THE ASIAN INDEPENDENT UK
Bal Ram Sampla
Geopolitics
Christopher Landau, the United States Deputy Secretary of State — travelled to New Delhi, India, to attend a major international conference called the Raisina Dialogue. While there, he made a statement that caught the world’s attention. Speaking directly to his Indian audience, he said that the United States would not repeat the same mistakes with India that it made with China roughly twenty years ago.
His exact warning was clear: the US had previously allowed China to benefit from wide-open access to American and global markets, hoping China would grow into a peaceful, democratic partner. Instead, China grew into America’s biggest rival. Landau made it plain — the US would not make that same mistake again, this time with India.
This was a remarkable and very public statement. It was warm in tone but carried a firm message: any partnership between the US and India must be fair, balanced, and benefit both sides equally.
What Was the Original “China Mistake”?
To understand why Landau said this, we need to go back to the late 1990s and early 2000s. At that time, the United States was the world’s undisputed superpower. China was a large but still developing country. American leaders — from both major political parties — believed that if they brought China into the global trading system, something extraordinary would happen: China would gradually become more like the West.
This idea had a name — it was called the “Engagement Theory.” The thinking was simple: trade creates wealth, wealth creates a middle class, and a middle class demands freedom. If the US helped China grow rich through trade, China would naturally move toward democracy, the rule of law, and peaceful cooperation. Both countries would win.
In the year 2000, the United States Congress voted to grant China something called Permanent Normal Trade Relations — meaning China would face the same low trade barriers as America’s closest friends, every year, without any conditions. Then in 2001, China was admitted into the World Trade Organization, giving it access to markets across the entire globe.
American companies rushed to invest in China. Factories moved there. Technology was shared. Billions of dollars of trade flowed. China grew richer at a breathtaking speed. And for a while, it seemed like the plan might work.
Why the Strategy Failed So Badly
The Engagement Theory turned out to be deeply wrong. China did not liberalise. It did not become democratic. In fact, the opposite happened. As China grew wealthier and more powerful, its Communist government became more confident, more controlling, and more aggressive — both at home and on the world stage.
China played by its own rules. While it gained full access to American markets, it kept its own markets heavily protected with government subsidies, hidden barriers, and special advantages for Chinese companies. It was a deeply unequal deal — open on one side, closed on the other.
At the same time, China systematically stole intellectual property — the ideas, inventions, and technologies developed by American and Western companies — on a massive scale. This allowed Chinese companies to leapfrog years of costly research and development, and to outcompete the very companies that had helped build them up.
Back in the United States, the damage was devastating. Millions of manufacturing jobs disappeared, moved to China where labour was far cheaper. Entire towns and communities that had been built around factories collapsed. Economists came to call this the “China Shock” — a sudden, painful disruption that hit America’s working class hardest.
And with its new wealth, China rapidly built up one of the most powerful militaries in the world, asserting control over disputed territories and challenging US dominance in Asia. The country that America had helped grow rich was now, in many ways, its most serious threat.
So Why Bring This Up Now — With India?
Today, India is at a similar turning point to where China was in the late 1990s. It is a vast, young, fast-growing country with enormous economic potential. The United States is eager to build a strong partnership with India — partly because it sees India as a natural counterweight to China in Asia, and partly because India represents one of the greatest economic opportunities of the 21st century.
But Landau was essentially saying: we will not make the same errors. We will not simply throw open our doors to Indian goods and investment without ensuring that the relationship is fair and equal. Any deal must work for American workers and American businesses, not just for India.
This is partly a response to domestic American politics. After watching manufacturing jobs disappear to China — and after years of political anger about “bad trade deals” — there is now enormous pressure on any US administration to show that it is protecting American economic interests first.
Could This Warning Actually Slow India’s Rise?
This is the critical question — and the answer is: possibly, yes. Here is why.
One of the biggest engines of China’s growth was export-led development. China made things cheaply and sold them to the world — especially to the US. This created jobs, built industries, transferred technology, and filled government coffers. India has long dreamed of following a similar path.
But if the United States insists on strict reciprocity — meaning India must open its own markets just as widely as it wants access to American markets — this puts India in a very difficult position. India currently protects many of its domestic industries with high tariffs and trade barriers. Indian farmers, manufacturers, and small businesses would struggle to compete if foreign goods flooded in freely. Opening up too quickly could cause economic and social instability at home.
Furthermore, China was able to develop largely on its own terms, under a different era of global trade rules. If India now faces much stricter conditions from its most important potential partner, it may find it harder to replicate China’s rapid industrial growth. The ladder that China used to climb may, in effect, be pulled up.
There is also a deeper strategic tension. India values its independence in foreign policy deeply. It has traditionally avoided fully aligning with any single great power — a policy sometimes called “strategic autonomy.” The US wants a close, cooperative India. But it also wants an India that plays by American trade rules. These two desires may not always be compatible.
The Bigger Picture: Friend or Rival?
It is important to note that Landau’s comments were not hostile. He spoke warmly about India’s future, calling this century India’s century and expressing a genuine desire for partnership. The message was not “we do not want India to succeed” — it was “we want India to succeed alongside us, not at our expense.”
But history shows that even well-intentioned conditions and restrictions on trade can slow development. Many economists argue that today’s rich countries — including the US — only became wealthy by first protecting their own industries before competing freely on the world stage. Demanding that India immediately open its markets fully could deny it the same path to development.
At the same time, India does need the United States. American investment, technology, and market access would accelerate India’s growth enormously. A strong US-India relationship could help India attract global supply chains shifting away from China — a massive economic opportunity. The relationship, if managed well by both sides, could be genuinely transformational for India.
A Warning That Cuts Both Ways
Christopher Landau’s statement was significant precisely because it was so honest. It acknowledged a historic American failure. And it served notice that this time, Washington would be watching much more carefully.
For India, this is both an opportunity and a challenge. The opportunity is clear: positioning itself as the democratic, reliable partner that China never was could unlock enormous American support.
The United States does not want to make the same mistake twice. Whether the lessons it draws from its experience with China ultimately help or hinder India’s rise will depend on how wisely, and how fairly, both countries choose to navigate the road ahead.
References
1.https://www.freepressjournal.in/world/wont-make-same-mistakes-with-india-like-china-us-deputy-secretary-christopher-landau-on-trade-deal-video
2.https://www.trtworld.com/article/62e565e9ecf2
3.https://www.indiatvnews.com/news/india/will-learn-from-china-mistake-trump-administration-s-america-first-message-to-india-over-trade-deal-2026-03-06-1032860
4.https://zeenews.india.com/india/wont-repeat-china-mistake-trumps-minister-christopher-landau-says-wont-let-india-become-us-competitor-3024211.html
5.https://m.thewire.in/article/diplomacy/us-deputy-secretary-of-state-christopher-landau-us-china-universities
6. https://www.businesstoday.in/india/story/comparing-apples-to-oranges-us-diplomat-on-landaus-remarks-about-us-not-repeating-its-china-mistake-with-india-519366-2026-03-06
7.https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-03-05/us-won-t-allow-india-to-become-rival-like-china-official-says
