Trump’s Trade Tactics: Echoes of Nixon’s Era

Perhaps history has an inherent tendency to echo past events; its cyclical movement aligns with this sentiment. A clear manifestation of this echo is vivid in the U.S. President Donald Trump’s hard-nosed strategy for trade discussions and his imposition of increased tariffs on Indian merchandise. The parallel drawn between Trump and ex-president Richard Nixon, centers primarily around their enigmatic governance styles and autocratic personalities, however contextualised within a current paradigm. Interestingly, Trump’s fluctuating perspective on India might derive cues from the events that marked Nixon’s time.

Trump’s coarse strategy of focusing on India, imposing punitive tariffs on its imports because it purchases Russian oil, among many countries that import Russian goods, it is far from spontaneous or erratic. Although Indian authorities have expressed their dissatisfaction with the U.S approach, India has shown restraint and grace under pressure, being mindful not to react rashly. Notably, half of the proposed tariffs come with a 21-day grace period, creating an opportunity for reaching potential compromises.

India has also judiciously avoided responding harshly to Trump’s social media rants about the country’s economy. Much of his provocative comments appear to be a ploy to garner attention. His tweets veer from threats, to angry ranting, but occasionally, he shows a softer side, possibly indicating a maneuver to maintain his ‘tough negotiator’ image, promised during his election campaign.

While Indian diplomats and trade officials observe these activities with a combination of astonishment and resentment, the reasons behind Trump’s sudden aloofness towards India range from simple ‘negotiating tactics’ to the grandiose idea of ending the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. An overlooked factor has been Trump’s cordiality towards Pakistan’s military chief Asim Munir whom he hosted for a private lunch at the White House.

The sequence of events that followed included a meeting between Pakistan’s air force chief Zaheer Ahmad Baber Sidhu and key U.S. military leaders and a discussion between Pakistani foreign minister Muhammad Ishaq Dar and U.S. State Secretary Marco Rubio. While on the surface, these gatherings might simply indicate Trump’s geopolitical leanings, beneath the surface, they illustrate a strategic shift away from India to demonstrate his growing affinity for Pakistan.

To comprehend the motivations behind this puzzling shift in U.S. strategy, it might be helpful to hark back to Nixon’s era, specifically the period leading up to the Bangladesh liberation war. During that time, Pakistan was under the rule of a military dictator, Yahya Khan. This pompous yet clueless general had full backing from Nixon and his wily Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger.

Nixon paid a visit to Lahore in 1969, pledging arms and financial aid to Pakistan on the condition that Yahya Khan would facilitate a U.S.-China rapprochement using his influence with Beijing. Such was the U.S.’s eagerness to do business with China that Nixon and Kissinger overlooked the atrocities committed by Yahya Khan’s army during the Bangladesh genocide in 1971, despite the displacement of millions of refugees.

Pakistan’s pre-emptive attack on India, given India’s strong diplomatic efforts worldwide, and India’s decisive military response led the U.S. to dispatch part of its Seventh Fleet, including the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise, to the Bay of Bengal to aid Pakistan’s military. The cold relations between China and the U.S., which ended with Nixon’s visit to Beijing in 1972, transcended all other ethical considerations. This meant overlooking genocide and providing naval support to Pakistan’s ruthless military.

Fast-forward to the present: Trump may have a similar expectation from Asim Munir. The stated reason for their private lunch was that the U.S. required Pakistan’s help in watching Iran. However, given Iran’s current weakened state, the U.S. isn’t particularly worried about any backlash from there. The actual rationale might well be leveraging Pakistan’s proximity to Beijing one more time, even at the risk of ignoring Pakistan’s patronage of terrorism.

This stance seems plausible, considering that Trump’s unpredictable conduct could be influenced by a host of other factors that will become evident in due course. Among all US trade partners, only Beijing remained unbowed by the threat of Trump’s retaliatory tariffs. It countered with its own set of punitive tariffs and further tightened the noose by restricting the supply of essential materials for high-tech products, including electric vehicles.

Beijing’s tactics appear to have had some impact. Despite China’s oil imports from Russia superseding India’s, Trump seems less keen to employ harsh measures. Trump’s recent public declarations underscore a firm resolve to strike a trade agreement with China, fuelled by a strong desire to meet with Xi Jinping.

Given Beijing’s continued silence, Asim Munir may well be Trump’s lone pawn left on the chessboard. However, this strategy demands a high price. It risks undoing the painstakingly built India-U.S. relationship, which has evolved over the years from mutual suspicion to cautious agreement, founded on shared principles.

In contrast, Trump seems to favour immediate personal achievements over sustaining long-term alliances. His wavering attention between India, Pakistan, and China, along with his unpredictable social media divulgence, reveals a complex negotiation strategy that has the potential to reconfigure the balance of trade and political power in the region, in the short term at least.