"The use of tariffs as instruments of coercion signals a shift away from the rules-based multilateral trading order." Examine this with reference to India–U.S. trade negotiations.

The multilateral trading order rests on two rules: non-discrimination (MFN, GATT Article I) and bound tariffs, both enforced through WTO adjudication. Finance Minister Sitharaman has said the U.S. is "weaponising" tariffs against India [1]. That charge points to a real move from rules towards raw bargaining power, but the shift is not yet complete.

Tariffs as coercion in India–U.S. talks

• The U.S. imposed a 26% "reciprocal" tariff in April 2025. It then added a 25% penalty over India's Russian oil purchases (EO 14329), taking the total to 50% [2][7].
• The penalty was lifted only after India committed to stop importing Russian oil (EO 14384, February 2026) [3]. A trade tool was used for a foreign-policy goal.
• Under the interim framework, the U.S. rate fell to 18%. India cut tariffs on U.S. industrial goods and signalled $500 billion of purchases over five years [5].
• U.S. Public Law 119-111 (September 2026) keeps a threat of tariffs of up to 100% on top buyers of Russian energy [4]. Sitharaman calls any further concessions "very difficult" [1].

Why this signals a shift

• Unilateral, country-specific rates bypass MFN and bound commitments.
• The bilateral balance has become the test. India's deficit with China has grown "exponentially" since 2014, yet India does not coerce China over it [1].
• There is no umpire. The WTO Appellate Body has not worked since December 2019 because the U.S. blocked appointments [6].
• The costs are real. Growth in Indian exports to the U.S. fell from 35% to 5.76%. Textile and leather SMEs lost ground to Vietnam and Bangladesh [7].

Limits to the claim

• Rules still govern most trade. The India–EU FTA, concluded on 27 January 2026 [8], set no Russian-oil condition [1].
• The MPIA (an interim appeals arrangement among some WTO members) keeps appeals going for its participants [6].
• The U.S. presents its actions as a response to WTO "judicial overreach", which is a demand for reform rather than a clean exit from the system [6].

Way forward

• Diversify markets through FTAs with the EU, UK and EFTA [8].
• Push to restore the Appellate Body.
• Hold firm red lines on agriculture and energy security.

Coercive tariffs in the India–U.S. talks show trade being used as a tool of statecraft. This erodes the predictability that MFN provides, but the system is fraying rather than collapsing. India can protect its strategic autonomy by combining firm negotiation, market diversification and WTO reform. This also supports SDG 17.10's goal of a universal, rules-based, non-discriminatory multilateral trading system.