Washington pressures India as a partner but confronts China as a rival, leaving New Delhi navigating uneasy choices in a tense geopolitical standoff
Prime Minister Narendra Modi reportedly pledged to halt purchases of Russian oil during a Wednesday (October 15) phone call with US President Donald Trump. “I was not happy that India was buying oil, and he assured me today that they will not be buying oil from Russia,” Trump declared. “That’s a big step. Now I’ve got to get China to do the same thing.”
Yet, on that very same day, top American officials launched a blistering attack on China — not for buying Russian oil, but for proposing export controls on 34 critical raw minerals that underpin modern economies. US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Trade Representative Jamieson Greer branded Beijing’s move a “global supply-chain power grab,” framing it as “China versus the world.”
Also read: Kitchen sinks to Gaza: How two rogue powers are reshaping the world order
This stark contrast reveals how Washington treats its two major Asian counterparts: India is pressured into concessions under the guise of alliance, while China is met with fear, suspicion, and strategic containment.
India’s unequal bargain
The Modi government appears eager to finalise the much-touted “MEGA” trade deal with Washington before Bihar’s state elections kick off next month. Though the specifics of India’s concessions — particularly in agriculture, including approval of genetically modified maize — remain shrouded in secrecy, the returns seem meagre.
India risks becoming a pawn in a high-stakes contest between two hegemons: one clinging to dominance, the other asserting its place. The parallels to the Peloponnesian War are hard to ignore.
Just before the latest round of talks, India’s chief trade negotiator reportedly floated the idea of purchasing an additional $15 billion in US oil “at the right price” — a phrase that rings hollow given the context. Indian exports to the US already face a punishing 50 per cent tariff: 25 per cent from Trump’s contested “reciprocal tariffs” (now under review by the US Supreme Court) and another 25 per cent explicitly tied to India’s past Russian oil imports.
Also read: Modi’s ‘promise’ to Trump, an evasive MEA, and a fresh opportunity for Rahul
Unless India makes significant financial or policy concessions, analysts expect the US to lock in a unilateral tariff of 16-18 per cent on Indian goods — higher than the 15 per cent applied to Japan and the EU, and possibly on par with the 19 per cent rate imposed on Pakistan.
China plays the long game
Hoping for favourable treatment simply because of US-China tensions is naive. In fact, Beijing has already retaliated: on Wednesday, China formally requested World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute consultations over India’s alleged subsidies to its electric vehicle (EV) and battery sectors, accusing New Delhi of violating national treatment rules and engaging in prohibited import-substitution practices.
The timing is unmistakable — a warning shot to India not to over-accommodate Washington at China’s expense.
Unlike India, China is not yielding. Instead, it’s leveraging its dominance in critical mineral supply chains to shift the balance of economic power. Under proposed Chinese regulations, any product containing more than 0.1 per cent of Chinese-processed rare earths or critical minerals — even if manufactured elsewhere — would require Beijing’s export approval. As Greer put it, “That means a smartphone built in Korea and sold in Australia could need Beijing’s permission.”
Also read: Russia defends crude oil trade with India amid Trump’s remarks
Control, coercion and more
This isn’t just about trade — it’s about control. From consumer electronics to defence systems, China could effectively hold the global tech production hostage.
The US calls it “economic coercion.” Yet, Washington has long wielded similar tools, using semiconductor embargoes and dual-use technology restrictions to pressure adversaries.
Unless India makes significant financial or policy concessions, analysts expect the US to lock in a unilateral tariff of 16-18 pc on Indian goods — higher than the 15 pc applied to Japan and the EU, and possibly on par with the 19 pc rate imposed on Pakistan.
Ironically, while accusing China of abandoning the spirit of recent trade talks, the Trump administration is simultaneously embracing industrial policy — once anathema to free-market orthodoxy.
“When you’re facing a nonmarket economy like China, you have to exercise industrial policies,” Bessent declared at a CNBC forum. The goal? Reduce American dependence on Chinese-controlled supply chains by taking equity stakes in American firms critical to national security.
'China versus the world'
US officials are not mincing words. “Make no mistake — this is China versus the world,” Bessent asserted. “They are a command-and-control economy, and we and our allies will neither be commanded nor controlled.”
Also read: Trump slaps extra 100% tariff on China; might scrap talks with Xi Jinping
He accused Beijing of hypocrisy: preaching peace while “fueling Russia’s war machine” through massive energy purchases — 60 per cent of Russian oil and 90 per cent of Iranian exports, by US estimates. The Treasury is now pushing European allies to back a “Russian oil tariff on China” (or, as Trump prefers, a “Ukrainian victory tariff”).
Meanwhile, the US's frustration with Chinese negotiators is boiling over. Bessent dismissed Vice-Minister of Commerce Li Chenggang as possibly “rogue,” citing his “disrespectful” conduct in past meetings and an uninvited appearance in Washington, where he allegedly threatened “global chaos” over port fees. “Maybe he thinks he’s a wolf warrior,” Bessent quipped. “We don’t know. That’s up to them.”
Also read: India must deepen trade ties with neighbours, including China: NITI Aayog CEO
The WTO gambit
China’s WTO complaint against India’s EV subsidies adds another layer of complexity. While Beijing claims India’s policies violate WTO rules by favoring domestic producers, critics note the irony: China itself has poured billions into building its own EV and battery juggernaut — now facing countervailing duties in the EU and a near-total US market ban.
Legal experts point out that even if a WTO panel rules against India, enforcement is unlikely. The Appellate Body remains paralysed, rendering any adverse ruling effectively unenforceable.
Still, the move signals China’s willingness to use multilateral forums as strategic weapons.
Also read: India, EU conclude 14th round of free-trade agreement talks
A new great game
India risks becoming a pawn in a high-stakes contest between two hegemons: one clinging to dominance, the other asserting its place. The parallels to the Peloponnesian War are hard to ignore — Athens and Sparta, like the US and China, dragged allies into their rivalry, with smaller powers paying the price.
Washington insists it seeks “de-risking, not decoupling.” But if China proceeds with its export controls, the US warns, “the world will have to decouple.” As Greer put it, “We do not want a global economy run by Beijing’s permission slip.”
For India, the lesson is clear: in a world of great-power competition, sovereignty is respected only when backed by strategic leverage. Without it, even a nation of 1.4 billion can be treated as a supplicant.
(The Federal seeks to present views and opinions from all sides of the spectrum. The information, ideas or opinions in the articles are of the author and do not reflect the views of The Federal.)
