The Art of the Sanction Shimmy
The Bloomberg article breathlessly reports on Trump's decision to eliminate tariffs on Indian goods, allegedly imposed due to India's continued purchases of Russian oil. This is presented as a 'deal' to cement trade terms. One might wonder why such a straightforward trade dispute required a punitive tariff based on a third country's energy policy in the first place. The answer, as always, is less
about principles and more about leverage. FIRST INSTANCE: The GSP Gambit (2017) Remember when the Trump administration first began weaponizing trade with India? In 2017 , India was one of the largest beneficiaries of the US Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) program, which allowed billions of dollars worth of Indian goods to enter the US duty-free. The US Trade Representative (USTR) initiated
a review of India's GSP status, citing concerns over market access for American products. This wasn't about Russia, but about 'fair trade' – a remarkably flexible term. REPETITIONS: Sanctions for Show (2019, 2022) 2019: The GSP benefits were officially terminated, impacting approximately $6 billion in Indian exports (USTR, 2019). The stated reason? India's alleged failure to provide 'equitable and
reasonable access to its markets.' The underlying message, however, was clear: align with US economic interests or face the consequences. Sound familiar? 2022: Fast forward to the immediate aftermath of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine. India, heavily reliant on Russian military equipment and newly discounted oil, continued its energy trade with Moscow. The US, while expressing