By John Q. Hosedrinker 
External Affairs Minister Dr. S. Jaishankar criticized the US and Pakistan at the Economic Times World Leaders Forum, highlighting their tendency to “overlook history,” specifically referencing the 2011 Abbottabad raid. He emphasized India’s foreign policy is guided by long-term confidence and national interests, rejecting any mediation in relations with Pakistan. Furthermore, Jaishankar refuted claims of US mediation in past ceasefire agreements, attributing the settlements to direct talks between India and Pakistan. The minister also underscored the government’s commitment to protecting India’s economic interests and strategic autonomy, warning against any challenges to these positions.
Read the original article here
If EU or US have a problem with India reselling Russian crude, they should stop purchasing it. This sentiment, a direct quote from India’s Minister of External Affairs, Jaishankar, captures the heart of a complicated geopolitical situation. It highlights a clash of interests and values in the wake of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, a situation that is clearly creating a global tension that has to be addressed.
The United States, it seems, initiated a price cap on Russian oil, ostensibly to limit Russia’s profits from the war. At the same time, they requested that India, a major energy consumer, purchase this oil at the capped price. However, India has since become a significant exporter of refined products, a consequence that’s now causing waves in international markets and impacting American companies. The US, it appears, is now placing tariffs on India, but not on China, perhaps because China is largely just consuming the product, not reselling it. The implication is clear: America’s actions are driven by its own economic interests.
The core of the issue is the hypocrisy some perceive in the West’s stance. On one hand, there is a consistent condemnation of Russia, and a moral high ground taken on that basis. On the other, there is a continued reliance on Russian energy sources, including oil and natural gas. The EU’s dependence on Russian gas, for example, directly contradicts the strong rhetoric against the aggressor.
Jaishankar’s statement can be seen as a direct response to this perceived hypocrisy. If the US and the EU truly object to India’s trade with Russia, the logic goes, they should simply stop buying from India, which is in their right to do so. This highlights the concept of sovereign choices, and the ability of a country to decide its own economic and political path.
There are complexities, such as the fact that India’s refined products are not necessarily of Russian origin. The refined product trade, however, does create a market where the Russian crude is being sold and used to create this market. There is no doubt that this does affect the profits of the oil companies and the American economy.
The underlying issues are multifaceted and go beyond simple trade. There are concerns about the potential for India’s actions to be seen as supporting Russia’s actions, as well as the ethics of profiting from a conflict. The situation is not black and white.
Some people argue that the issue boils down to a simple matter of economics. India is seen as a sovereign nation that can make decisions based on its own national interests, and in this case, it makes sense to buy the discounted Russian oil. Others feel that the morality of the situation is more important.
The situation is not the first time that the US has had to deal with this sort of a situation, and the responses have not always been the same. This, some would claim, is due to the personalities involved, and the effect they have on the political environment, and the economic considerations in play.
Some see this situation as a power play. They might say that the West is seeking to maintain its dominance in a changing world. They may also point to the history of colonialism, and how those attitudes are still embedded in the thought processes of those in the Western World.
The truth of the matter, is that it has been quite a year or two for the world in the face of the Ukraine and Russia war, and the economic landscape is still changing. The war has clearly brought up the question of sovereignty and self-determination. All of these questions will be debated for a long time to come.