Kolhapur scion Sambhaji Chhatrapati visits Warsaw
On site stands a plaque as a reminder of the deep… pic.twitter.com/K5m9WILp4E
— Sambhaji Chhatrapati (@YuvrajSambhaji) July 10, 2025
Honoured to be in Warsaw for a meaningful series of meetings reflecting the deep and evolving bond between India and Poland.
In my conversations with Polish Secretary of State Dr. Teofil Bartoszewski Władysław and his team, we spoke of the shared values that unite our cultures —… pic.twitter.com/f3mJMb78wf
— Sambhaji Chhatrapati (@YuvrajSambhaji) July 10, 2025
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Print
5 hours ago
- The Print
Age did not mellow Achuthanandan's spirit. When Left veteran slammed Rahul Gandhi as ‘Amul baby'
Rising from a working class background in Alappuzha's Punnapra, Achuthanandan had to give up on school education in the seventh grade, when his father passed away. He began assisting his elder brother in a cloth shop and, by the time the Second World War broke out in 1939, a young Achuthanandan was a factory worker at Aspinwall Company. With the socio-political events of the day significantly influencing him, VS took membership of the Travancore State Congress then. Communist stalwart and former Kerala chief minister, Velikkakathu Sankaran Achuthanandan, or simply VS, passed away at the ripe old age of 101, on 21 July. A recounting of his political career would also be a brief chronicle of Kerala's political history, or at least one-half of it. Thiruvananthapuram: In the early to mid-2000s, the chant 'Kanne Karale VS-se' (VS, our beloved) was heard wherever went. People couldn't get enough of the veteran Marxist in an era when the news channels were nascent. The defining moment of Achuthanandan's eight decade-long political career was his reinvention from a dour apparatchik to a mass leader at the turn of the millennium. However, VS would soon be enchanted with the Communist ideology. At the age of 17 in 1940, he was recruited to the Communist Party of India (CPI) by taluk secretary Simon. In 1943, after attending the first state conference of the CPI, VS came under the tutelage of comrade Pillai, who convinced him to plunge full time into the Communist movement. As a rookie, VS was tasked with setting up communist party units in Kuttanad, and he returned to Alappuzha only after successfully accomplishing that. His role in the 1946 Punnapra-Vayalar uprising remains contested. Notwithstanding that, VS rose through the ranks to become the CPI's youngest district secretary in 1956. He played an instrumental role in the victory of the CPI in the first election held in Kerala in 1957. Com. V.S. Achuthanandan was a rare breed of a leader: From the ranks of manual coir workers of Alleppey he rose to become the CM of Kerala. His was a lifelong struggle for social justice, labour rights and land reforms. He is one of the key architects of egalitarian Kerala. — Thomas Isaac (@drthomasisaac) July 22, 2025 Achuthanandan was among the 32 leaders to walk out of the CPI national council in 1964 to become a founder-member of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), or CPI (M). His electoral debut from Ambalappuzha in 1965 ended in defeat. He went on to taste success in the following two elections in 1967 and 1970 from the same constituency, even if he lost in 1977. When became the CPI (M)'s pick for chief ministership in 1980, Achuthanandan succeeded him as the state secretary, holding on to it until 1992. As secretary, VS was a stickler for rules and held the party together with when rising star put forth the alternate document in 1985—leading to the Kannur strongman's expulsion. VS versus EMS Achuthanandan's ideological clarity meant that when Namboodiripad came around to Raghavan's view on doing business with parties such as Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) and the Church-backed Kerala Congress, he steadfastly held on to it. This was even after he narrowly missed out on being the chief minister in 1991 when Nayanar called for early elections to coincide with the Lok Sabha polls. A consensus was reached to switch the roles of Nayanar and Achuthanandan beforehand. The CPI (M)'s overconfidence was driven by its sweep of the district council polls, but Rajiv Gandhi's assassination swung that election in favour of the Congress. VS always found himself at one end of the factionalism in the Kerala unit of the CPI (M) that took root in the early nineties and ebbed and flowed until 2016. It was Achuthanandan's loss to Nayanar by two votes in the 1991 CPI (M) state conference in Kozhikode that served as a trigger for factionalism to initiate in the Kerala unit of the CPI (M). While the Cold War officially ended in 1991, another sort of war was brewing between VS and Namboodiripad in Kerala. Even before he officially stood down as the CPI (M) general secretary in 1992, Namboodiripad shifted from New Delhi to Thiruvananthapuram. This created a new power centre and that made VS uneasy, as recounted by Communist ideologue and senior journalist 'Berlin' Kunhanandan Nair, in his memoir 'Polichezhuthu'. In fact, the loss of Achuthanandan to Nayanar as state secretary was orchestrated by Namboodiripad himself. EMS suggested a couple of changes to the official panel put forth by VS, and that ensured that he lost the majority in the committee. A bitter Achuthanandan tried to get even by handing over a letter to which read like a charge sheet against Namboodiripad, as recounted by the then Left convener in his recently-published autobiography, 'Ormacheppu Thurakkumbol'. VS continued to stand firm against the entry of the IUML-splinter Indian National League, even as Namboodiripad was all for it. VS tried to get back at the powerful 'CITU lobby' backing Namboodiripad in the CPI (M) state conference in 1995. VS fielded 14 'rebels' against the official panel, but that operation didn't go entirely according to his script. Lawrence, who led the 'CITU lobby', managed to make the state committee by a solitary vote, and that too following a recount, as narrated in his memoir. Also Read: A Kerala bellwether is voting. Why CM Pinarayi Vijayan has staked all in Nilambur Mararikulam loss & Vetti-nirathal All these factors contributed to Achuthanandan's shock loss in Mararikulam in 1996, which thwarted his second shot at chief ministership. In the ensuing CPI (M) state committee, Namboodripad and the CITU faction backed Susheela Gopalan as chief minister. However, VS combined with the 'Kannur lobby' to orchestrate Nayanar's ascension, assisted by Pinarayi Vijayan. But that was hardly a consolation for Achuthanandan, who vowed to decimate the CITU faction. A showdown was set for the CPI (M) state conference in 1998. Vetti-nirathal (slaughter)–that's how most vernacular dailies of Kerala described the events that transpired at Palakkad. The term 'vetti-nirathal' owed its origin to the anti-reclamation stir launched by the Kerala State Karshaka Thozhilali Union—the CPI (M)'s farm workers' outfit—under Achuthanandan's leadership at Kuttanad in 1996-97. The modus operandi involved Marxist cadres going berserk destroying plantain and tapioca crops at will in farms. The CITU faction was almost entirely culled from the CPI (M) state committee in Palakkad, leading to the losses of veterans Lawrence, and among others. Namboodiripad took it up with the central leadership, although he passed away in 1998 before the 16th Party Congress that year in Calcutta. Achuthanandan took over as Left Convener when a humiliated Lawrence stepped down, and his clout within the CPI (M) was at its peak at this point. Recasting anew In 2001, the Congress made a comeback, and VS took over as Leader of Opposition (LoP) for a second time. Even before that his loyalists zeroed in on Malampuzha as a safe seat for the veteran. The chant 'Kanne Karale VS-se' (VS, our eye-liver-kidney) made its debut during this campaign. The 78-year-old underwent a complete change of image now, resonating with a fresh generation of voters. Achuthanandan was particularly vocal on gender issues, rights of the marginalised and environment. His anti-corruption crusade complemented it further. Not since earned the sobriquet 'Pavangalude Padathalavan' (leader of the poor masses) had a communist leader endeared himself to Kerala's public so much. However, this phase heralded Achuthanadan's bitter rivalry with Vijayan, who became another power centre after assuming the role of state secretary in 1998. The next episode in factionalism tumbled out in public during the Kannur state conference in 2002. This manifested as a clash of ideologies between the Marxist-Leninist ideals represented by VS and the revisionist line of Vijayan. This phase witnessed another realignment within the CPI (M) unit as VS made truce with a weakened CITU faction for outmanoeuvring Vijayan. Ahead of the Malappuram state conference in 2005, Achuthanandan was supremely confident of replacing Vijayan with his nominee as state secretary, but that was not to be. Many leaders who professed loyalty to VS switched camps overnight and it was the veteran's turn to be vanquished. He, however, still held sway over the party in districts like Ernakulam, Pathanamthitta, Kasaragod and Palakkad, even if Alappuzha and Idukki came under Vijayan's grasp. His humiliation at the state conference only bolstered his image in public. A section of Kerala's media, inadvertently or otherwise, played a role in elevating VS as a paragon of virtues, casting Vijayan as the villain of the piece. Vijayan's arrogant ways did not help his cause either, and this gradually built up to the showdown in 2006 when VS was denied a seat. By then Vijayan had