There are no items in your cart
Add More
Add More
| Item Details | Price | ||
|---|---|---|---|
Bullying tactics
The Trump administration has vowed to slap a raft of European countries with a 10% tariff on “any and all goods” beginning on February 1 which is then set to increase to 25% on June 1, until an agreement is reached on the U.S. demand to purchase or otherwise acquire the Denmark-administered Arctic territory of Greenland. The latest round of tariffs will add to existing 15% U.S.-imposed trade duties on the countries targeted by the White House, which include Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. While French President Emmanuel Macron described the U.S. action as “unacceptable”, U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer said the move was “completely wrong”. The targeted nations have sent a small number of troops to Greenland for what they have called a reconnaissance mission, essentially for military exercises that signal and reinforce Europe’s collective commitment to defending the autonomous Arctic territory. Such emphasis by the European Union (EU) clearly reflects concern stemming from the fact that American troops recently entered Venezuela and kidnapped and transported its President Nicolás Maduro to the U.S., and Mr. Trump has since gone on record effectively warning that he might consider intervention — for different purposes and in different circumstances — in Colombia, Cuba, Mexico and Iran next.
Leaving aside the neo-imperialist impulse that is implicit in the Trump administration’s plans to control non-allied nations’ territories based on the threat of military action, or to bully allies by weaponising tariffs against them, such actions are tantamount to a violation of international law, and in the case of the EU, risk degrading years of progress made on transatlantic trade agreements. First, there is a serious issue of no legislative backing by the U.S. Congress and legal basis for the unilateral action taken by the Trump administration in targeting Denmark and other European countries. Second, the Trump administration is likely to face, this week, a judicial ruling against its use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs across the board. Third, European nations may bring into force what is known as the “anti-coercion instrument”, a counter-tariff facility that would limit the trade of major U.S. tech firms and related service providers that conduct significant business in the EU. Whatever the denouement of this Trump-made conflict, it will likely take years, if not decades to heal the worsening transatlantic rift that has beset the region. Meanwhile a weakened NATO will stand less able to assist Ukraine in facing off against the depredations of an aggressive Russia on the eastern front. The need of the hour is enlightened leadership, a far cry from what is presently on offer in Washington.
🧠 TOP 10 VOCABULARY (UPSC Editorial Use)
Theme: Tariffs, Greenland, NATO & Coercive Diplomacy
1. Weaponisation
Meaning: Deliberate use of a tool or system (economic, legal, technological) to exert pressure or cause harm.
Example: The weaponisation of tariffs against allies undermines trust within NATO.
2. Coercion
Meaning: Forcing a state or actor to act in a certain way through threats or pressure rather than consent.
Example: Economic coercion violates the spirit of multilateral diplomacy.
3. Neo-imperialist
Meaning: Relating to indirect or non-territorial methods by which powerful states dominate others economically or politically.
Example: The policy was criticised as a neo-imperialist attempt to control strategic territory.
4. Transatlantic
Meaning: Relating to relations between North America and Europe.
Example: The tariff dispute has widened the transatlantic rift between the U.S. and Europe.
5. Unilateralism
Meaning: Acting independently without consulting or securing agreement from other affected parties.
Example: Unilateral trade actions weaken global governance institutions.
6. Denouement
Meaning: The final outcome or resolution of a complex situation.
Example: The denouement of the tariff conflict may take years to unfold.
7. Reconnaissance
Meaning: Preliminary military or strategic exploration to gather information.
Example: European troops were deployed for reconnaissance missions in Greenland.
8. Bullying (Diplomatic)
Meaning: Use of intimidation or pressure by a powerful state to extract concessions from weaker states.
Example: Diplomatic bullying erodes the legitimacy of leadership in international affairs.
9. Degradation
Meaning: Reduction in quality, strength, or effectiveness.
Example: The trade conflict risks the degradation of long-standing transatlantic partnerships.
10. Enlightened Leadership
Meaning: Leadership guided by wisdom, restraint, and long-term global responsibility rather than short-term gains.
Example: Global stability demands enlightened leadership rather than coercive diplomacy.
High-Level RC MCQs (UPSC Standard)
Based on the given editorial passage
Q1. (Main Idea)
The central argument of the passage is that the Trump administration’s tariff strategy over Greenland:
(a) reflects legitimate U.S. security concerns in the Arctic region
(b) is a tactical move to renegotiate transatlantic trade agreements
(c) constitutes economic coercion that undermines international law and alliance cohesion
(d) is primarily aimed at countering Russian and Chinese influence in the Arctic
Q2. (Inference)
From the passage, it can be reasonably inferred that the author views tariffs used against allies as:
(a) an acceptable temporary diplomatic pressure tactic
(b) a violation of WTO rules alone
(c) more damaging politically than economically
(d) justified if national security is invoked
Q3. (Tone)
The overall tone of the passage is best described as:
(a) Neutral and descriptive
(b) Cautiously optimistic
(c) Strongly critical and alarmist
(d) Analytical but approving
Q4. (Assumption)
The author’s argument most critically rests on the assumption that:
(a) Greenland will eventually gain full independence
(b) Economic coercion directly weakens military alliances like NATO
(c) The U.S. Congress will permanently block the tariffs
(d) European countries lack the capacity to retaliate economically
Q5. (Implication)
If the trend described in the passage continues, which of the following is the most likely long-term consequence?
(a) Strengthening of U.S. leadership within NATO
(b) Decline of multilateral trade and security cooperation
(c) Immediate military conflict in the Arctic region
(d) Dissolution of the European Union
Q6. (Critical Reasoning)
Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the author’s argument?
(a) European nations unanimously accept the U.S. demand regarding Greenland
(b) NATO formally amends its charter to include trade dispute mechanisms
(c) The tariffs are withdrawn following judicial intervention in the U.S.
(d) Russia publicly condemns the U.S. tariff policy
✅ ANSWER KEY & EXPLANATIONS
Q1. Answer: (c)
Explanation:
The passage consistently frames tariffs as economic coercion, criticises their legality, and highlights damage to alliances and international law. Strategic security or trade renegotiation is secondary.
Q2. Answer: (c)
Explanation:
The author stresses erosion of trust, alliance degradation, and geopolitical fallout more than immediate economic harm—indicating political damage outweighs economic impact.
Q3. Answer: (c)
Explanation:
Words like “bullying,” “neo-imperialist,” “violation,” “far cry from enlightened leadership” indicate a strongly critical and warning-oriented tone, bordering on alarm.
Q4. Answer: (b)
Explanation:
The entire logic depends on the idea that economic pressure among allies weakens military solidarity, thereby harming NATO’s effectiveness. Other options are irrelevant or speculative.
Q5. Answer: (b)
Explanation:
The passage predicts long-term damage to transatlantic trade, NATO unity, and multilateralism, not immediate war or institutional collapse.
Q6. Answer: (a)
Explanation:
If European nations voluntarily accept U.S. demands, the claim of coercion and alliance damage collapses. Other options either partially support or do not directly negate the author’s thesis.
Launch your Graphy