The Art of the Deal… or the Death of Diplomacy?

By Harikrishnan S.

https://english.mathrubhumi.com/columns/trump-zelenskyy-death-of-diplomacy-1.10391338

In the annals of diplomatic theatre, seldom has there been a spectacle as unseemly as the recent Oval Office confrontation involving President Donald Trump, Vice President J.D. Vance, and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.  What was ostensibly a meeting to solidify a minerals agreement and discuss the ongoing conflict with Russia devolved into a public spectacle of recrimination and diplomatic malpractice.

The Unraveling of Diplomacy

The meeting began with a semblance of cordiality but quickly slumped into a contentious exchange that underscored deep-seated tensions.  President Trump, known for his unfiltered rhetoric, accused Zelenskyy of "gambling with World War III," a statement that not only exaggerated the stakes, but revealed an almost pathetic lack of nuanced understanding of the geopolitical landscape.  Vice President Vance escalated the confrontation by accusing Zelenskyy of organising "publicity tours" and disrespecting the U.S. administration.  Not one to be outdone in the sycophancy sweepstakes and determined to prove his fealty, he then questioned Zelenskyy's commitment to peace, insinuating that the Ukrainian leader was more interested in media appearances than in genuine diplomatic efforts.  President Zelenskyy maintained his composure, with the patience of a man accustomed to explaining the obvious to the wilfully obtuse, and challenged Vance's understanding of diplomacy.  He highlighted Russia's history of violating ceasefire agreements, implicitly questioning the efficacy of the U.S. administration's approach to negotiations with Moscow.

The meeting culminated without any agreement, and a planned press conference was abruptly cancelled, leaving the international community in a state of bewilderment.  This public display of discord has raised concerns about the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations and the broader implications for global diplomatic efforts.

European Solidarity in the Face of American Abdication

In the aftermath of the Oval Office confrontation, European leaders have rallied in support of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, underscoring a collective commitment to Ukraine's sovereignty and a burgeoning rift with the United States.  

French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor
Olaf Scholz, among others, have reaffirmed their unwavering support for Ukraine's struggle against Russian aggression.  European Union leaders Ursula von der Leyen and Antonio Costa assured Zelenskyy that he was "never alone" in his fight for Ukraine's sovereignty.  In a significant display of solidarity, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer hosted Zelenskyy in London, offering a royal welcome that included an official audience with King Charles, a gesture not only reinforces the UK's support for Ukraine but also highlights the growing chasm between the United States and its traditional allies.  The conspicuous absence of American leadership in this context has raised alarms about the reliability of the U.S. as a partner in upholding the international order.  European leaders are now confronted with the challenge of potentially losing U.S. support and must evaluate if Europe can independently sustain aid to Ukraine.  The upcoming defence summit in London and subsequent EU meetings will be critical in determining Europe's strategy to support Ukraine amidst shifting alliances.  This collective European stance not only underscores the continent's commitment to democratic principles but it also signals a potential realignment in global power dynamics, where Europe seems poised to take a more assertive role in defending liberal democratic values.

The Russian and Chinese Vantage Points

From the Kremlin's vantage point, the Oval Office debacle between President Trump and President Zelenskyy was nothing short of a geopolitical windfall. The public fracturing of U.S.-Ukraine relations served to embolden Russian ambitions, providing a propaganda coup that underscored the narrative of Western disarray. Russian officials and state media have seized the opportunity to delegitimise Ukrainian leadership further and sow discord among NATO allies. Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, now deputy chairman of the Security Council, gleefully remarked that the "insolent pig finally got a proper slap down in the Oval Office," expressing support for Trump's stance. Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova echoed this sentiment, accusing Zelenskyy of "ugly and boorish behaviour."

China, ever the astute observer, likely views this episode as a confirmation of its strategic calculus regarding the decline of Western cohesion.

 

Beijing's ambitions on the global stage are undoubtedly bolstered by the evident fissures within the Western alliance, providing a broader avenue for expanding its influence in Eurasia and beyond. The erosion of U.S. diplomatic credibility offers China a pretext to advance its narrative of a multipolar world order, one where American hegemony is but a relic of the past.

In essence, the Oval Office confrontation has not only strained U.S.-Ukraine relations but also invigorated rival powers, challenging the stability of the current international order.

A Watershed Moment in Global Affairs

The Oval Office confrontation between President Trump and President Zelenskyy may well be remembered as a pivotal juncture in the reconfiguration of global power dynamics. The United States' retreat into a posture of isolationism and transactional diplomacy under the current administration has precipitated a vacuum that other powers are eager to fill. This shift has been characterised by a departure from traditional alliances and a focus on unilateral actions, reflecting a broader trend in U.S. foreign policy.