a firm ally in CPI (M) general secretary Prakash Karat. In an impromptu expression of solidarity, Marxist cadres took to the streets demanding that VS be fielded. The huge public outcry and fear of electoral setback forced CPI (M)'s hand and the politburo met to overturn the decision. Achuthanandan was instrumental in getting the central leadership to veto Vijayan's proposal to ally with the Democratic Indira Congress ahead of that election. Notwithstanding that, the Left's victory in 2006, registering almost 50 percent vote share, was its most authoritative since 1967. Vijayan attempted to thwart Achuthanandan's chief ministership even after the historical win by putting forth the name of Left convener Paloli Muhammed Kutty instead. But, the central leadership backed VS for the post that he missed twice. That didn't prevent the state unit under Vijayan from clipping the wings of VS, first by taking the home portfolio away from him and reposing it with the former's trusted loyalist, Kodiyeri Balakrishnan. Even the Vigilance portfolio was also taken away on account of fears that he would settle scores. The party under Vijayan kept the CM on a short leash, even controlling the day-to-day functioning of the government. VS could not even nominate his loyalists as private secretary, and any government file was within Vijayan's reach. That did not prevent him from running an efficient administration, and the term was marked by significant legislations of the kind the Left hadn't undertaken since the '80s, including the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, a logical conclusion to Achuthanandan-initiated aforementioned Vetti-nirathal. Meanwhile, factionalism was at its peak after the Kottayam state conference in 2008 when Vijayan at the concluding event shouted at the cadres 'to not behave as if Usha Uthup's music show was underway', visibly peeved at the sloganeering in favour of VS. Also Read: Now at steering wheel, MA Baby has to navigate the believers' road, Pinarayi's grip on CPI(M) Denial of mandate in 2011 At the height of factionalism in 2009, VS snubbed the Vijayan-led Nava Kerala March preceding the Lok Sabha elections, until the concluding event held in Thiruvananthapuram. Vijayan's jibe at VS by likening him to a bucket of water unlike the waves formed in the ocean, was a sharp rejoinder to the veteran. Achuthanandan hit back at Vijayan by drawing comparison with Mikhail Gorbachev and the revisionist practices leading to the Soviet Union's fall. When VS publicly disowned Vijayan on the SNC-Lavalin case–going against the state committee's decision to back Vijayan–it was deemed breach of party discipline, resulting in his removal from the CPI (M) politburo in 2009. Vijayan was spared of any action, with Karat backing the Kannur strongman all the way. Achuthanandan was never reinstated to the CPI (M)'s highest body. According to the likes of N. Venu, who floated the splinter Revolutionary Marxist Party (RMP) along with in 2008, VS was flirting with the idea of splitting the party during this phase. This has also been echoed by the likes of Nair and others who willed VS to chart a new course, but it was a bridge too far for the veteran who bent the rules never to break them. There were overtures also from the CPI but Achuthanandan was always careful of his legacy. VS saw how the likes of and Raghavan faded to relative insignificance after charting independent courses. In 2011, the Achuthanandan government lost the Kerala elections by a wafer-thin margin of 68-72. There have been covert and overt barbs of internal sabotage aimed at Vijayan for that outcome since then, most recently when Achuthanandan's ministerial colleague conveyed it through a poem in Kalakaumudi weekly. Achuthanandan got a third term as the LoP, lasting until 2016. His final term as Kerala LoP was no less eventful. The brutal hacking of RMP's Chandrasekharan, a VS loyalist, in 2012 further widened the rift with Vijayan. When the media sought his comment following the dastardly attack on Chandrasekharan, Vijayan doubled down by stating that 'a traitor is always a traitor'. Notwithstanding the party's embargo on visiting the slain leader's home, VS called on Chandrasekharan's widow (now, the MLA from Vadakara) and consoled her under the glare of television cameras. That day, 6 June, was a crucial one, as a by-election was underway in Neyyattinkara. VS described Chandrasekharan as a 'courageous communist', unlike Vijayan's inhuman remark. By the time the 2014 Lok Sabha election got underway, the dissipation of the VS faction in the Kerala unit was complete, and the Alappuzha state conference in 2015 saw Vijayan's domination peak. Walk-out from Alappuzha conference When a charge sheet listing Achuthananthan's transgressions was read out by Vijayan while presenting the organisational