The history of diplomacy is about options and the choices governments make in consonance with strategic imperatives and evolving global realities. How we see the world defines how we respond.

Tumultuous shifts in geopolitics and geoeconomics rarely occur but when they do, they trigger an emergency reorientation – including an overhaul, where required – of strategic thinking, to ensure that our national interests are not compromised.

Turbulence of Trump Presidency

Today, clear and visible developments confront the global community on multiple fronts simultaneously with the meteoric rise of China, the rapid socio-economic transformation of India, the assertive voice of the Global South, the challenges of global warming and climate change, and the startling turbulence ushered in by the present Trump presidency.

While each of the above has a critical and long-lasting impact on geopolitics and global wellbeing, understandably, understanding and responding to President Donald Trump’s unexpected and traumatic policy shifts is holding centrestage and has now become a major preoccupation and concern of foreign offices globally. At a recent press conference in Washington, the president gave a peep into his way of thinking, when he curtly cautioned his colleagues against becoming comfortable or they would lose their job. Discomfort, uncertainty, and constantly staying on edge are hallmarks of Trump’s governing style and strategy. It allows him to dictate terms, as everyone is left second-guessing as to what he would do next. Proactive thinking, then, gives way to reactive responses. It provides Trump with the upper hand.

His unilateral actions on tariffs, for instance, coupled with aggressive and adversarial bullying, has left partner countries floundering with no room to manoeuvre. They have been forced to sacrifice their own national interests to accommodate Trump’s demands. The rule-based trade system that the global community subscribed to, through the WTO, has been turned on its head, ushering in disorder, chaos, and deep discord, even among US’s allies and traditional partners, such as, the European Union, Japan, South Korea, to name a few. Today, the global community stands thoroughly confused.

Silence of the Diaspora

In this regard, it is particularly intriguing that India has been singled out for brutal assault by the Trump administration, including verbal abuse by Peter Navarro, Trump’s senior trade advisor, and Howard Lutnick, US Commerce Secretary. Even Prime Minister Narendra Modi has not been spared unparliamentary language.

Such obnoxious behaviour has, understandably, dismayed not only all Indians but also the Prime Minister himself, given the personal efforts he made to cultivate a special relationship with Trump. To call Prime Minister Modi a "friend" and send him birthday greetings after rubbishing him is as meaningless as it is bizarre.

It is a sobering thought for South Block that Washington does not see New Delhi as a special and strategic partner but rather, as a "laundromat" and "profiteering Brahmins", to borrow Navarro’s crude language, which would have been used only with Trump’s tacit approval. This makes it all the more disturbing.

Organizers of the mega community events abroad, which had come to be seen as a signature component of the PM Modi’s programme whenever he traveled abroad, would have been taken aback at the conspicuous silence from the Indian diaspora in the US, reflecting how fake, fickle, shallow, opportunistic and unreliable the diaspora is.  

India's Actions Being Watched

These are disturbing but timely reality checks for South Block, offering a strategic compulsion to overhaul the way it sees the world and its relationship with it, especially in the context of its own strategic interests and development priorities, apart from national pride that has, certainly, been badly mauled. Delhi knows that within the country, the sentiment is strongly opposed to any giving in to US demands. Acquiescence would be seen as a sign of extreme weakness and further humiliation. In the eyes of people, the government would have failed them. 

The Global South is also carefully watching the situation, especially since many countries had succumbed to US bullying and furthermore, since New Delhi is trying to position itself as a global leader of the developing countries, especially BRICS. With few options and limited choices, New Delhi faces a dilemma. At one level, it certainly does not wish to burn its bridges with Washington, which have taken years of bipartisan support from both countries to nurture. At the same time, it realizes that the US is not the strategic partner that it believed it was. How the government responds would, consequently, determine how it is perceived both domestically and globally.

Whatever action India takes, the trust factor, which is the very bedrock of a sustainable relationship, has been severely damaged. While not everyone in the US administration subscribes to the verbal diarrhea of Navarro and his ilk, repair of the US-India architecture is not immediately likely. There is, furthermore, no evidence to suggest that US demands would not be escalated beyond what has already been initiated. Washington will put increased pressure on New Delhi to purchase American corn, American oil, and open the market to GMO and thereby, threaten India’s agricultural sector. Apart from trade, Washington would, certainly, interfere in India’s strategic autonomy and dictate how India conducts its foreign and security policy, who its friends and enemies ought to be, and thereby relegate New Delhi to a low-level lackey of the US. Bullies, as we know, have an insatiable appetite.

This is, euphemistically, how the White House sees India – not as a friend and partner but rather as an aberration trying to punch above its weight. However uncharitable this might sound, India simply cannot afford to be part of this horrific scenario. For a prime minister who has staked his reputation on igniting national pride, rewiring its foreign and security policy ‘the India way’ is its only option. The journey would certainly not be painless, but it would gain the respect of her own people, the Global South, and several western governments that are regretting the decisions they felt they were forced to make.  

It is in this context that the recently elevated strategic partnership between Manila and New Delhi needs to be seen, as it provides the ideal platform to collaborate in keeping with India’s Act East policy and drawing on shared aspirations and identifiable synergies between the two countries. PM Modi’s recent visit to Japan further strengthens this approach, as indeed did  his participation in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit in China. Developments in the neighbourhood also require immediate and sustained attention, as they have become critically vulnerable to interference inimical to our national security.

The recent Pakistan-Saudi defence pact was entered into with Washington’s knowledge and with safeguards that Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal would not be used against Israel but act as a deterrent against India. President Trump also spoke, albeit unsuccessfully, with the Taliban for the US to take over Bagram airport that was previously a base for the US military. This would have allowed it to have a US military presence with strike capability on both China and India. Furthermore, it would oppose stronger ties between India and Afghanistan. It is also widely reported that senior US Army and Air Force personnel have landed in Bangladesh on a "secret mission", which the pro-US Mohammad Yunus is facilitating.

Opportunity And Choices

This is also an opportunity for India to undertake its next generation economic reforms and diversify its market and products. Trade and investment would be integral components of the Act East policy, as would defence and security, science and technology, connectivity, and advancements in technology. A quadrilateral arrangement between India, Japan, the Philippines, and Vietnam would further boost the Act East policy, as would invigorating the India-ASEAN FTA that currently stands at $123 billion with potential to double over the next few years. Stronger relations with Taiwan particularly on rare earths and semiconductors, including international education and research, would invigorate the bilateral relationship. QUAD also requires a relook and whether it would be more meaningful to have a trilateral arrangement between Australia, India, and Japan and lay emphasis on multiple challenges in the Indo Pacific, including the vulnerable small island nations. As regards Russia, the US should know that New Delhi does not abandon tried and tested friendships.

Regarding China, New Delhi needs to remain mindful of the threat Beijing poses but this should not deter it from engaging with China, particularly on infrastructure projects and market access, which would benefit both countries. Engaging with China does not mean that differences have been resolved. Rather it means that the differences would not stand in the way of cooperation. The border would continue to be a matter of dialogue and diplomatic negotiation, as would Beijing’s relationship with Islamabad or its unilateral actions in the South China Sea and intimidatory tactics. Furthermore, India’s advocacy of strategic autonomy does not require her to choose between Washington and Beijing. Options and choices are only meant to align with strategic imperatives.

While India will hope to repair broken relations with the US, this is a defining moment when we are likely to witness the designing of a strategically decisive foreign and security policy. The Act East policy will, certainly, grow stronger reflecting the reality of the Rising East.

(The author is a former diplomat, an international educator, and the third Indian citizen to be appointed to the Order of Australia. Views expressed are personal.)