By John Q. Hosedrinker 
US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent expressed strong disappointment with the European Union’s newly-negotiated trade agreement with India, particularly given the ongoing war in Ukraine. Bessent criticized the EU for prioritizing trade interests over the war, highlighting that Europe has been buying refined Russian products after India began buying sanctioned Russian oil, indirectly funding the conflict. The US had imposed tariffs on India for buying Russian oil but the EU did not join these efforts, which Bessent claimed was due to the trade deal. This agreement, which India officials have called “the mother of all deals”, is expected to boost India’s exports and comes amidst global trade tensions.
Read the original article here
‘Very disappointed’: Scott Bessent hits out at Europe over India-EU trade deal — what he said – The Times of India, and the reactions to it, reveal a fascinating peek into the current global trade dynamics and, frankly, some pretty strong feelings. The essence of the commentary is that a perceived disappointment from the US, specifically from individuals like Scott Bessent, regarding the India-EU trade deal is met with a collective shrug, if not outright celebration, by many observers. The core sentiment seems to be a frustration with a perceived US tendency to bully its allies and then express surprise when those allies seek alternative trade partners.
The central point of contention revolves around the US’s position on global trade, particularly its tendency towards protectionism and the imposition of tariffs. Many commentators express the view that the US, under certain administrations, has alienated its traditional allies by adopting an “America First” approach, prioritizing its own interests over the established norms of international trade and cooperation. This has, in their view, created an environment where other nations feel compelled to seek out new trade agreements, as the US has seemingly become an unreliable partner.
The criticism of Scott Bessent’s disappointment is essentially a critique of this approach. His disapproval of the India-EU trade deal is seen as a symptom of a larger problem: the US’s inability to accept that the world is evolving and that other nations are pursuing their own economic strategies. The commentators generally believe that these new deals are a natural consequence of the US’s actions. If the US is going to act like it wants nothing to do with global trade, other countries will naturally start trading with each other. This is viewed as the natural consequence of being an unreliable partner.
A key theme throughout the commentary is the feeling that the US is no longer the sole dominant force in global trade. The comments highlight that countries like India and those in Europe are becoming increasingly independent and are no longer willing to be dictated to by the US. There’s a strong sense of schadenfreude, or delight in the misfortune of others, directed at Bessent and those who share his views, and the belief that the US is reaping what it has sown.
The comments also touch on the perception of hypocrisy. There’s a feeling that the US, while criticizing others for their trade dealings, is itself inconsistent in its own actions. Some perceive a double standard, where the US demands allegiance and conformity while simultaneously disrupting established global trade agreements and even cozying up to nations like Russia. This perceived hypocrisy fuels the dissatisfaction and adds to the perception that the US is no longer a reliable partner on the global stage.
Furthermore, some commentators raise the issue of the US’s shifting stance on certain international issues. The shifting stance on Ukraine is cited, and with it, a decline in credibility of being able to judge. There is an observation that the US does not have credibility to object to trade deals based on political considerations, especially when its own actions are perceived as inconsistent. In essence, the narrative paints the US as a bully who has lost its leverage and is now struggling to accept its diminished influence.
The commentators also express a broader sentiment of frustration with the US’s domestic politics and its impact on the nation’s international standing. The comments appear to reflect a general feeling that these policies are harmful and short-sighted, driving away allies and isolating the US. There is a sense of worry about the future and the potential consequences of these actions.
The bottom line is that the commentary surrounding Scott Bessent’s disappointment underscores a profound shift in global trade dynamics. What’s perceived as the US’s aggressive stance, bullying tactics, and perceived hypocrisy is driving other nations to seek out new alliances and economic opportunities, leaving figures like Bessent “very disappointed.” The commentary suggests that this is not just a passing phase, but a fundamental realignment of power and influence in the global economy, driven by the actions and perceived failings of the US.