Tariff Gambit

US President Donald Trump’s latest call for Europe to impose 100 per cent tariffs on China and India represents a sharp escalation in the use of trade as a tool of coercive diplomacy. The demand is not about recalibrating global commerce but about cutting off the lifeline that sustains Russia’s war machine ~ its oil revenues. Both China and India have emerged as significant buyers of Russian crude, cushioning Moscow against the weight of Western sanctions. By weaponising tariffs, Mr Trump hopes to starve Russia of the resources it needs to prolong the war in Ukraine.

The strategy, however, is riddled with contradictions. Washington itself remains entangled in unfinished trade disputes with Delhi, having only recently imposed a sweeping 50 per cent tariff on Indian exports, half of it justified as punishment for India’s dealings with Russia. And yet, even as Mr Trump presses Europe to penalise India, he is personally working to reassure it. Both he and Prime Minister Narendra Modi have gone public with upbeat messages, expressing confidence that their trade talks will conclude successfully. Mr Modi spoke of unlocking the “limitless potential” of the India-US partnership, while Mr Trump called him a “very good friend” and voiced certainty of a positive outcome. This dual approach ~ penalising and courting India simultaneously ~ captures the difficult balance the US is trying to strike. It wants Delhi to loosen ties with Moscow while preserving a broader partnership seen as central to countering China.

Advertisement

The warm tone of the recent exchanges reflects awareness that the relationship must be insulated, as far as possible, from tariff politics. For Europe, Mr Trump’s demand is equally fraught. The EU has prided itself on direct sanctions against Russia, carefully avoiding a broader trade war that could splinter alliances. Tariffs on India and China would deviate from this course and expose the bloc to retaliation. Energy security adds another layer of complexity: Europe still relies on Russian gas for nearly one-fifth of its supply. Asking it to squeeze other importers risks highlighting the gap between ambition and reality. The timing of the appeal underscores the urgency in Washington. Russia has intensified its bombardment of Ukraine, targeting both civilians and symbols of statehood in Kyiv. A recent summit between Mr Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin ended without progress, deepening perceptions that the US President is struggling to convert tough talk into outcomes.

By shifting the burden to Europe, Mr Trump is signaling that America alone cannot bend Russia’s will. Yet this gambit may backfire. India is unlikely to see tariff threats as legitimate diplomacy, particularly when its energy choices are dictated by price and supply rather than ideology. China will not easily yield to Western economic pressure and may instead deepen its partnership with Russia. For Europe, acquiescing to Washington could mean absorbing higher trade costs at a time of fragile growth. Even as Mr Trump and Mr Modi exchange warm words, the contradictions remain unresolved. Tariff ultimatums may prove more divisive than decisive.