RSS

Author Archives: Naagesh

Modi breaks the backbone of terror deep inside Pakistan

Modi breaks the backbone of terror deep inside Pakistan

The Indian Air Force (IAF) strike in the early hours of 26th February 2019 on terror training bases deep inside Pakistan that killed over 350 terrorists has made us all speechless.

It has certainly made the Pakistanis speechless because not even in their wildest dreams did they imagine India would attempt this. The continuous stream of rattled mumblings – from the official spokesperson and their defense minister- all point to a stunned and confused Pakistani establishment.

For almost three decades now, they have been bluffing the world about their nuclear capabilities and by inference, held out a nuclear blackmail on India. The IAF just shattered this self-created glass firewall that Pakistan was touting as an unbreachable threshold. That blackmail is in tatters in the cratered remains of Balakot in Mansera district in Khyber-Pakthunkhwa province of Pakistan.

For most Indians, the IAF precision strike executed with flawless perfection was too real to even comprehend initially. Like the Pakistanis, they too were expecting the Indian armed forces to conduct a surgical strike where a small special forces team would embark on a stealth mission to neutralize the terrorists. But the air strike was a different ball game altogether. No one expected the scale and dramatic results that looked too easy and perfect. But that betrayed the power and sophistication of a deadly air force that is arguably one of the best in the world.

Even as media reports flooded in with all the exhilarating details, some larger issues embedded in the air strike are worth noting.

It is not that India’s armed forces suddenly turned pro. The fact is that they were always a potent force to recon with, even before India got its Independence from Britain in 1947. No one doubted its capabilities. The fact that they have armed themselves to the teeth over the last decade only adds sheen to the valor and dignity of the forces.

As many have already pointed out, the deployment of the air force for the first time to neutralize terror camps deep inside Pakistan is a welcome change in the mindset of the mandarins in Delhi. Simultaneously, and more importantly, India seems to have called the nuclear bluff of Pakistan.

In many ways, India has de facto expounded a new doctrine in taking on cross border terrorism set against a nuclear blackmail. This will be hotly discussed and reviewed by military institutes the world over for some time to come.

More importantly, it has opened a window into the mind of Narendra Modi, a Prime Minister, the like of which India has not seen in seven decades. If anyone would have followed his speeches – even before he was elected to the high office in India – it would have been evident that he was determined to corral and defang Pakistan from day one. Hence it would indeed be juvenile to see the air strike as just a fallout and response to the killing of 40 soldiers in Pulwama on 14th of February 2019.

India’s armed forces have long warned the political leadership that it should adopt a punitive and proactive military strategy against Pakistan. But time and again this advice had fallen on the deaf ears, resulting in the deaths of thousands in the last two decades.

For decades the political leadership did not dare to confront the neighbor’s use of terror as a state policy head on. This pusillanimity in effect reduced the armed forces to being just a beat cop chasing the terrorists. In retrospect, India had voluntarily succumbed to the blackmail even without putting up a fight.

But Modi changed all this. In a very deliberate and studied evolution, he appears to have worked very hard, quietly and off the radar to evolve a strategy that will neuter Pakistan, and in effect also clear the biggest stumbling block in India’s road to rapid development.

Given Modi’s thoroughness and penchant for perfect execution, he must have indeed been at work for a very long time. He needed to have the right logistics in place so the right preparation can meet the right opportunity. From arming the forces with best he can get to the top in class satellite systems to keep a hawk’s eye on Pakistan, the task seemed to be done. He was only waiting for the right opportunity. The surgical strike carried out in September 2016 was but his first laboratory tests of the doctrine he had put together in his mind.

But then more needed to be done to prime the forces and logistics. The Armed forces must have been busy planning and exercising on the operational plans since then. The killing of the 40 Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) jawans provided the right opportunity for India. Diplomatically, the killing provided the right narrative to take on Pakistan.

