Why US trade deals offer no protection to allies, partners:Greenland episode exposes Trump’s doublespeak, says GTRI – 7 lessons for India

President Donald Trump’s decision to impose 10% tariffs on imports from Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Finland underscores a blunt reality: no country—ally or trade partner—is immune from arbitrary US economic action if it defies Washington’s political or strategic demands. The tariffs, effective February 1, were imposed after these countries backed Denmark’s refusal to allow any US acquisition of Greenland. The measures will remain until Washington secures what Trump described as the “complete and total purchase of Greenland.” Trade agreements offer no shield: GTRI The Global Trade Research Initiative (GTRI) says the Greenland episode demonstrates that US trade agreements do not protect countries when American political or economic objectives are at stake. Washington, it notes, spares neither allies nor trade partners in pursuit of its goals. Ajay Srivastava, former trade officer and founder of GTRI, cautioned that the episode carries direct lessons for India. “Trade deals with Washington provide no guaranteed protection when economic measures are used as political leverage,” he said, pointing to Europe’s experience and earlier cases involving Canada and Australia. Pattern of coercion beyond Greenland GTRI situates the Greenland episode within a broader pattern of US behaviour. It follows the capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro, his trial in a New York court on contested charges, and Trump’s assertion that Venezuela’s oil resources would help fuel the American economy. Together, these developments, GTRI says, reinforce a pattern in which Washington uses tariffs, sanctions, and legal pressure as instruments of economic coercion, often disregarding international norms. Europe reassesses dependence on Washington For Europe, the message is unmistakable: even recent trade arrangements offer no protection from new US tariffs. Trust in the US has eroded sharply, with surveys showing 76% of Germans now view Washington as unreliable—the lowest level on record. The Greenland episode has accelerated a broader reassessment of reliance on the US across advanced economies. Allies hedge as US policy volatility grows Canada, a member of the Five Eyes intelligence alliance, was earlier hit with 35% US tariffs, told the USMCA was “irrelevant,” and subjected to rhetoric portraying it as America’s “51st state.” Ottawa responded by diversifying trade ties, signing multiple agreements with China and seeing Beijing overtake Washington as the largest buyer of Canadian crude. Australia has reset relations with China after trade retaliation hit wine, barley, and coal exports, while Britain’s new government is planning renewed engagement with Beijing. The pattern is clear: countries are hedging against US unpredictability rather than relying on trade agreements. India’s costly concessions, limited returns For India, the implications are immediate. Under sustained US pressure, New Delhi has withdrawn from a BRICS naval exercise involving Russia, China, Iran, and South Africa; stepped back from the Chabahar Port after decades of investment; halted oil purchases from Iran and Venezuela; and sharply reduced imports from Russia. Despite these steps, US pressure on India continues in trade negotiations and public discourse. Greenland offers a clear lesson for India The episode reinforces a core lesson: trade deals with the US do not insulate countries from coercion. Tariffs and sanctions can be imposed or reinstated regardless of existing agreements. India should avoid unilateral concessions on energy sourcing, regional connectivity, technology platforms, or strategic alignments in the expectation that a trade deal will guarantee stability. Strategic risks extend beyond trade Iran offers a cautionary example. While Starlink was active, protest videos spread widely; once authorities jammed satellite access and tightened controls, the information flow reversed. As India considers allowing Starlink, the strategic risks of satellite networks bypassing national controls merit careful scrutiny. The case for strategic restraint With limited room to pivot toward China due to border tensions, a $115-billion trade deficit, and Beijing’s support for Pakistan, India’s safest course is principled neutrality—diversifying partners, ring-fencing sovereign decision-making, insisting on reciprocity, and retaining leverage across energy, technology, and regional connectivity. The core takeaway is restraint: strategic autonomy should not be traded for promises that recent history shows can be withdrawn overnight.