Context

• The global trade order has been jolted by the United States’ unilateral decision to impose reciprocal tariffs, announced on April 2, 2025.
• Not only is this move widely viewed as a violation of World Trade Organization (WTO) rules, it also exemplifies the growing disregard for multilateral norms under the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump.
• Countries around the world have responded in markedly different ways, revealing diverging approaches to the defence of international law and trade principles.
• In this context, India’s conspicuous silence stands in stark contrast to the vocal opposition expressed by other nations, raising important questions about its commitment to a rule-based global trading system. 

Global Condemnation of U.S. Tariffs

• Many countries have not hesitated to call out the United States for its breach of international trade law.
• Prominent among them is Singapore, whose Prime Minister Lawrence Wong declared that the tariffs represent a complete repudiation of the MFN principle, a foundational tenet of the WTO. Brazil similarly decried the tariffs as a clear violation of U.S. obligations.
• China, a direct target of these tariffs, has taken both rhetorical and legal action, launching a WTO dispute and retaliating with its own tariffs.
• Japan and Canada have echoed similar sentiments, with the latter even filing a legal case at the WTO concerning tariffs on Canadian automobiles and parts.
• These responses underscore a shared recognition that the rules-based trading system must be defended, especially when challenged by one of its most powerful members.
• These countries demonstrate that upholding multilateral norms is not incompatible with pursuing national interest; rather, the two are often intertwined.
• Even countries not explicitly accusing the U.S. of legal violations, such as Fiji and Italy have nonetheless expressed disapproval, labelling the tariffs unfair and a mistake,

India’s Conspicuous Silence

• In contrast, India’s tepid response has been characterised by ambiguity and diplomatic evasion.
• While many of its peers have taken a clear stance, India has issued no formal condemnation or legal challenge.
• This silence is especially notable given India’s longstanding advocacy for a rules-based international order, particularly in trade forums like the WTO.
• Two main justifications are offered for India’s non-response.

The Reason Behind India’s Silence

• Ongoing Trade Talks with the US
  • First, India is currently negotiating a bilateral trade agreement (BTA) with the U.S., and public criticism might endanger these talks.
  • However, this rationale does not hold up under scrutiny.
  • The U.S. has openly criticised India’s own tariff structures, even while engaged in negotiations, and this has not precluded continued dialogue.
  • Moreover, other countries in similar bilateral discussions have not refrained from condemning U.S. actions.
  • Expressing discontent with an unlawful move does not equate to abandoning diplomacy; rather, it reflects a principled stand on international norms.
• Ineffective State of WTO
  • Second, some argue that the WTO’s dispute settlement mechanism is currently dysfunctional, rendering legal action ineffective.
  • This view, however, misconstrues the broader role of international law. Legal norms are not merely tools for enforcement, they are moral and rhetorical instruments that help distinguish legitimate governance from the raw exercise of power.
  • Countries like China and Canada understand this dynamic; their legal filings against the U.S., even in the absence of effective adjudication, signal a commitment to legitimacy and international order.

India’s Missed Leadership Opportunity

• India’s silence is particularly disappointing given its historical position as a champion of the Global South and an advocate for equitable international frameworks.
• Its absence from a recent statement, signed by over 40 WTO members in support of trade multilateralism, further highlights its retreat from global leadership.
• At a time when developing countries look for direction in navigating an increasingly fragmented trade landscape, India could have stepped up to lead a coalition against unilateralism.
• By remaining passive, India risks undermining its own credibility.
• If it aspires to be a global leader and a defender of fair trade practices, then silence in the face of blatant rule-breaking sends the wrong message.
• Upholding the principles of the WTO, even symbolically, would not only bolster India’s standing on the world stage but also reaffirm its own strategic interest in a stable, rules-based trading environment.

Conclusion

• The imposition of reciprocal tariffs by the United States has triggered a global reckoning with the principles of international trade.
• While several nations have taken bold steps to defend the multilateral system, India has chosen silence over solidarity.
• This moment offers a critical test of India's foreign policy priorities: will it remain constrained by narrow transactionalism, or will it rise to defend the broader values it claims to uphold?
• History may not look kindly on India’s decision to stay silent when the very foundations of global trade were under threat.