The mission, for its sheer daredevilry and perfection in penetrating the defenses of a nuclear power and obliterating over 350 terrorists gives one the goosebumps. The ease with which the IAF befuddled the enemy’s radars and air defense systems to deploy a formation of at least 12 fighter jets to carry out its deadly mission and safely return to base in just 21 minutes will be discussed endlessly by military strategists all over the world.

But then, one must realize that an extremely capable force worked in perfect unison with Modi the strategist par excellence, who was willing to take risks to wipe out terror from South Asia. It certainly appears that India has broken its backbone, although the vestiges may linger on for more time to come.

This operation indeed is a cause for celebration for every Indian. It is indeed the beginning of the unraveling of a rouge nation that has with gay abandon used terror as a state policy. For Pakistan, the writing on the wall is clear. It will face more audacious strikes from India in the coming days. It is difficult to see how Pakistan as a country, in its current geographical bounds will last beyond a few years at best.

Advertisements
 
Leave a comment

Posted by on March 1, 2019 in Indian Army

 

India’s RBI gets a new Governor

India’s RBI gets a new Governor

 The recent resignation of the Governor of the RBI, Urjit Patel due to “personal reasons”,as expected, has generated lot of discussion. The RBI was in the news recently for its apparent tussle with the government of India (GOI) on several issues including deployment of the central bank’s reserves.  The media had a field day speculating on the reasons for his departure.  Even the opposition parties cried foul.  Whether Patel resigned because he felt stifled, or had other reasons, will only be known if and when he chooses to publish his side of the story in his memoir.

 Reactions to the departure of the governor have been on expected lines. Many predicted the decimation of the stock markets and loss of confidence in the strength and resilience of the Indian economy. The stock market did fall during that time; however, it is unclear if the markets fell because of the exit polls on elections to key states indicating political instability or due to the departure of the governor. Beyond that, the banking and financial system in India remains on course. As regards confidence in the overall resilience of the Indian economy, there are no reports to suggests otherwise.

Is it true, as many in the media claim, that the RBI governor felt stifled by the government’s attempt to grab the bank’s turf? Or did he pick the wrong battles with the government? Should Patel have exercised discretion as the better part of valor and lived to fight another day? It would be interesting to look at some available pointers that may shed some light.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on December 13, 2018 in Banking, Economics, India, Indian Economy

 

Tags: , ,

Government of India VS RBI

Government of India VS RBI

As a former officer of the Reserve Bank of India, I was shocked to read the recent remarks of Viral Acharya, Deputy Governor of the Reserve Bank of India. There are probably no parallels or precedents to such public remarks that tantamount to threatening the government of India by a ranking leader of the Bank.

The RBI, India’s Central Bank is a venerable institution that effuses dignity and reverence in the world of banking and finance, not only in India, but the world over. Its rather quaintly abstruse and almost self-effacing communication style – be it in its official communiqués or while interacting with the public at large – speaks of its tradition and élan that is generally matchless. This quiet dignity actually conveys so much more than what it actually says and adds an aura of enigma to it. For example, even a passing nod from the RBI Governor at a meeting of CEOs of banks can set tongues wagging.

Like most other Central banks, its presence is felt, rather than heard. Insiders are aware that RBI’s reticence and an unwillingness to hog the spotlight is also a calculated strategy to create space for itself.  It provides enough room to maneuver, change course if needed, and fight its battle with the government quietly and behind closed doors. That has only earned it respect and reverence.

Given this grand setting, it was upsetting to read the speech of Viral Acharya. It is very amateurish indeed and only betrays a lack of experience in a managing a large banking bureaucracy. He is certainly oblivious of the ethos and dignified traditions of a great institution that he represents. That the Deputy Governor chose to attack the central government in a public lecture has not only raised eyebrows, but also raised questions of why the government has not acted on this. His continuing in office has become untenable.