In response, Europe has begun to assume a more assertive role in defending liberal democratic values, signalling a potential realignment wherein the European Union emerges as a principal actor on the world stage, independent of American tutelage, and underscoring the continent's commitment to democratic principles.  This collective European stance signifies a potential shift in global power dynamics.

As the U.S. recedes from its position of moral leadership, the mantle is passed, perhaps reluctantly, to those willing to uphold the tenets of international cooperation and human dignity. Whether this marks the inception of a new world order or a descent into geopolitical entropy remains to be seen. However, the events that transpired serve as a stark reminder that the edifice of global stability is only as strong as the principles upon which it is built.

(The author is an independent political analyst and can be contacted at hari@healthcombine.com)

United They Stand, Divided They Fall: INDIA Alliance’s Litmus Test in Delhi

United They Stand, Divided They Fall: INDIA Alliance’s Litmus Test in Delhi

As India's political landscape braces for the Delhi Assembly elections, the future of the Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance (INDIA) hangs in a delicate balance, emblematic of broader challenges to the nation's democratic ethos. Formed to challenge the Bharatiya Janata Party's commanding grip on national politics, the INDIA alliance is currently mired in internal discord, strategic missteps, and a lack of unified vision, which could have profound implications not just for electoral outcomes but for the very idea of India as a secular, pluralistic democracy.

 

The INDIA alliance, comprising parties like the Congress, the AAP, the TMC, the SP, and the Shiv Sena (UBT), was heralded as a beacon of hope for those advocating for a diverse, inclusive India. The BJP’s consolidation of power has coincided with an erosion of these values, with the normalisation of communal divisions, the centralisation of authority, and the weakening of democratic institutions as signs of a deeper malaise afflicting Indian democracy. While it was envisioned as a bulwark against these trends, the INDIA alliance's unity is visibly fracturing, particularly evident in the Delhi elections where the Congress's reluctance to fully back AAP showcases a prioritisation of local rivalries over national objectives. Parties like the TMC and the SP, which do not have direct stakes in Delhi, have extended their support to AAP as part of a calculated effort to consolidate anti-BJP votes. This discord is not merely tactical; it symbolizes the deeper challenges of aligning diverse regional interests under a single banner to counter the BJP's monolithic narrative centred around Narendra Modi's leadership.  Moreover, Congress's leadership has been criticized for lacking strategic vision and organisational cohesion. Internal factionalism, combined with the absence of a clear, charismatic leader, has left the party struggling to assert itself as the anchor of the INDIA alliance. This has led to perceptions of the coalition as a disjointed group of regional parties rather than a credible national alternative to the BJP juggernaut.

 

The BJP's Dominance and Strategic Foresight

What enables the BJP's confidence in long-term dominance, as articulated by leaders like Amit Shah, is not just institutional manipulation but a nuanced understanding of political strategy. The BJP has effectively reshaped India's political discourse through relentless narrative control; ironically, using every critique from the opposition as an opportunity to further its own agenda. The party's ability to anticipate, absorb, and re-purpose opposition narratives (as seen with the appropriation of the Constitution protection narrative) showcases a political agility that the INDIA alliance currently lacks. It has used polarisation tactics and micro-targeted campaigns to create divisions among opposition supporters. By co-opting narratives and appropriating key issues, the BJP has managed to stay ahead of its rivals. While, by projecting every election as a referendum on Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s leadership, they have managed to draw focus on the opposition’s inability to present a united and stable alternative, thereby reinforcing the Modi-versus-who narrative - a psychological framing that the BJP has exploited with remarkable success. Their strategy extends beyond mere electoral victories; it's about redefining what it means to be Indian, often sidelining the multicultural, secular fabric in favour of a more homogeneous cultural narrative. This strategy has been bolstered by their long-term planning, including not just strategically managing opposition through both confrontation and co-optation, but potentially even gerrymandering through constituency delimitation - this is evident from the re-districting and changes made to the number of assembly seats in Jammu and Kashmir following the abrogation of Article 370 and reorganisation of the region. The Delimitation Commission increased the number of assembly seats in the Jammu region (which has a Hindu-majority population) and reduced them in the Kashmir Valley (which has a Muslim-majority population).   

