Singh may be a whiz kid, but he is clearly a bad diplomat. His brief may have been to apprise India of the risks involved in carrying on energy trade with Russia and the moral opprobrium involved in such a move but his derogatory punchlines will define this trip
It has been interesting to watch the trip undertaken by US deputy national security advisor Daleep Singh to India. Singh, the great grand-nephew of Dalip Singh Saund, the first Asian-American elected to the US Congress, came bearing a fearsome reputation as Joe Biden’s marksman who apparently single-handedly pierced Russia’s ‘sanctions-proof’ economy.
Prior to his role as the deputy NSA for international economics and deputy director for the National Economic Council in the Biden administration, a job that gives him command over the vast policymaking spheres of supply chain resilience to economic statecraft and makes him one of the most powerful Indian-Americans in the US, Singh had a meaty position in the treasury department of the Barack Obama administration.
We were told that nobody messes with Singh and that he’s got the smarts and the intellect to waltz through the complexities of the international financial system. That Singh was being sent to India triggered a bit of cheerleading from American commentators bent on teaching impertinent India a lesson for its stance on Ukraine.
Singh landed in India with a lot of swagger and went straight for the jugular. In the course of his two-day visit and meeting with Union commerce minister Piyush Goyal and foreign secretary Harsh Shringla, Singh reportedly “cautioned India against enhancing ties with Moscow” and made it clear that India runs the risk of being caught up in a web of secondary sanctions if it tries to do business with Russia.
On Thursday, hours before Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov’s arrival, Singh told reporters in India that the US won’t like to see a “rapid acceleration of India’s imports from Russia as it relates to energy or any other any other exports that are currently being prohibited by the US or by other aspects of the international sanctions regime“. He warned that there will be “consequences” for countries, including India, “that actively attempt to circumvent or backfill the sanctions”, and also said that “we are very keen for all countries, especially our allies and partners, not to create mechanisms that prop up the ruble, and those that attempt to undermine the dollar-based financial system.”
These naked, public threats raised quite a few eyebrows. Syed Akbaruddin, former Indian envoy to the UN, wrote on Twitter that “This is not the language of diplomacy… This is the language of coercion… Somebody tell this young man that punitive unilateral economic measures are a breach of customary international law…”
Singh may be a whiz kid, but he is clearly a bad diplomat. His brief may have been to apprise India of the risks involved in carrying on energy trade with Russia and the moral opprobrium involved in such a move but more than the merit or intent of his approach, his derogatory punchlines will define this trip.
Moreover, given that Europe continues to remain a bulk consumer of Russian oil and gas with leaders from Norway, Germany to Italy refusing to halt Russian energy flows, Singh’s warning to India — a country whose share of Russian oil purchase is a fraction of Europe’s and a pittance of its own needs — smacks of rank hypocrisy.
Singh’s shooting from the hip also heightens the risk of creating further dissonance in a bilateral relationship that has been under stress due to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. On the same day, Singh made these comments, external affairs minister S Jaishankar in presence of visiting British foreign secretary Liz Truss at the India-UK Strategic Futures Forum, hit out against what he called a “campaign” from the West against India’s buying of discounted Russian oil.
“When the oil prices go up, I think it is natural for countries to go out into the market and look for what are the good deals for their people,” said Jaishankar, adding: “But I am pretty sure if we wait for two or three months and actually look at who are the big buyers of Russian oil and gas, I suspect the list would not be too different from what it used to be and I suspect we won’t be in the top 10 on that list.”
Jaishankar also hinted at the duplicity in targeting India. “I was reading a report today that in March, Europe has bought, I think, 15 per cent more oil and gas from Russia than it did the month before… If you look at the major buyers of oil and gas from Russia, I think you will find most of them are in Europe,” he said in presence of Truss.
A day after on Friday, Union finance minister N Sitharaman was categorical in her statement that India won’t stop buying Russian oil. At a CNBC TV18 event, Sitharaman said: “We have started buying, we have received quite a number of barrels — I would think three-four days’ supply and this will continue,” she said, adding: “India’s overall interest is what is kept in mind.”
India, which imports 85 per cent of its crude needs, is battling massive inflationary pressure on its economy and a widening current account deficit due to surging oil prices. Political parties are targeting the Narendra Modi government at home. Against this backdrop, the Russian offer of deep discounts to the tune of almost $35 a barrel is irresistible for India’s price-sensitive economy.
Sitharaman said “I would put my national interest first and I would put my energy security first. And if there is fuel available at discount. Why shouldn’t I buy it?”, adding that mechanisms are being worked out to source more oil — directly challenging Singh’s position.
If the US deputy NSA had used coercive language to deter India from buying Russian oil, it clearly hasn’t worked. All that Singh has managed to do is raise the temperature.
There is, however, a bigger point to be made. If Singh was sent by the US to send a message to India, he either didn’t do his job very well or there is a fissure within the Biden administration on how to draw a big, strategically significant swing state like India — that has historically close ties with Russia — to its camp to completely isolate Vladimir Putin. The fissure seems to lie on the methods to be used to shape India’s behaviour.
For instance, Singh’s threats and brusque comments are in contrast with a more mellow approach from US under-secretary of state Victoria Nuland who visited India last month and had stated in interviews that Washington understands India’s energy and defence requirements and stands ready to do more to help India find alternatives.
While Singh tied India’s buying of energy from Russia to possible “consequences”, the US State Department a day after tried to diffuse the sharpness of Singh’s remarks, clarifying that “different countries are going to have their own relationship with the Russian Federation. It’s a fact of history. It’s a fact of geography. That is not something that we are seeking to change. What we are seeking to do, whether it is in the context of India or other partners and allies around the world, is to do all we can to see to it that the international community is speaking in unison.”
Contradictory messaging has now become a feature, not a bug of the Biden administration. The US president called India ‘shaky’ on Russia, and US commerce secretary Gina Raimondo accused India of “funding and fueling and aiding President Putin’s war,” while Ned Price, the US State Department spokesperson, said: “We are a partner of choice for India.”
Apart from adding to the confusion, Singh also made the mistake of publicly telling off India, something which may not go down well in New Delhi. Contrast his high-handedness with the Russian approach. Despite the West’s claim, India has been quite critical of Russia. Its tone and tenor have become sharper and more censorious with the progress of the war. New Delhi hasn’t voted against Russia at the UN, but abstention has been India’s favourite move during voting at the UN with notable exceptions.
Despite being called out for its actions, Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov — who flew into New Delhi when Singh and Truss were still in town — told reporters that “Indian foreign policies are characterised by independence and the concentration on real national legitimate interests. The same policy based in the Russian Federation and this makes us, as big countries, good friends and loyal partners.”
The wily Lavrov was evidently playing on the gap created by Singh. One can bet in the fact that he will cite American pressure tactics to drive a wedge in India-US ties. Whether or not he succeeds is moot, but the difference in approach is notable. Americans enjoy a convergence of interests with India, but they are yet to figure out something Russians did long back. Public threats and warnings are counterproductive. Russians do it more subtly.
There’s also a cultural difference to be looked at. A post-colonial society doesn’t respond well to bullying, threats, warnings and coercive behavior. Americans may believe friends can and should talk about difficult topics openly — a stance the Biden administration has been clear about when it comes to India — but Indians feel that those discussions are best kept private.
Pushing India to choose and doing so publicly while dangling an open threat is the definition of bad diplomacy. Singh’s visit to India was a slow-moving train wreck.
Read all the Latest News, Trending News, Cricket News, Bollywood News,
India News and Entertainment News here. Follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.