At the 11th edition of India economic conclave I had the pleasure of listening to luminaries like Minister Nirmala Sitharaman,Dr Gita Gopinath, famed entrepreneur Sridhar Vembu and several other leaders in the business world. It was a very humbling experience for me to be present in the midst of inspiring personalities who are painstakingly pushing India to become a $10 Trillion economy and a fully developed nation by 2047.
The overarching theme of the event was navigating geoeconomics. It is no secret that like many other developing nations India's economy is heavily dependent upon the US. President Trump's decision to put America first has not gone well with several nations who have accused him of implementing policies that threaten to destabilize the world economy,in their opinion. Many have pointed out that the USA is violating all rules of trade that it established in the first place.
There is some truth to that argument. But it fails to answer the most basic question. Why should the USA not look out for its own interests?
When discussing the USA many analysts fail to take into account that the USA too was once a colonised nation that fought imperial powers to gain independence and developed through long,exhausting years step by step. The hard work the Americans put in over the centuries has placed them where they are today. The foundations laid by Monroe became the cornerstone of US trade and foreign policy which sought to protect American nations from colonial dumping of goods in North and LATAM.
The Nixon/Kissinger administration invested in China with the explicit goal of democratising Chinese polity. But that did not happen. In fact the Chinese communist party actively sabotaged US industries for its own gain. Today US corporations NVIDIA,Apple,Microsoft and so many more employ and enthusiastically engage with communist Chinese politburo to generate more profits.
Throughout the 70’s American investment has created the so-called Asian tiger economies and what has it gotten in return? Nothing but ingratitude, more competition , loss of wealth and jobs from its own country. Why would anyone want to continue with an arrangement that is so unbalanced?
How does the so-called trade with Asian nations benefit the average American citizen? Well an argument could be made that these corporations gain more market share and international exposure. But it's clear to see who gained more [1].
Meanwhile many of LATAM states are still lagging behind in tech and have paradoxically started engaging with China instead of America. The original ideals of Monroe which sought to empower the American nations seem to have been lost in this geopolitical game.
The voices in the USA are growing strong. The American people want someone who can look out for American interests and not be a lackey to unanswerable private corporations who have grown so powerful that they can change policies. Organisations that are simply too big to fail. That's all president Trump is doing —what's best for the Americans. Making sure that American jobs are protected and that only those immigrants who are critical to the US economy are given precedence.
Some people argue that this protectionist attitude will not be beneficial in the long run for the USA. A few decades ago China was not even a competitor. Now it's a threat. Nearly all of the west is actively trying to uncouple its dependence on China and build more robust supply chains. At least that's what many would like to believe even when the evidence points to the fact that the trade between the US and China has increased year on year[2].
That's where India comes in. India seems to promise America a reliable and democratic partner in Asia. But from an American point of view India is a net importer of technology. India gains more in a partnership with America. Every year $27 Billion dollars are sent in remittances alone by Indian immigrants in the USA. Not to mention the uncountable wealth that is generated by American corporations headquartered in India.
Despite this the rhetoric in Indian media and polity is certainly anti American. Recently the Minister of External Affairs Dr S Jaishankar dropped even the pretense of being friendly with America by publicly endorsing a reset of ties with China [6]. The context matters because just a few years ago his stance was pro American and anti chinese.
The USA questions India's commitment to Quad because of its active involvement in BRICS. As far as American policy makers are concerned India is not trustworthy and frankly it's hard to blame them. It is clear to see that India has not emerged from that policy of Non alignment ,which it now calls multi alignment perhaps with an intention to misdirect, that defined Nehru's terms. Which is ironic considering how China has prioritised good relations with the USA since at least the 1800s.
Geopolitically India lacks strength. Well yes many analysts claim that India has a long coastline from where it can ‘project power’ in the Indian Ocean and ‘safeguard’ interests that are shared by the USA. The QUAD was certainly founded on these principles but the fact is that India is not the only nation that offers these advantages. The USA can just as easily partner with any nation to the west of India or with any nation in central Asia to gain similar advantages. It has certainly done so through partnerships with Pakistan, Thailand and Vietnam. Yet despite this the Indian diaspora remains a source of consolation. As it has established itself quite firmly in the USA and continues to act as a diplomatic bridge between the two governments.
Mr Vembu's talk touched upon these themes. From what I understood he was of the opinion that India needs to build its own technology. One this aspect I am in full agreement with him. Geopolitical games are hardly strategic despite what they may seem like to someone who is a casual observer.