 

The Opposition's Reactive Stance

 

The INDIA alliance has been largely reactive without a coherent, long-term strategy to challenge the BJP's vision. Despite occasional successes like the Congress's campaign on protecting the Constitution during the 2024 elections, the opposition struggles to present a vision that resonates nationally. While valid, the INDIA alliance's criticism of BJP's policies often lacks the depth or breadth to form an alternative social vision that could genuinely contest the BJP's layered approach to different state dynamics. For them to remain relevant, they have several pressing concerns that need to be addressed:

 

·       The alliance must transcend local rivalries; the Delhi scenario is a stark reminder that without unity, the fight against BJP's centralisation becomes futile, and therefore internal reconciliation is key.  

·       The opposition needs to go beyond reactive politics. They must articulate a vision for India that not just questions but also constructs, offering policies on employment, social justice, and communal harmony that appeal to a broad spectrum of voters.

·       Learning from the BJP's playbook, they must anticipate political moves rather than merely responding to them. This includes understanding the micro-dynamics of caste, religion, and regionalism that the BJP so adeptly navigates.

·       The BJP's success is partly due to its robust organizational structure. The INDIA alliance needs to bolster its grassroots presence and leverage technology and data as effectively as its adversary.

 

The trajectory of the INDIA alliance is more than just a political contest; it's a battle for India's soul. The BJP's dominance risks entrenching a majoritarian governance model, potentially eroding the secular, democratic values enshrined in the Constitution. The opposition's failure to unite and offer a viable alternative could lead to a further normalisation of communal division, weakening the democratic institutions that have historically upheld India's pluralistic identity.

 

The Delhi elections serve as a crucial test for the INDIA alliance. A failure to present a united front might not only result in an electoral loss but could also signify a deeper capitulation to a singular national narrative over the diverse, inclusive one that has defined India. As the nation stands at this crossroads, the opposition’s capacity to regroup, strategize, and inspire with a new vision for India will determine whether the country can reaffirm its commitment to democracy, diversity, and secularism or drift further towards a centralised, majoritarian state. The future of the INDIA alliance, thus, is inexorably linked to the future of India itself, where the stakes are nothing less than the preservation of its democratic fabric.

India-US Relations: Continuity, Change, and Challenges in Trump's Second Term

India-US Relations: Continuity, Change, and Challenges in Trump's Second Term

By Harikrishnan S.

 As Donald Trump prepares to take office for his second term on January 20th, the trajectory of India-U.S. relations stands at a crossroads of continuity and transformation. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has framed this bilateral relationship through the lens of friendship and strategic partnership, fostering a sense of optimism within India. Yet, beneath this positive rhetoric lies a multifaceted interplay of economic, security, and geopolitical interests that shape the true nature of these ties.

Trade

Trump’s first term was characterized by significant trade tensions, driven by the administration’s focus on reducing trade deficits and demanding greater reciprocity in trade relations. India found itself at the receiving end of U.S. tariffs on steel and aluminium and was stripped of its preferential trade benefits under the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP). And, in all likelihood, as Trump embarks on his second term, a similar transactional approach to trade is likely to continue. However, there could be room for a strategic recalibration. India may respond by lowering certain tariffs to attract more investment from the United States, particularly in the manufacturing sector, as it ostensibly seeks to position itself as a viable alternative to China in global supply chains. Nevertheless, persistent disagreements over tariffs and market access could remain quite a stumbling block and could potentially hamper efforts at expanding bilateral trade. Finding a balance between protecting domestic industries and fostering a more cooperative trade partnership with the United States, therefore, will be challenging.

Investment

Both countries recognize the mutual benefits of increased investment, and with Trump clearly prioritising job creation within the U.S., his administration may encourage American companies to expand their operations in India, to leverage its cost-effective labour market and growing consumer base. Indian businesses seeking to invest in the United States could potentially benefit from reduced regulatory barriers, fostering a more favourable environment for cross-border investment. This two-way flow of investments would have the potential to strengthen economic ties between the two nations, creating jobs, boosting trade, and enhancing shared prosperity. Addressing structural challenges and streamlining policies could ensure that both countries can capitalize on these opportunities and thereby deepen their economic partnership.

 

Defence

In Trump’s first term, we did see India and the United States make notable progress in defence cooperation, highlighted by the signing of key agreements like the Communications Compatibility and Security Agreement (COMCASA), which significantly improved military interoperability between the two nations. India’s growing strategic importance in the Indo-Pacific region, particularly as a potential counterbalance to China’s expanding influence, is likely to sustain and even strengthen this momentum. As both nations share common security interests in maintaining a free and open Indo-Pacific, further collaboration in defence technology, joint military exercises, and intelligence sharing could become the feature of their partnership under Trump’s second term. A continued focus on defence ties would underscore the pivotal role of security in shaping a broader India-U.S. relationship.