 
 

Tags:

Misery Seeks Company – China Courts India to fight US Trade War

Misery Seeks Company – China Courts India to fight US Trade War

US sanctions against China seems to be having its intended effect. As pressure mounts, China’s change of stance is becoming more evident. According to recent reports President Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping are likely to meet at the G20 summit in Buenos Aires in November in an effort to work out a solution. But the meeting of the two leaders may not produce any dramatic resolution, given the tough stand of both the countries.

That the Chinese economy is bearing the brunt is in no doubt. Ford reported that its September sales in China fell 43% compared to same period last year. This comes in the midst of a big slump in Chinese auto sales. The IMF, for its part, has already signaled the slowdown of the Chinese economy and put its GDP growth estimates for 2019 at 6.2%. Despite all the bad news on the economic front, Chinese leadership continues to put up a brave face.

The US appears to have its strategy cut out. Vice President Pence, in a hard hitting speech at the Hudson Institute, unequivocally charged China with interfering in US elections and warned of consequences. In its 2018 National Defense Strategy paper, the US has clearly identified the two ‘revisionists powers – China and Russia’ as main threats.  The paper goes on to further recognize ‘China’s military modernization, influence operations, and predatory economics in its efforts to coerce neighboring countries to reorder the Indo-Pacific region to its advantage’ and perceives it as a long term threat to US interests.

The series of events leading up to the new set of tariffs on Chinese imports as well as the subsequent pronouncements should leave no room for doubt about US intentions. If anything, it is clear that the US will not stop with just the trade war. It is only part of an overarching strategy to contain Chinese influence globally.

China’s strategy, on the other hand, seems ambiguous and is banking on flat defiance of the US as a measure of projecting its power. It has unleashed a massive propaganda campaign, particularly in the US media, in a determined bid to win friends. Not surprisingly, many pundits have opined on how the trade war with China is unsustainable and could hurt the US too. But all this may not really alter the situation on the ground which is firmly in favor of the US

On the international scene, China has used its influence to marshal its friends and allies in an attempt to build a coalition to portray the US as the chief villain of the world. In this context, it is indeed interesting to see that China has reached out to India, pontificating on the requirements of ‘a stable environment that will facilitate the growth of the two key economies’. In its attempt to win India to its side in its trade war with the US, it has called for the two countries to join together to bring about a ‘more just and reasonable international order’.

China’s change in tone and tenor – evident in its statements and diplomatic outreach – is only symptomatic of the severe stress on its economy and political leadership. There are also indications of a lack of cohesion amongst its leadership in responding to the US.

Many in India recall the often rancid and undiplomatic statements emanating from its foreign office during the Dokhlam crisis. But the very same establishment has now unleashed the equivalent of a diplomatic charm offensive. This only highlights the fact that the country is up against the wall in its bid to untangle itself from the costly trade war.

But India is no China in every sense of the word. Its economy is a not as big, nor is it as lopsided and heavily dependent on exports to the US for its survival. Secondly and most importantly, India is a plural democracy in the truest sense of the term and is in no danger of a systemic collapse if and when sanctions are imposed.

It is worth pointing out here that following the Pokhran II nuclear explosions in 1998, many countries including China, Japan and Canada condemned India. China, for its part, was at the forefront, demanding international actions against India. But now that the tables have turned, China has suddenly discovered the virtues of ‘regional economic stability and growth’ by working together.

When the US did impose sanctions on India in May 1998 following Pokhran II, the country did not implode. The fact was that its citizens rallied together in support of the democratically elected government. But in China’s case, their leadership is acutely aware that prolonged sanctions could trigger internal unrest and rebellion that could easily threaten its structural integrity as a nation state.

Unlike China, India’s relationship with the US is on an entirely different footing. It has no overt or covert aspirations to unseat the US as the world’s superpower, nor does it have a confrontationist approach to it. But it is indeed true that, like China, India probably has a boat load of differences with the US, on issues ranging from trade to political and world view. But that is par for the course betwixt democracies.