Many of these ministers ,bureaucrats and diplomats give an aura that they are doing something really important and significant. Nothing could be further from the truth. All they do is react. In fact, reactive is an apt word to describe modern geopolitics. Kissinger called it realpolitik, a term he borrowed from a German journalist.
Under the cover of pragmatism, realism,achievable goals, diplomacy and what not realpolitik fails to make choices. Or to be more blunt it refuses to make one. It doesn't take a stand. Strategy is about making deliberate choices after looking at tradeoffs and picking the one which positions you to win.
America has or at least used to have a strategy. It used its technology as a geopolitical leverage. Tech transfers to SEA or to China or to nations in the EU come with strings attached. They happen when the US is already 2 steps ahead of the game. The nations to which tech is transferred are always lagging behind. No matter how strong the economies in the SEA become they will never win or lead just become prosperous but impotent.
This is why it's important to ‘homebrew’ tech. England did it centuries ago and it placed them at the top. The US did it much later and it leads the world. Anyone who wants to compete or surpass the USA will have to do the same. There is no other way.
It's impossible to catch up by simply following the footsteps of a leader.
However there are other voices. Many claim that the US is in decline. Supposing that it were true America has embedded itself so deeply in the world that it's quite possible that someone else would easily advance America's cause. It might be Canada or even one of many prosperous US states. This is the benefit of free trade. It allows you to create redundancy and the US has a lot of redundancy built in.
History repeats itself over and over and over. The industrialisation of the Chinese nation and the events that are taking place today are not new to a careful observer of history. A century before the same events transpired in Germany. Today Germany proudly claims itself to be an industrialised nation. A country that innovated and pushed the boundaries of science and technology. But turn back the pages of history and you'll find a slightly different ,a bit more uncomfortable truth.
German businessmen,engineers and scientists relied upon free trade to reverse engineer goods, patents to seed their own economy. Which is why List’s theory seems so hollow. Without free trade it would have been impossible for Germany or Japan or any other nation who developed to acquire tech to reverse engineer [3-4]. Free trade won absolutely while protectionism has failed to produce a single winner.
It's also interesting to note that while industrialized America focused on a respectful trade between nations, both of the so-called nationalised economies of Japan and Germany turned into colonial powers.
I thought it was a bit hypocritical for the speakers to suggest domestic protection in India while advocating for free markets in the USA.
Another question was raised : Does a strong economy make a strong nation? Many speakers seemed to believe so. I have my doubts. Many nations have strong economies today. Singapore,Japan,Germany,Saudi Arabia,Israel,Qatar,UAE,South Korea. All of them are militarily occupied by the USA. China, despite all of its huffing and puffing, seeks to placate the USA just for the privilege of being able to trade with the Americans. In exchange the USA allows china not just trade but a share in power. Penny Wong is the FM of AU, a five eyes nation. Germany is no different,former German FM Annalena Baerbock has been appointed as the president of UNGA in New York.
So many Chinese people today are leading US semicon hubs. The USA towers over China. Being a strong economy made them rich but not free. Do they even value freedom over comfort?
US firms generate around $310B in China. I don't ever foresee the Chinese saying no to even a fraction of that money. This is why BRICS won't ever get anywhere and is definitely not the voice of the global south.
African nations need to carefully analyse what has happened in Asia. They have little choice in terms of financing, yet their strong diaspora in the USA can position them advantageously vis-a-vis the EU or Asia.
REFERENCES
1 How did China’s trade surplus hit $1 trillion?
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/12/9/how-did-chinas-trade-surplus-hit-1-trillion
2 China’s trade resilience shows that US tariffs aren’t everything
https://think.ing.com/snaps/chinas-trade-resilience-shows-that-the-future-of-trade-is-more-than-just-us-tariffs/
3 American influence on German manufacturing before World War I: the case of the Ludwig Loewe Company
https://books.openedition.org/irhis/1885?lang=en
4 Catching-Up and Falling Behind: Knowledge Spillover from American to German Machine Toolmakers
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227405175_Catching-Up_and_Falling_Behind_Knowledge_Spillover_from_American_to_German_Machine_Toolmakers
5 China says BRICS not seeking ‘confrontation’ after Trump tariff threat
https://www.arabnews.com/node/2607195/world
6 EAM's visit to China and meeting with Chinese Foreign Minister
https://www.mea.gov.in/press-releases.htm?dtl/39803/EAMs_visit_to_China_and_meeting_with_Chinese_Foreign_Minister
Akshat Jiwan Sharma
Strategy Consultant--Innovation/ Materials science/International relations/Telecommunications/Digital Transformation/Partnerships
Mobile/whatsapp:+919654119771
email:getellobed@gmail.com
Comments
Post a Comment