Counter-terrorism

Shared concerns about terrorism, especially from South Asia, will remain the mainstay of India-U.S. cooperation. Trump’s idea of “peace through strength,” which emphasizes a firm stance on security threats, aligns closely with India’s objectives of combating terrorism, especially in pressuring Pakistan into taking concrete action against terror networks operating from within its borders. This convergence of priorities creates a strong foundation for further collaborative efforts, including intelligence sharing, counter-terrorism strategies, and coordinated diplomatic pressure on nations harbouring terrorist groups. Working together to address these threats would bolster regional stability and enhance mutual security interests for both countries.

Quad and Regional Stability

The Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad), comprising the U.S., India, Japan, and Australia, experienced a significant revival during Trump’s first term, engendering a renewed focus on regional security and strategic cooperation. The Quad did emerge as a cornerstone of efforts to counterbalance China’s growing influence in the Indo-Pacific region. And, under a second Trump administration, it is expected to maintain its strategic importance, with a continued emphasis on advancing a robust Indo-Pacific strategy.

This could involve deeper collaboration on defence, maritime security, and infrastructure development to promote a free, open, and rules-based order in the region. The Quad’s role in addressing shared challenges such as supply chain resilience, cybersecurity, and regional stability would also likely expand, and solidify its position as a critical element of the United States’ foreign policy in Asia.

H1B Visas

Trump’s first term saw his administration’s restrictive policies on H-1B visas that posed challenges for Indian IT professionals, who constitute a significant portion of these visa holders. These measures, aimed at prioritising American workers, did create tensions in India-U.S. relations, given the vital role of Indian talent in the U.S. technology sector. A further tightening of H-1B policies during this second term could exacerbate these strains. However, the broader economic partnership between the two nations, particularly in areas like manufacturing, defence, and investments, might help offset the friction caused by visa restrictions. Striking a balance between domestic priorities and the mutual benefits of skilled workforce mobility would be key to ensuring that this issue does not snowball into overshadowing the overall strategic relationship.

 

The Indian-American community is a growing and politically influential group in the United States, and it could play a pivotal role in shaping policies that strengthen ties between the two nations. Trump’s evident rapport with Prime Minister Modi, demonstrated through events like “Howdy Modi” and “Namaste Trump,” may further contribute to fostering favourable policies, particularly in areas like trade and immigration. While contentious issues like H-1B visa restrictions remain, the advocacy of the Indian-American community could influence a more balanced and mutually beneficial approach, enhancing cooperation across sectors.

Geopolitical and Strategic Significance

India’s role in international forums like the G20 could gain greater prominence with strong backing from the United States, especially if Trump’s administration continues its efforts to counter China’s growing global influence. With U.S. support, India could advocate for reforms in global institutions, push for equitable economic policies, and strengthen its leadership on issues like climate change, digital economy, and sustainable development.

India's strategic location and its own border tensions with China position it as a vital ally for the U.S. in maintaining a balance of power in Asia. A second Trump administration would likely seek to deepen this partnership, leveraging India’s role to strategically counter China’s influence in the region. However, India’s participation in BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) adds a layer of complexity to its relationship with the U.S. Within BRICS, India shares a platform with China and Russia, two nations often at odds with American interests. While BRICS primarily aims to challenge Western dominance in global affairs, India has been careful to distance itself from any overtly anti-U.S. sentiment that occasionally emerges from within the group. India’s cautious stance on BRICS expansion and its resistance to China-led initiatives like a BRICS currency reflects this nuanced approach.  While BRICS provides India with economic benefits, and opportunities for trade, investment, and cooperation that complement its broader foreign policy goals, moves within BRICS that challenge U.S. dominance, such as efforts toward de-dollarization led by China, could raise strategic concerns in Washington. The Indian approach aligns with its goal of maintaining strategic autonomy, avoiding rigid alignment with any bloc. However, this difficult balancing act can occasionally create friction with the U.S., especially on issues like the Ukraine conflict or global governance reforms. Balancing these dynamics will be critical for India as it seeks to sustain its relationships with both the U.S. and its BRICS partners.

Despite all these challenges, the India-U.S. relationship does look likely to remain pragmatic and interest-driven. Both nations recognize the value of cooperation in areas such as defence, technology, and regional stability, while, at the same time, working to address tensions arising from differing economic and geopolitical priorities. As India seeks to maintain its strategic autonomy and the U.S. focuses on countering China, their partnership will continue to evolve, marked by collaboration in key areas and careful navigation of inherent complexities.