But at the end of the day, despite the differences, the US and India, as history bears witness, have resorted to bilateral discussions to resolve these issues. Unlike China, there is no public record of India threatening or confronting the US.

Being an authoritarian set up, China lacks that fundamental connect with the US or India. At a time when it is in serious trouble with the US, it cannot pretend a have a comradery with India since the latter too is ‘impacted by Trump’s unpredictable trade policies’.

Definitely, China is expending its diplomatic resources in creating a mirage of a synergy with India out of a non-existent common cause.  The ground reality is that the leadership in India and the US are aware of the phoniness of this outreach by China.

In fact India must – and there is ample evidence to think it has – see the speciousness of this argument. It cannot join hands with China to make a common cause. India’s world view and priorities are different and dictated by New Delhi, not Beijing.

Misery loves company and China’s outreach to India is definitely a case in point.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on October 15, 2018 in China, Donald Trump, Economics, Foreign Policy, Trade, US

 

Sabarimala Case – An Agonizing Verdict

Sabarimala Case – An Agonizing Verdict

In a recent judgement, the Supreme Court of India had in a 4-1 majority judgement decided to remove the ban on entry of women aged 10 – 50 into the famed Lord Ayyappa Temple at Sabarimala in South India. The case had generated a lot of interest – during the hearings as well as post judgement – all around the world. It is indeed a significant judgement since with the stroke of their pens, four judges reversed a practice that has been going on at the temple since time immemorial.

The four judges have averred that the practice “significantly denudes women of their right to worship”. Justice Chandrachud termed the custom as a form of “untouchability” which cannot be allowed under the Constitution of India.1

Justice Indu Malhotra, the lone lady member of the bench, has attracted a lot of attention and admiration. As member of this five judge bench, she wrote her dissenting judgement. She has provided some profound reasoning for her dissent that certainly deserves examination. Former Supreme Court of India judge Markandey Katju has complimented her for “the balance and restraint required of a judge of a superior court”.2

Judge Malhotra has pointed out that that “the petitioners were not directly affected and were not devotees” themselves and hence she found it “odd that the court was deciding on the entry of women into the temple at the behest of persons who do not subscribe to this faith”. This is an important observation, and has not missed the attention of millions of Hindus in the country.

She has further strongly argued for “heterogeneity in religion that allows diverse forms of worship, even if it were irrational”. Very pointedly she states that “in a secular polity, issues which are matters of deep religious faith and sentiment, must not ordinarily be interfered with by courts.”

Continuing her telling observations, Malhotra has said that permitting such public interest litigations (PILs) “in religious matters would open the floodgates to interlopers who are not followers of that faith, to question its beliefs and practices” since it would be a matter of grave concern, especially for minority communities. She has firmly concluded that the said writ petition “does not deserve to be entertained and the grievances raised are non-justiciable”.

But the majority judges thought otherwise. Their reasoning for the majority judgement seems to be a reiteration that the practice of forbidding women in the said age group was “a form of untouchability which cannot be allowed under the Constitution.” But many legal experts have already argued that this case cannot be viewed through the limited vision lens of gender equality and a broader view of Hindu religious practices was imperative in judging the case.

It is not that these points of law were not brought before the court during the hearings. In fact J Sai Deepak, who appeared before the Supreme Court in this case on behalf of the intervener organization People for Dharma, too had presented succinct arguments. For example, he had argued that “Lord Ayyappa has rights under articles 21, 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India, and his right to remain a naisthika bramhachari – or a perpetual celibate – falls under Article 25 and hence, women’s entry to the temple should continue to be restricted”. 3

Thus, restricting entry of women into the abode of a Lord who is a naisthika bramhachari – or a perpetual celibate – may not tantamount to gender inequality or discrimination against women, when viewed though a broader lens. Be as it may, the other four judges, in their wisdom have obviously not been convinced by these arguments and hence their opinions have prevailed and the judgement is there for all to see.

