Prof D Mukherjee
The doctrineof a zero-sum game may aptly be useful to understanding philosophy of the ‘Trumponomics’ influencing international trade worldwide aiming to ‘Make America Great Again’ popularly coined to be the ‘MAGA’ hypothesis. The principles of Zero-Sum Game imply party’s gain equates to another’s loss, which is frequently invoked in discussions and discourses of international trade wars. The recent “Liberation Day” tariffs announced by President Donald J. Trump on April 3, 2025, serve as a pertinent case study to examine this dynamic. These tariffs, aimed at promoting fair and reciprocal trade, have elicited varied responses from global trading partners, underscoring the complexities inherent in international economic relations.
President Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs introduce a baseline 10% duty on all imports, with elevated rates targeting specific countries: 34% on Chinese goods, 20% on European Union (EU) imports, and a minimum of 10% on products from the United Kingdom. Notably, Canada and Mexico are exempt due to existing tariffs on autos, steel, and aluminium, while Russia, Cuba, Belarus, and North Korea are excluded owing to pre-existing sanctions that limit trade and the Implications for Global Trade Dynamics are far reaching consequences. The implementation of these tariffs is poised to reshape international trade dynamics significantly. As far as China is concerned, it is facing a substantial 34% tariff, as the immediate consequence, Chinese exports to the U.S. will likely become less competitive, potentially leading to a decrease in trade volume between the two super economic and technologically advanced nations. This move may prompt China to seek alternative markets or retaliate with its own tariffs, escalating trade tensions. Again, as regards, the European Union, the 20% tariff on EU’s imports could strain transatlantic relations, affecting industries such as automotive and agriculture. The EU may respond with countermeasures, further intensifying the trade conflict. Further, the implications for the United Kingdom are not very comfortable too though comparatively less burn is likely to cause to its economy. Despite lobbying efforts, the UK faces a minimum 10% tariff, impacting sectors like whisky, aerospace, and luxury automotive. This development may influence ongoing trade negotiations and economic strategies post-Brexit whereas India has been declared to have been subjected to a 27% tariff, India is in urgent mode of assessing the implications of these measures. The Indian government is engaging with stakeholders to evaluate potential opportunities and challenges arising from the new U.S. trade policies.
While referring to the Zero-Sum Game perspectives in the context of these tariffs, the principles ofzero-sum game strategy suggests that the U.S. aims to bolster its domestic industries at the expense of foreign competitors. By imposing higher tariffs, the U.S. seeks to make imported goods less attractive, thereby encouraging consumers to buy domestically produced products. While this strategy may benefit certain U.S. industries in the short term, it risks provoking retaliatory measures from affected countries, potentially leading to a cycle of escalating tariffs that could harm global trade and economic growth. The immediate potential outcomes and strategic considerations is not very eye-catching.The effectiveness of the “Liberation Day” tariffs in achieving their intended goals remains uncertain. While they may provide temporary relief to specific domestic sectors, the broader economic implications could include increased consumer prices, supply chain disruptions, and strained international relations. Moreover, the assumption of a zero-sum framework overlooks the potential for cooperative strategies that could yield mutual benefits.
For instance, collaborative efforts to address trade imbalances, intellectual property rights, and market access could lead to more sustainable and equitable outcomes. Engaging in multilateral negotiations and leveraging international trade organizations may offer avenues to resolve disputes without resorting to punitive measures that can escalate into full-fledged trade wars.
In response to the recently imposed 27% U.S. tariffs on Indian exports as part of President Donald J. Trump’s “Liberation Day” trade measures, India should adopt a nuanced, multi-pronged strategy to safeguard its economic interests. The zero-sum doctrine implicit in these tariffs-suggesting one nation’s gain is another’s loss-necessitates a well-balanced response that secures India’s position in both the short and long term, without escalating tensions into a full-scale trade war. India cannot afford to compromise her ‘Viksit Bharat’ dynamics and she need to explore both the short- and long-term economic growth and prosperity strategy for ensuring stabilization and sectoral cushioning. As far as short-term strategy is concerned, the question of targeted support for affected industries is of immediate significance and she should in no time identify key export sectors most affected by the 27% tariff-such as textiles, pharmaceuticals, and information technology services-and provide them with financial relief packages. These could include export subsidies, tax rebates, and easier access to credit to help firms absorb the initial shock. Besides, Trade Diversification is another result fetching tool to be judiciously used. India must fast-track its “Look Beyond the West” trade policy by strengthening ties with Southeast Asia, Africa, Latin America, and other emerging markets.