report, and a number of delegates spoke out against the Marxist veteran in a seemingly orchestrated exercise, VS left the venue in a huff. He did not return, even after Kodiyeri Balakrishnan–who took over as state secretary in 2015–tried damage control by sending former loyalists and Pillai as emissaries, to pacify him. Many saw it as symbolic of the parting of ways, but the veteran knew that he wasn't expendable for the CPI (M) until the 2016 election was won. It also helped that Sitaram Yechury, who always had a soft corner for VS, replaced Karat as the party general secretary. In 2016, VS led the Left electoral campaign. The party used the 92-year-old as its mascot and, in a way, it was his way of paying back the CPI (M). Fittingly, the Left front registered a resounding 91-seat victory in the 140-member Kerala Assembly. His aura suffered a jolt when television cameras caught him handing over a note to Yechury at the swearing-in of Vijayan demanding his rehabilitation as chairperson of the Administrative Council with Cabinet rank. The appointment of his son Kumar as assistant director of The Institute of Human Resources Development (IHRD) during his term as CM was another instance of the veteran failing to walk his lofty talk. Achuthanandan faded out from the public within a year of Vijayan's first term, even if he had promised to play the role of a Kavalal, or guard, in 2016. He wasn't keeping good health and did not campaign in 2019. The stroke VS suffered in 2020 along with the onset of Covid meant that he remained completely cut off from Kerala's public sphere. Single-minded pursuit, vengeance Achuthananthan never adopted a quid pro quo approach to political rivals, and was non-compromising in that respect. The antipathy did not necessarily affect personal equations, but he took the legal route to seek convictions in corruption cases. It was his personal crusade that ensured the conviction of Kerala Congress stalwart R. Balakrishna Pillai in the Edamalayar case, which, to this date, remains the only conviction of a Kerala politician in a corruption case. Former Kerala police chief Jacob Punnoose once revealed how Achuthanandan issued a verbal order to the then Crime Branch chief Vinson to arrest IUML's in the Ice-cream parlour scandal on the eve of the 2011 election. Paul had refused to carry out the order pending a written order from the CM. Like Chanakya's vow of vengeance, VS was known to exact vengeance on his rivals. He was as much a practitioner of realpolitik in the '80s and '90s as Pinarayi Vijayan is today. Apart from the infamous culling of the CITU faction, the way he dealt with even minor acts of defiance or indiscipline as state secretary would not tally with the public image that he is bestowed with today. CPI (M) stalwarts Pillai, A.P. Kurian, and even EMS Namboodiripad found themselves at the receiving end of Achuthanandan's disciplinary sword. It may not have led to political murders, but that is probably because VS hailed from Alappuzha and not Kannur. Achuthanandan was renowned for tit-for-tat political retorts. When Rahul Gandhi raked up his advanced age in the 2011 poll campaign, VS hit back at the Gandhi scion by dubbing him an 'Amul baby'. His war of words with Vijayan ran like a political soap opera for a decade. A theatrical orator, Achuthanandan had an electrifying effect on the audience. People came from far and wide to listen to his speeches. He had developed a distinct style of modulating words and sentences, which he attributed to his legacy of interactions with farm workers in Kuttanad. At the height of factionalism, even leaders firmly aligned to the Vijayan camp sought him out for their electoral campaigns. VS was a hero of the working class—unlike EMS Namboodiripad, born landlord calling himself the 'adopted son of the working class', or Vijayan, described by 'Berlin' Kunhanandan Nair as the 'adopted son of the capitalist class'. His reinvention from a hardliner to a mass leader to become a popular chief minister will always remain his abiding memory. Some politicians live long enough to become a villain or to witness their hard-earned legacy tarnished. In Achuthanandan's case, it may not be far-fetched to surmise that he hung around long enough to have political sainthood conferred upon him. (Edited by Tony Rai) Also Read: Nilambur isn't Kerala. UDF must look beyond Muslim votes to win 2026 polls
Indian Express
13 hours ago
- Indian Express
Blitzkrieg to Hiroshima: How the Second World War reshaped the global order