The impact of the judgement is expected to be felt far and wide. From breaking its own restraint in not entering into the domain of religious beliefs and practices that are not pernicious, the Supreme Court has opened the possibility of internecine litigations between religious faiths where one practitioner is now free to question and seek the quashing of practices of another religion. The outcome could be a judicial nightmare which could easily lead to bloodshed on the streets.

In multiple discussions I had with Hindu women, particularly millennials in Tamil Nadu, I got a sense of their disbelief. Many did say that they were suspicious of the motives of the petitioners since they themselves would never have approached the courts on such a matter. Many felt violated since Hindu women had traditionally revered the practice of naisthika bramhacharya vratam of Lord Ayyappa. They pointed out that the unprecedented heavy rains and consequent damage to life and property in Kerala as a sign of Lord Ayyappa’s anger.

Plural societies like India have diverse groups and interest and by definition have differing identities and belief systems which have to be celebrated. But they also have large and vulnerable underbellies that have to be carefully nurtured and protected, not exploited. But in India we seem to be witnessing the opposite.

.But if the average Hindu, particularly the women, feel outraged, they cannot be faulted for, here is a judgement that nullifies a centuries-old practice that they did not ask for. The certainly avoidable outcome, is that a growing number of reasonable Indians now think that the judiciary appears to have abandoned all shreds of caution and sensitivity when treading on matters of religious faith, however irrational they may appear.

Over the ages, Hindu social memory has been burdened with a lot of baggage – from flawed to gross miscarriages of justice – more than what many other social systems have experienced. But they have been absorbed and digested in the sands of time. So too this will be.

Despite the judgement, out of reverence for Lord Ayyappa, Hindu women have not come forward to visit the temple. And they are steadfast in their resolve. Nonetheless, many Ayyappa Sangams – groups or forums of Ayyappa devotees – do expect the usual suspects – activist women who have a track record of protesting against Hindu practices – to visit the temple. But like always, most of them will be a flash in the pan.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on October 2, 2018 in Hinduism, Indology, Media, Sabarimala

 

Trade War – US Trumps China

Trade War – US Trumps China

As part of a worsening trade war, President Trump on Monday, September 17th, 2018 announced a slew of new tariffs on imports worth $200 billion from China. A 10% tariff will come into effect later this month which will then rise to 25% from January 2019. Not to be outdone, China too has responded with tariffs on $60 billion of US goods that includes meat, nuts, alcoholic drinks, chemicals, etc.

These announcements come in the midst of an already expanding trade and sanctions regime that has already engulfed the EU, Mexico, Canada, Iran and Turkey in its wake. But the response from most nations have been predictable. Fully understanding the potential threat to their vulnerable economies, Mexico and the EU quickly sued for peace.Canada too is in advanced negotiations to resolve outstanding issues. That leaves behind Iran and China in the crosswire.

This has sent shock waves in stock and currency markets all over the world. Many national currencies have tumbled, including India’s Rupee. But the collateral damage will be broader and deeper and continue to strike at the very root of “free trade” as we understand it today.

Several pundits have faulted Trump for his ‘aggression’ on China and have blamed him for what many see as the coming collapse of international trade. While one may disagree with the way Trump has executed the tariffs, he is absolutely right on taking on China. In fact the US has been very late in getting its act together on China.

A patient review of the events and facts may suggest the urgent need to hit the reset button on China. China is, by no means, a saint and has been violating every bilateral and multilateral agreement to further its trade. In fact many nations, particularly the smaller economies in the developing world have long complained of dumping of Chinese goods on their markets that led to the decimation of local businesses in these countries.

US too has long been wary of China stealing civilian as well as military intellectual property for several decades now. Further, China’s scant respect for international law – from its defiance of the International Court of Justice on the South China Sea judgement to coveting its neighbor’s land – is all well known.  If the international community has very little regard for China as a responsible world citizen, it has only itself to blame.

