backdrop, Saudi Arabia has invoked a partner in Pakistan, which is significantly dependent on its financial support, to extend its nuclear umbrella. If nothing, it allows Saudi Arabia to signal to the Sunni world that its main religious centre is protected as matters hot up in the region.
Trump's 'winner-loser' frame, when applied to each transaction, is likely to undermine the US' traditional role as guarantor of global commons, its security, and a willingness to intervene where necessary. This could impact key frameworks of cooperation, from terrorism to proliferation and maritime security. Response of countries not invested enough in security matters will be in the form of increased defence expenditure, proliferation, weapon building, and bilateral/regional military guarantees.
But for Trump, that's a problem for another day. Domestic wins are critical to sustain and fuel a changing new polity in the US, a shift that informs the core of the geopolitical upheaval unleashed by the Trump White House.
Add 
as a Reliable and Trusted News Source
as a Reliable and Trusted News Source Add Now!
(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this column are that of the writer. The facts and opinions expressed here do not reflect the views of www.economictimes.com.)
Pranab Dhal Samanta
Pranab is a trusted byline in his chosen areas of national politics, governance, security and international affairs for over two decades. His column State of Play is a regular feature in The Economic Times. Has reported extensively within and outside India, including Pakistan, Afghanistan, China, Israel during his career, besides having led reporting teams across organisations. Was awarded the Ramnath Goenka Award for Excellence for his writings on the Indo-US nuclear deal.