Expanding trade with ASEAN nations, Australia, and the EU (pending FTA negotiations) can cushion the dependency on the U.S. market and dilute the impact of unilateral protectionist policies. Further, bilateral negotiation channels need to be immediately activated and India should engage diplomatically with the U.S. to seek exemptions or reductions for specific high-impact sectors through backchannel discussions and formal trade dialogues. Highlighting the mutual benefits of trade-particularly India’s role in supplying affordable generics and critical technology services-can be part of this diplomatic approach. Moreover, temporary retaliatory tariffs with strategic calibration may carefully be launched to make other perceive that India is after all attributed withself-defence strategy that can hardly be ignored, while a measured retaliatory tariff regime on select U.S. exports could signal resolve, it must be carefully calibrated to avoid harming Indian consumers or jeopardizing broader bilateral ties. Targeting symbolic sectors-such as luxury items or agricultural products with domestic substitutes-could deliver a message without significant economic fallout.
As far as long-term way forward is concerned, structural and strategic repositioning is a must and to strengthening domestic manufacturing is far beyond necessity. India must use this opportunity to accelerate its “self-reliant India” vision by boosting local manufacturing, reducing supply chain dependency on any single nation, and enhancing its global value chain participation. Investments in automation, R&D, and skill development are essential to make Indian exports more competitive despite tariff barriers. Again, FTA Acceleration and Strategic Trade Alliances’ potential in deriving long-term economic dividend deserves utmost attention of the Indian policy makers. The tariffs underscore the urgency for India to conclude long-pending Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) with the EU, UK, and the Gulf Cooperation Council. These alliances can offer tariff-free access to large markets, making up for potential losses in the U.S. Besides, reinforcing WTO-based multilateralism demands strategic focus. India should continue to be a vocal advocate of multilateralism in global trade platforms like the WTO. By leading a coalition of developing nations affected by protectionist tariffs, India can press for dispute resolution mechanisms and new rules against arbitrary tariff impositions. Additionally, innovation-driven export model to encounter the forthcoming international trade war and dominate the economic syndrome of zero-sum thinking, India must transition from low-margin, labour-intensive exports to high-value, innovation-led exports. Incentivizing startups, investing in deep tech sectors (AI, clean energy, biotech), and building global brands can help create demand that is less price-sensitive and more resilient to tariff shocks.Zero-Sum vs Win-Win Strategic Reframing is the possible panacea to sustain the economic burn likely to cause by the new tariff policy recently declared by the White House Administration. While the U.S. tariffs represent a classic zero-sum move, India must not mirror this logic blindly. Instead, she should aim to reposition itself in global trade through strategies that foster positive-sum outcomes. This includes building supply chain resilience for global firms looking to diversify away from China, thus becoming indispensable to their operations regardless of tariff barriers.India should also leverage its demographic dividend, burgeoning digital economy, and diplomatic credibility in the Global South to offer a geostrategic alternative to unilateral protectionism. In doing so, India not only defends its economic interests but also helps shape a more cooperative international trade order in the long run.
India’s response to the 27% U.S. tariff must be firm yet forward-looking. While immediate relief and strategic counter measures are vital to protect domestic industry, the larger goal should be to use this challenge as a catalyst for structural reforms, global integration, and export transformation. By combining diplomatic finesse with economic resilience, India is capable to transcend the zero-sum trap and emerge as a key architect of a fairer, rules-based global trade regime. The “Liberation Day” tariffs policy may offer short-term advantages to certain domestic industries, they carry the risk of retaliatory actions and broader economic repercussions. A more nuanced strategy that balances protective measures with cooperative engagement may better serve the long-term interests of all parties involved, fostering a more stable and prosperous global trade environmentin navigating this intricate landscape, India’s strategic approach should focus on enhancing domestic manufacturing capabilities, improving product quality, and ensuring cost competitiveness. Strengthening trade relations with other global partners and exploring ‘blue ocean strategy’ for mitigating the risks associated with the U.S. tariff regime.While the new U.S. tariffs may pose immediate economic challenges for India, they also offer opportunity to capitalize on the reconfiguration of global trade patterns. By proactively addressing internal constraints and leveraging emerging opportunities, India can position herself as a formidable player in the evolving international trade arena.
(The author is an educationist, a management scientist and an independent researcher)
The post India’s Response Imperative to Zero-Sum Game International Trade War appeared first on Daily Excelsior.