In a historic move, the UK and Germany signed their first bilateral treaty since the Second World War, pledging 'mutual assistance' in case of attack. This development warrants a look back at the Second World War, in which the UK was a major Allied power while Germany was an Axis. The first thing that strikes one about the Second World War is the small time gap that divides it from the First World War, a mere 21 years. The First World War ended on November 11, 1918, and the Second World War began on September 1, 1939, when Hitler invaded Poland. The First World War was concluded with a very flawed peace agreement in the form of the Treaty of Versailles in 1919. It was the failures of this peace agreement and the resentment felt by Germany at the unjust conditions imposed upon it that gave rise to the Second World War. The Second World War lasted from 1939 to 1945 and caused a staggering loss of between 40 to 50 million lives. The path to the Second World War was a steady, two-decade-long buildup. A combination of political and economic factors came together to pave the way for the rise of a politician like Adolf Hitler in Germany. After the First World War, the liberal Weimar Republic replaced the Wilhelmine monarchy in Germany. Throughout the 1920s, it was shaped by leaders like Gustav Stresemann, who adapted to the new realities of the Weimar Republic after the fall of the monarchy. Stresemann briefly served as Chancellor in 1923 and then as Foreign Minister until his death in 1929. He was opposed to the Treaty of Versailles, whose terms he found difficult to implement. Among the provisions of the treaty were the payment of war reparations to the victorious Allies and the demilitarisation of the Rhineland that lay on Germany's Western border with France. In 1923, Germany experienced hyper-inflation as it struggled to pay the war reparations that were imposed by the Treaty of Versailles. Rifts appeared between Britain and France in terms of how to impose the measures of the treaty. At the same time, the famed and lofty idealism of the US President Woodrow Wilson came into play through his famous fourteen points. The last point created the League of Nations, which was to serve as the predecessor of the United Nations that was set up in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War in October 1945. However, other aspects of Wilson's lofty idealism such as the right to national self-determination were to come crashing down on the harsh realities of European politics in the immediate aftermath of the First World War. Eventually, even the US Senate rejected the Treaty of Versailles. There are perhaps three elements that define the build-up to the Second World War. The first was the unstable nature of the Weimar Republic, whose economic difficulties were exploited by a rising politician like Adolf Hitler. The Weimar Republic came to an end in 1933 when the Nazi party secured dominance in the German parliament, the Reichstag, and Hitler was appointed as Chancellor. The second factor was the harsh economic realities of the 1920s and 1930s. The Great Wall Street Crash of October 1929 was one of the world's first truly economic crises, whose adverse effects and reverberations were felt all around the world, and especially in Europe. The Wall Street crash ushered in a decade (the 1930s) seen in terms of economic depression and unemployment. In response to this crisis, British economist John Maynard Keynes produced his seminal work The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money in 1936. His ideas would later play a significant role in shaping the post-Second World War international economic order, particularly through the setting up of the Bretton Woods institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank. The third major factor leading to the Second World War was the policy of appeasement adopted by Great Britain towards the escalating demands of Germany. This policy is associated with British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, especially as it played out at the Munich conference of 1938. Chamberlain believed that the policy of appeasement was the best way to avoid war and to buy time for Britain to prepare militarily. Signs of impending war became obvious as early as 1936, when Hitler decided to remilitarise the Rhineland in violation of one of the key provisions of the Treaty of Versailles. That same year in July, Hitler's Nazi Germany and Benito Mussolini's Italy came together and backed General Francisco Franco's fascist assault against the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War. In 1938, Hitler signed the Anschluss or pact with Austria that resulted in the merger of Austria with Germany, which further consolidated his position. That same year, Hitler kept making the case for the Sudeten Germans in Czechoslovakia, using their minority status to persuade France and Britain that the Sudetenland must be ceded to Germany. This was followed the next year in 1939 by Germany's invasion and occupation of the rest of Czechoslovakia. The Second World War was very different from the First World War as far as the greater use of