By John Q. Hosedrinker 
National Security Advisor Ajit Doval informed U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo that India would not be intimidated by President Trump and would instead wait for his term to conclude. Doval expressed India’s desire to set aside disagreements and resume trade negotiations. This stance was communicated prior to discussions concerning a potential trade deal between the two nations.
Read the original article here
India, it seems, has adopted a strategic patience in its dealings with the United States, particularly in the context of trade relations under the Trump administration. The sentiment conveyed by National Security Advisor Ajit Doval to U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, prior to a crucial trade deal, was one of resolute determination: India would not be subjected to bullying and would, in essence, wait out the duration of President Trump’s term. This approach suggests a belief in the ephemeral nature of a presidency, even one characterized by its unconventional tactics and assertive demands.
The underlying philosophy appears to be that of demonstrating unwavering strength and resilience, rather than succumbing to immediate pressure. The idea is that once the perceived opponent, in this case, President Trump, realizes that his targets are not as pliable as he might have initially assumed, his aggressive stance might falter or, at the very least, be tempered. This is not a novel strategy in international diplomacy; many nations, it’s observed, adopt a similar posture of measured response, often with an eye towards the political cycles and potential shifts in leadership within other countries.
The notion of “waiting out his term” reflects a calculation that the political landscape can change, and that the current administration’s policies might not be permanent. This perspective is often informed by an understanding of democratic processes, including elections and the potential for shifts in power. The hope, therefore, is that a change in administration will bring about a different approach to foreign policy and trade negotiations.
However, this strategy is not without its underlying anxieties and counterarguments. Some express concern about the unpredictability of such a political figure and the potential for actions that could undermine democratic norms. The very idea of a president’s term being treated as a period to be endured rather than actively engaged with highlights a deep-seated unease about the direction of leadership and its impact on established international relationships.
The effectiveness of such a waiting game is also debated. While patience can be a virtue, some argue that a more proactive stance is necessary when faced with what is perceived as bullying. The concern is that simply waiting might embolden the perceived aggressor and lead to further concessions. There’s a school of thought that suggests a direct confrontation, or at least a firm and immediate pushback, is the only way to effectively counter an assertive and potentially unpredictable leader.
Moreover, the idea of “waiting out” a term implicitly relies on the assumption that the term will indeed end as scheduled and that the electoral processes will function as expected. This assumption itself has been a point of contention and discussion, particularly in the current global political climate. The possibility of unforeseen events or attempts to alter the established order adds a layer of complexity to any long-term diplomatic strategy.
The commentary also touches upon the nature of leadership and the perception of weakness. The argument is made that if a leader senses weakness, they are likely to press their advantage. Conversely, if they perceive strength and a lack of easy compliance, they might indeed back down. This dynamic underscores the importance of how a nation projects its resolve and its commitment to its own interests.
Ultimately, the strategy of “waiting out a term” is a complex one, born out of a specific geopolitical context and a particular perception of the leader in question. It is a gamble that assumes the eventual return to a more predictable and perhaps more conventionally diplomatic approach. Whether this patience will be rewarded or whether a more immediate and assertive engagement would have yielded better results remains a subject of ongoing debate and will likely only be fully understood in hindsight. The situation highlights the delicate balance between asserting national interests and navigating the often turbulent waters of international relations in an era of assertive leadership.