China may be believing it has arrived on the world stage as a super economy and a super power. That probably is the reason it decided to defy the US and impose counter tariffs. The ground reality, though, is that the US is still the largest economy with the most powerful military in the world.

Unlike China, the US has the power and means to impose sanctions and enforce it. The sanctions on Iran is a case in point where it has successfully prevented other nations from buying oil from it.

The Chinese on the other hand have a false sense of their international influence and authority. Their recalcitrance at the negotiating table earlier with the US has indeed surprised many. They seem to have played their hand wrong to their own detriment. The bottom line is that in the current trade war with the US, China will be alone as no other nation will openly defy the US to support them.

As regards the sustainability of the trade war, it is anybody’s guess as to how long this will last before a diplomatic resolution is negotiated. But given the asymmetry in trade – China exports over $200 billion compared to $80 billion of imports from the US – it is more vulnerable and will cave in sooner than later. China’s defiance is ill advised and amounts to a hara-kiri. Delay in arriving at a negotiated settlement will be a punishing setback for China and will undo decades of economic progress.

It must be mentioned here that international trade as we understand today is built on the twin pillars of economic pre-eminence and military might. These two pillars are then artfully packaged and deployed using sophisticated diplomacy to gain maximum commercial and economic advantage. Countries endowed with both emerge leaders and winners. That is the winning formula and all nations understand this very well. But for China to pretend it is on the same footing as the US is indeed churlish.

We must note here though, that history is a mute witness to the fact that when push comes to shove, the true intentions of nation states have emerged. The US and its allies have a track record of not hesitating to weaponize their trade relations and impose sanctions, which really is a proxy for their overwhelming military might, to ‘straighten’ things out.

Of course, this is not to suggest that the current crisis will transmogrify into open armed conflict. Far from it. But the consequences could be as devastating. However, in international relations, the dynamics and power equations keep changing depending upon the underlying economic fortunes of the country. The EU for example, given its weak fundamentals, may not be able to stand up to China. But the US, on the other hand, buoyed by a booming economy, has staying power.

For China, a prolonged face off with the US can have disastrous consequences at home. From unprecedented levels of unemployment to internal unrest and rebellion, anything in between may be a potential outcome.

The ongoing trade war between the US and its major trading partners has powerful lessons for India. India is caught between the US on one side and some of its own major trading partners – Russia, China and Iran – on the other. How India manages to successfully maneuver its way around these treacherous waters of international sanctions will determine – to a large extent- the survival and long term growth of India. But it certainly cannot adopt a confrontationist approach vis-a-vis the US. A collaborative approach will take it places, literally. Prime Minister Modi seems to be on the right track.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on September 19, 2018 in China, Donald Trump, Economics, India, Trade

 

Tags:

US – CHINA TRADE WAR – Why Trump will Win

US – CHINA TRADE WAR  – Why Trump will Win

 The rising trade tensions between the US and its major trading partners, particularly China and European Union have been making news for some time now. It may be recalled that the US imposed tariff on imports of Chinese goods worth $200 billion and had also threatened to impose tariffs on cars imported from EU.

But the European Commission led by Jean-Claude Juncker quickly visited Washington DC and appears to have successfully negotiated and resolved the trade issues, at least for now. The EU plans to buy more US liquefied natural gas (LNG) and soybeans and has agreed to work with the US “toward zero tariffs, zero non-tariff barriers, and zero subsidies on non-auto industrial goods”. Trump seems to have won hands down in the trade frictions with the EU.

But the trade war with China, on the other hand, seems to be following a different course with no resolution in sight yet. China too had imposed retaliatory sanctions on goods imported from the US. The US has further accused China of manipulating its currency and is now considering additional tariffs on goods worth $500 billion.

