Over the course of the last year, Donald Trump has told variations of this story numerous times, with each iteration changing slightly from its predecessor. For example, Trump’s initial rendition was that five jets were lost, but then he increased that number to seven and then eight, and finally, just last week, he said there were ten jets lost, and now he says that eleven have been lost.
These frequent changes in detail have led many observers to be sceptical. The government of India has denied the claim made by the president that their country has suffered these losses and said, in fact, no outside elements were responsible for helping ease any tensions between India and the U.S.
Trade Leverage at the Centre of His Claim
At the event, Trump mentioned how he claimed to have used trade as leverage. He claimed that both countries had been advised by him that their trade deals would not continue to exist if any more hostilities occurred. He even suggested he could levy a 200% tariff.
Trump claims that the threat of financial pressure forced each side to re-evaluate their position. He painted this situation as a situation where economic realities supersede the military desires of both sides. However, neither of the two countries has confirmed any intervention.
India’s Firm Position
India repeatedly and consistently rejects any form of third-party involvement in resolving issues with Pakistan; this assertion has been a constant of both administrations under governments and throughout multiple diplomatic interactions.
Moreover, representatives from New Delhi have challenged both Trump’s statements regarding the loss of aircraft as well as statements made by Trump about placing trade sanctions on India as a means of coercing India into resolving differences between India and Pakistan.
According to officials from New Delhi, it is bilateral arrangements and not pressure from the outside that serve as the basis for crisis management in the region.
Political Messaging and Global Optics
Trump’s comments have been made with a flair for the political – noting that he spoke to Prime Minister Modi and saying that Modi was watching. These comments also serve the purpose of solidifying Trump’s status as a global dealmaker.
These same questions arise in the context of international audiences – how much of diplomacy is done in private vs how much of it is dependent upon the stories we create about politics?
A Claim Likely to Persist
Each time Trump tells the story differently, but it always has the same basic ideas about him being a broker of peace by stopping something much larger from happening than just one event. The acceptance of this narrative on a global scale is still unclear. For now, it exists somewhere between geopolitics, Trump’s personal legacy, and a variety of national narratives that differ from what Trump has to say.
Also Read: Wrist-Spin, Nerve and Noise: The Night Zimbabwe Turned the Volume in Their Favour’