air power was concerned. The German air force or the Luftwaffe, conducted devastating air raids on London and other major British cities in the early stages of the war. The Battle of Britain, which took place between July and October 1940, saw the British Royal Air Force (RAF) and the German Luftwaffe engage in intense aerial combat. The Allied powers – Great Britain, France, the US, and the Soviet Union – were pitted against the Axis powers – Germany, Italy and Japan. The early stages of the war saw German advances through overwhelming aerial strikes that were then rapidly followed by military and tank maneuvers on the ground. These tactics, known as the blitzkrieg ('lightning war'), allowed the Germans to overrun Poland, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, Yugoslavia, and Greece in the short span between September 1939 and April 1941. The American entry into the war, following the Japanese attack on the US naval base at Pearl Harbour on December 7, 1941, significantly turned the tide in favour of the Allied powers as the US was able to deploy massive amounts of military resources. The American entry into the war was preceded by the lend-lease agreement that allowed President Franklin Delano Roosevelt to transfer large amounts of war material, supplies and munitions to the Allies. A decisive turning point came when the German offensive against Soviet Russia on the Eastern Front was thwarted at the famous Battle of Stalingrad that took place between August 23, 1942 and February 2, 1943. The Germans suffered other major reversals in the battlefields in Northern Africa, most famously the Second Battle of El-Alamein between October 23 and November 11, 1942, when the famous German Field Marshall Erwin Rommel was defeated. As a result, Italian and German advances in North Africa, especially around the strategically significant Suez Canal, were checked. The Axis powers seemed to be doing better in East Asia. In February 1942, British-controlled Singapore fell to the Japanese Red Army, which continued its advance by taking over the Andaman Islands in March 1942. One of the most frequently talked about military turning points of the Second World War happened on June 6, 1944, with Operation Overlord that saw the landing of 1,56,000 men on the beaches of Normandy in northern France. This military operation was under the overall command of General Dwight D. Eisenhower, who would go on to serve as US President in the next decade. As 1944 drew to a close and 1945 began, the war's trajectory was marked by advances of Allied powers, the US and British, from the West and the Soviet forces from the East as they closed in on Berlin, with the final fall happening in May 1945. Hitler himself committed suicide along with his mistress Eva Braun on April 30, 1945, when Soviet forces were on the verge of reaching Berlin. A few months later, the Second World War came to a conclusive end, with the dropping of atomic bombs by the US over the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in early August 1945. The defeat of the Axis powers created a new world order that was defined by the hegemony of the US. In terms of the lineaments of the new world order, it gave rise to an international rules-based system. Landmark proceedings such as the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials set important legal precedents by introducing concepts like war crimes and crimes against humanity. The horrors of the Holocaust and the concentration camps run by the Nazis gave rise to the Genocide Convention adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948, which emphasized the idea that such unspeakable crimes must 'never again' happen. In what ways did the Second World War differ from the First World War in terms of strategy, technology, and scale? To what extent was the German strategy of blitzkrieg responsible for early Axis victories? How did the entry of the US in WWII transform the balance of power? How did the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki shape the post-war geopolitical landscape? In what ways did the Holocaust influence the formation of post-war human rights conventions and norms? Evaluate how the experiences of the Second World War shaped the creation of post-war multilateral institutions, such as the UN, the IMF and the World Bank. (Amir Ali is an Assistant Professor at the Centre for Political Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi) Share your thoughts and ideas on UPSC Special articles with Subscribe to our UPSC newsletter and stay updated with the news cues from the past week. Stay updated with the latest UPSC articles by joining our Telegram channel – IndianExpress UPSC Hub, and follow us on Instagram and X.
NDTV
13 hours ago
- NDTV
Trade Deals vs WTO: Is Trump Hastening The World Trade Organization's Demise?
The World Trade Organization (WTO) is a key institution of global governance that was founded in 1995 as a successor to the General Agreements on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), established in the wake of World War II. The period just before the Second World War was an era of protectionism that saw high tariffs imposed by the US, and the GATT was signed by 23 countries in 1947 to tackle the tariff barriers and facilitate international trade. The current Trump tariffs may not be mimicking the pre-WWII period, but they are certainly reminiscent of that. The world has witnessed the impact of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of the 1930s. So, the question that arises is, why would US President Donald Trump tread a similar path a century later? There is a growing viewpoint that the Trump administration is using tariffs as a negotiating tool to pressure countries to strike bilateral trade deals with the United States. While sovereign nations are free to decide what works in their interest, America's stress on bilateral deals is a more nuanced move. At the heart of this move is a strategic shift that risks rendering the World Trade Organization irrelevant. This is because one of the basic principles of the WTO is non-discrimination - Most Favoured Nation (MFN) and National Treatment (NT). That means member countries need to extend similar concessions to all members in the WTO. So, if President Trump strikes trade deals with a few countries and drops the tariffs for them, for example, on steel and aluminum, while continuing with high tariffs for some other countries, it would be flouting the WTO principle. In essence, any preferential treatment emerging from the deals would undermine the MFN concept - even though the cover that the US could use is one of the two exceptions under MFN - that Free Trade Agreements are valid if they are comprehensive. Political scientists like Timothy Sinclair, Margaret Karns, and Karen Mingst stress that the power of a high-profile subset of key intergovernmental organizations - like WTO - rests on mutual benefits from conformity to the system. The US is clearly deviating from conforming to a system of which it was at the forefront of building. At this moment, it appears that President Trump is the executioner-in-chief of this strategy of deviation; however, one of the first steps towards weakening the WTO was taken during the Obama administration and later followed up by the first Trump administration. The Dispute Settlement System (DSS), a vital organ of the trading system, is being virtually strangled due to a lack of quorum in its Appellate Body (AB). Through three US administrations, starting with President Barack Obama's, Washington has accused the WTO's Appellate Body of overstepping its boundaries, making new trade rules in its decisions that were not negotiated by the WTO's 166 member economies. In 2016, the US blocked the reappointment of a South Korean judge to the Appellate Body. In 2018, the Trump administration blocked the reappointment of two other judges, rendering the Appellate Body non-functional. Conservative US think tanks have alleged bias by judges in the Appellate Body, demanding that the US completely withdraw from the WTO. A write-up in the Heritage Foundation by Andrew Hale in March 2024 said that judges had repeatedly shown bias against the US and in favour of their home countries. 'These biased judges have ruled against the US at least partially in 90% of cases, and the US became the most sued-against country at the WTO, despite the fact that we arguably have the freest trade system in the world.' This is not just the Conservative viewpoint, it seems to have bipartisan support despite not being entirely rooted in reality. Late last year, the then-outgoing American ambassador to the WTO, Maria Pagan, had warned that if the world wanted the US to be part of the international rules-based trading system, then it should 'take us seriously". The United States, which had emerged as the strongest economy after World War II, was the driving force in the international trade regime back in the day. 'Nothing of consequence was achieved without US leadership. Today, this is no longer the case,' said Keith M. Rockwell in Postcard From A Disintegration: Inside the WTO's Fraying Seams. The US is now the world's second-largest trading nation, pushed behind China. Rockwell believes that the Cold War mentality gripping Washington stems from its anxiety over China. The US believes 'China has somehow rigged the multilateral trading system, shirked its responsibilities, and gamed the dispute settlement function". Hence, it appears that the US stand on the Appellate Body is either to destabilise the WTO leading to its demise or to use it as a lever to negotiate on its terms on contentious issues like self-designation of developing countries, agricultural subsidies and Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights Agreement (TRIPS) - all of which have seen a pushback from the Global South in the past. In an article titled The Global South in the WTO: Time to Go on the Offensive, published by Foreign Policy in Focus, Walden Bello says that as resistance by developing countries under the leadership of India, Brazil, and China to attempted restrictive moves of the US in the WTO grew, 'the United States began to move away from a strategy of multilateral trade liberalization via the WTO". In fact, Professor and Canada Research Chair in Global Policy, Kristen Hopewell, wrote in 2023 that China and India formed a surprising alliance at the WTO that has been highly successful in bringing an end to American dominance and sharply curtailing the ability of the US to set the rules of global trade, which has resulted in a 'vertical forum shifting' by the dominant power; it is now at the brink of abandoning the WTO and pursuing bilateral trade more actively. This is underway with President Trump's multiple trade deal dialogues currently - from India to Canada and Indonesia. The US has trade relations with more than 200 countries, territories, and regional associations around the globe. With over $7.0 trillion in exports and imports of goods and services in 2022, per the Office of the US Trade Representative, the significance of the US participation in a rules-based trading system cannot be overstated. But with nations being compelled to seal bilateral deals with the US in a hurry, they may end up collectively helping the US write the WTO's epitaph.