The consequences of this internecine tension could be severe and reverberate throughout the world. The IMF has warned that the current trade war could slow down world economic growth by 0.5% or cost the world $430 billion by 2020.  In its World Economic Outlook Update published in July 2018 IMF has warned that the global expansion that was witnessed over the last two years has plateaued and has become less balanced. It projects global growth to stay at 3.9% over the next two years. Translation – any trade tensions, particularly among key economies at this juncture may be injurious to all.

While the specter of a full blown trade war is never benign, a close examination of US-China trade data that is publicly available, courtesy US Dept. of Commerce, Census Bureau is indeed revealing. Data for the last eight years (i.e. 2010 through 2018 May) shows US exports to China has been   consistent at just over a US$100 billion. On the other hand, imports from China have steadily grown from US$ 365 billion in 2010 to US$505 billion in 2017. Imports for 2018 will probably be at the same level as 2017.  Please see chart.US China Data1

US imports are almost four times its exports to China thus giving rise to a yawning trade deficit that is undesirable for any county, and most certainly for the US. But President Trump, by imposing high tariffs, may have converted this liability into a powerful weapon. Given its four to one advantage, China is four times more vulnerable, in dollar terms, than the US. The current impact of Chinese tariffs on US farm sector has been stemmed by a $12 billion federal subsidy announced by the department of agriculture.  Hence, any retaliation – both current and proposed – from China will have minimal effect on the US. Trump seems to have the upper hand with China.

One of the key reasons for the imposition of additional tariffs on China – at least the stated objective of Trump – was bringing jobs, particularly manufacturing jobs, back to the US. On this count, however, Trump may have miscalculated. America must wake up to the reality that manufacturing jobs that were squirreled away to China over the decades will never come back.

The fact is that the US is a high cost economy and the final landed cost of manufacture is very high. Secondly the strong US dollar does not help either. Bringing back manufacturing jobs will only price its products out in a fiercely competitive export market. Most manufacturers may not take the bait.

The US government fully understands this. Consequently, over the decades, it has successfully encouraged the migration of the economy to a trade and economic culture that is largely dependent and sustained by innovations and cutting edge technologies. This has helped in the creation of new markets and orient them to where the US will continue to enjoy obvious advantages and hence dominate.

China too understands the nuances of this game and has been in an extraordinary hurry to acquire new technologies at any cost. Hence it is no surprise that China has been consistently accused, over the decades, of industrial espionage and theft of intellectual property (IP) by many countries including the US. It is no surprise that under the given circumstances, President Trump was left with limited options in dealing with an aggressive trading partner like China.

China has not played a good citizen of the world. At every opportunity, it has seized its neighbor’s land in its infamous ‘salami slicing’ strategy to fulfil its expansionists ideology. It has shown no respect for international law – be it the annexation of Tibet or in the blatant militarization of the Spratly Islands in South China Sea, despite the International Court of Justice (ICJ) verdict against it.

If today China has a negative residue of international goodwill, it has only itself to blame. Its emergence as a big economy and world player has not been peaceful.

The fact that China has used the BRICS forum to speak out for “free trade” only underscores its desperation. Further, recent reports have indicated that behind its brave façade of resisting US tariffs, China is deeply worried about the potential for many of its companies to file for bankruptcies.

It is indeed impossible to guess as to what is on President Trump’s mind in dealing with China. Is he playing hard ball to get China to the negotiating table for a better trade deal? Or is the US planning to bring China on its knees without firing a shot, given China’s flagrant violation of international law in the South China Sea? Or is it Trump’s larger game plan to cut unfriendly nations to size, given his recent experience in winning over North Korea without firing a shot.

Whichever way you look at it, China seems to be the obvious loser. It is only a matter of time before China will get to the negotiating table to work out a “reasonable agreement” very much in line with the EU example. Before long, normal trade will resume, albeit under circumstances that are lot more favorable to the US.

 
 

Tags:

 
%d bloggers like this: