Trade, security, character, and the prospects for a viable West
One big baby is upending the post-1945 international order
Thanks for upgrading to a paid subscription. Writing is my job. Your support of that means everything to me.
It’s now clear that it’s not an indulgence in hyperbole to say that the post-1945 international order has given way to something else.
Erratic post-American “leadership” is causing the other nations of the world - from the European Union to south Asia to the Pacific rim - to start making plans for a new order that sidelines post-America in most ways.
Let’s look at the twists and turns in US-India relations so far this year.
In February, Indian prime minister Narendra Modi visited the White House, and the Very Stable Genius called him a “great friend”.
But in the spring, India got into a very tense conflict with Pakistan over Kashmir. The world held its breath, wondering how close to the nuclear brink the two neighbors would come. They finally arrived at a truce - for which the VSG was determined to take credit. And he wanted to use the situation as an example of how his weaponization of trade makes for a dandy conflict-resolution tool.
Um, about that:
The Indian government on Tuesday disputed President Donald Trump’s claim that the U.S.-mediated ceasefire between India and Pakistan came about in part because he had offered possible trade concessions.
Addressing a weekly news conference, Randhir Jaiswal, the spokesman for India’s foreign ministry, said top leaders in New Delhi and Washington were in touch last week following the Indian military’s intense standoff with Pakistan, but that there was no conversation on trade.
“The issue of trade didn’t come up in any of these discussions,” Jaiswal said, referring to the conversations held between Vice President JD Vance and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, as well as between Secretary of State Marco Rubio and his Indian counterpart, S. Jaishankar.
Following Saturday’s understanding between India and Pakistan to stop military action on land, in the air and at sea, Trump told reporters on Monday that he had offered to help both nations with trade if they agreed to de-escalate.
“I said, come on, we’re going to do a lot of trade with you guys. Let’s stop it. Let’s stop it. If you stop it, we’ll do a trade. If you don’t stop it, we’re not going to do any trade,’” Trump said.
Let’s zoom out just a bit and look at Asian trade more broadly. India does indeed buy a lot of Russian oil, and there is indeed a moral component to that. It makes one stomach queasy to think of an emerging world power looking the other way as its major oil supplier (Russia) pillages and obliterates its sovereign neighbor (Ukraine).
But is trade leverage the way to influence a nation with which the US has enjoyed improving relations for some time?
India needs oil, and China has oil to sell. It’s been stockpiling the Russian oil it’s been buying. Plus, for China, this is about more than oil and oil prices. It’s about seizing the moment for rearranging the world order:
The new tariffs were announced just as India’s prime minister Narendra Modi is preparing for his first visit to China in more than seven years – an engagement that suggests a potential realignment in alliances. Modi will travel to China at the end of the month, when leaders of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation are set to gather for a summit in Tianjin from 31 August to 1 September.
India and China have sought this year to repair ties that were strained by the 2020 border skirmish between their respective militaries. This year, both nations resumed the Mansarovar Yatra and ended the visa freeze for tourists.
In recent years, successive US administrations – even Trump’s, during his first tenure as president – have strategically deepened ties with India, but analysts believe the latest actions risk dragging the relationship to its lowest point since the US sanctioned India in 1998 over its nuclear tests.
Trump has been accused of selectively targeting India for purchasing Russian oil while the EU continues to import liquefied natural gas from Russia.
The trade talks between India and the US broke down after five rounds of negotiations, over disagreement about opening India’s vast farm and dairy sectors to US imports, and stopping Russian oil purchases. Trump has intensified his criticism of Delhi and Moscow, labelling them “dead economies” in a social media post last week.
“The next round of negotiations between the trade teams in August will ask more of India, but the question is, what would India give? The US side must also take into account India’s strategic importance as a China counterweight,” says Farwa Aamer, the director of south Asia initiatives at the Asia Society Policy Institute.
She adds: “If US-India ties get strained further, it only helps China to maintain and expand its influence. It also makes a strong case for India to ensure that its own relations with China remain stable.”
Also, it’s a bit rich for the Very Stable Genius to suddenly find Russia a morally repugnant rogue actor. Also back in February, he said ““I’ve had very good talks with Putin” . . . and “not such good talks with Ukraine.” And also that month, he humiliated Ukrainian president Zelensky in the Oval Office with the you-don’t-have-any-cards tirade. And then cancelled a follow-up photo op and had Zelensky leave the White House by a side door.
The whole thing - foreign policy by tariff - is so flagrantly economically illiterate that even Rolling Stone gets it.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent appeared on MSNBC, where he was gently coaxed into admitting that while the government might rake in plenty from the new taxes, American businesses and consumers are the ones paying the penalties.
“So if someone here, an importer, wants to buy Brazilian products today or tomorrow and import them, they’re going to pay 50 percent to the Treasury, and so who writes that check,” host Eugene Robinson asked Bessent of the new tariffs leveled against the South American nation.
Bessent first stated that tariffed Brazilian imports could simply be replaced with “substitutes” from other nations, before being pressed by Robinson to clarify “who writes the check to the Treasury,” if the product does come from a tariffed nation like Brazil.
“Well, the check is written to the person who receives it at the dock, in the U.S.” Bessent replied.
“The check is written by the person, the receiver. So the tariff is paid in this country by the importer. Is that right?” Robinson pressed. Bessent then said that the exporter could lower their price to retain market share. Robinson pressed again: “But the check is written by the importer, at the dock?
“Yep,” Bessent said. “And the importer can pass it on or not.”
The economic reality is that tariffs are not taxes paid by exporters, they are an economic disincentive against the importing specific products that primarily burdens the purchaser. But much like President Trump thinks he can just firethe nation’s leading statistician to make his floundering economic metrics go away, the administration believes it can simply declare that centuries of economic theory and practice don’t apply to them.
The pared down tariffs that have been in place for several months have already begun negatively impacting the American economy. Job and GDP growth has slowed, consumer prices are on the rise, and inflation has begun to tick up. Some of Trump’s advisers worry that not even dipping economic numbers will get the president to back off his chaotic tariff policy.
I was heartened to see economist Stephen Moore oppose this nonsense, but I wish he hadn’t gone in for the good-Trump-bad-Trump framing of it. (“Sometimes Trump can’t stand prosperity.” What are we supposed to do? Make him stay in bed until he has a day of lucidity?)
“Sometimes Trump can’t stand prosperity,” longtime Trump economic confidant Stephen Moore, told Rolling Stone this week. “My advice to Trump is to stop with the tariffs. We don’t need tariffs right now. … When I see him, he knows my position; every time he sees me, he says: ‘There’s Steve Moore! He doesn’t like tariffs!’ This will hopefully get the administration to back off of the tariffs.”
Such a dandy state of affairs here in highly volatile mid-2025. US foreign policy is eschewing a bedrock principle - namely, that it behooves us to cultivate good relations with countries that are either Western or amenable to core Western values - in favor of a wholly transactional and situational approach, all because the US president - and, for the time being, the most powerful man in the world - is a big baby who prioritizes self-glorification above all else.
For those who base their political leanings on grocery store and gas station prices (not an unreasonable take for the busy average post-American to have), I’d say brace yourselves for some unpleasant data as the year continues to unfold.
Well, maybe not, since the VSG fired the grown-up truth teller at the Bureau of Labor Statistics.