 "Economist Sachs at Rising Bharat Summit: Urges India to lead global peace, warns against US 'one-man rule'")
On April 8-9, 2025, the News18 Rising Bharat Summit convened at the Bharat Mandapam in New Delhi.
One of the most anticipated sessions was “The Sachs Doctrine,” featuring renowned economist and bestselling author, Jeffrey D Sachs, in conversation with Firstpost’s Managing Editor Palki Sharma.
The session delved into the current state of global governance, the fragility of international consensus and the role of India in shaping a more peaceful and sustainable world.
Here is what Sachs said vis-à-vis global concerns:
The fragility of global consensus
Sachs began by highlighting the significant achievements of the international community in recent years.
“In September 2015, all 193 member states of the United Nations adopted the idea of sustainable development as their framework,” he noted. “And six weeks later, all 193 UN member states adopted the Paris Climate Agreement, recognising that it’s no joke. We really have an environmental emergency whether we like it or not.”
However, Sachs expressed deep concern about the fragility of this consensus. “That consensus is very fragile though because my country, the United States, doesn’t spend too much time thinking about it,” he said.
“It’s very much America first, whether it’s this administration or the one that preceded it, pretty much the same.” Sachs pointed out.
“It said no and it voted against it for two reasons. One, it says the Chinese use the phrase peaceful coexistence so we think this phrase may be somehow in praise of China so we won’t use the phrase peaceful coexistence. The second was that in the declaration it said the world supports sustainable development and the United States government said no, we do not. We will no longer simply say we support sustainable development. It is not in America’s national interest.”
Sachs pointed out the implications of this stance: “So if you ask me is it a global consensus, well we’re down one country. I think 192 would still profess consensus, one does not. And that one is on a bit of a, let’s say an adventure right now every day to prove to the world that it can do what it wants, when it wants, where it wants, how it wants no matter what anyone else thinks and that is not exactly conducive to the kind of world that we want.”
India’s strategic position
When asked about his advice to India, Sachs was candid. “I don’t think I have to give advice to India, it’s a little superfluous but just be careful,” he cautioned.
“There is no alliance there, India is anyway too big for alliances, you are an alliance in and of yourself. Civilisations behave as civilisations do and so being the most populous country in the world, you take care in your relations everywhere.”
Sachs warned against being drawn into the US’s geopolitical games. “The US wants to use India clearly. It wants to use India to beat up China. Don’t play the American game, that’s my only advice to you. It makes no sense, again it’s superfluous for me to tell you that, but it is very much on my mind because the entire US foreign policy is divide and conquer in any part of the world. That’s how empires behave, that’s what the US learned from the master empire of all the British, we learned at their knee and we still try to apply it. So the US loves for India to be in the quad, it wants India to bash China. I heard some Indian politicians recently saying, no it’s not Donald Trump’s trade policy, it’s all because of China. No, not exactly, it’s actually because of Donald Trump.”
The Trump tariffs and one-man rule
The discussion then turned to the Trump tariffs and the broader implications of one-man rule in the United States. “I think everyone observing the last few days should be rather puzzled what’s actually going on in Washington,” Sachs observed.
“If you ask me, I will tell you the succinct answer, nobody knows. And I’ll give you the real answer that is the most alarming answer of all. For the first time in American history, we are in a one man show right now. We’re in a one person show. The authors of our constitution spent a lot of time and they were very brilliant trying to devise checks and balances to this new system that they were inventing in 1787. They would be horrified by what’s happening now.”
Sachs explained the legal and constitutional issues at play. “What is literally happening now, you should understand, how does one person change the whole world trade system? It wasn’t a vote of Congress. It wasn’t even a discussion in Congress. It wasn’t a public debate. It was literally an executive order. And that is very strange. In the executive order, and you can go to the website of the White House to read the executive order, it says, by the powers invested in me as President of the United States. And then it lists three pieces of legislation with the words emergency in them. The President of the United States declared an emergency. Now this is interesting. He claims that he can declare an emergency and then govern without law, just govern by decree. This is what we had a revolution about back in 1776, by the way. They didn’t like the fact that King George III made decrees. But even then it was the British Commons actually passing laws. Here it’s not even the Commons. It’s one person.”
Sachs further elaborated on the legal challenges. “Now what he calls an emergency is anything that Donald Trump wants to call an emergency. So he calls our trade deficit an emergency. Well, no. It’s been around for 20 some years. It’s got deep economic causes. It’s not exactly an emergency. Maybe it’s a matter of public interest, maybe not, but it’s not something that one person should decide and then overwrite the laws of the land in an emergency decree. So we are profoundly destabilised in the United States right now because we have one person rule. What we don’t know is whether there will be any reaction to this, whether the courts will be able to enforce a judgement that these actions are illegal, which they plainly are, by the way. They will create worldwide turmoil, but they’re absolutely illegal by any true legal standard other than a presidential emergency, or whether Congress will wake up and say, hey, we have a rule under Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution which says very explicitly that the right to levy duties belongs only to Congress, not to the president, which is in Article II of our Constitution. If we had the Indian Supreme Court, I wouldn’t worry, frankly. The Indian Supreme Court’s pretty activist. It would strike this down as enormous presidential overreach. I don’t know about our Supreme Court. The Chief Justice was my classmate 49 years ago, by the way. I didn’t quite trust him then, and I don’t trust him now. I don’t know what he’s going to do, but we’re hanging by a thread. Do we have one person rule, or do we have really a checks and balances democracy? We don’t know to this moment.”
The backsliding democracy
“We once had a little joke that said, why is the US the only country that never had a coup? The answer is because it doesn’t have an American embassy. Think about it,” Sachs responded.
“Anyway, maybe we’ve had a coup now. We don’t know. We don’t know how things will actually play out. It’s quite worrisome. Yes, Americans have voted for Donald Trump, that’s true, but Americans voted for Donald Trump under a constitution and a rule of law, not to be ruled by executive decree, which in any event is illegal under our system of government. So we are really in a test right now, whether a president can just declare emergency after emergency after emergency, and these have no relevance as emergencies. This is trade policy, ladies and gentlemen. This isn’t emergencies. This isn’t a hurricane. This isn’t a disaster. This is normal economics, which is why we have a Congress and a constitution. And so, yes, this is absolutely unprecedented and dangerous for everybody, dangerous for the world. And this, unfortunately, is our little bit of our grim situation right now.”
The neurosis of American supremacy
Sachs delved into the psychological underpinnings of American foreign policy. “The neurosis is that the United States is expected to be number one forever. This is the basic point. China ruptured that illusion, so Americans hate China. They hate China. How dare you have a bigger economy than the United States? This violates every rule according to American thinking, and they will come to resent India, too. As you overtake the United States, too. Just a little bit of friendly caution to you because the American mindset cannot understand this is a big world, and other countries are more populous, and they’re not being held back. And the United States is only 335 million people, a little bit bigger than Uttar Pradesh, but not so much bigger. And so it can’t be the biggest country and the biggest economy in the world. It’s not even possible in a world where technology is everywhere, where skills are everywhere, where the ability to innovate is everywhere. But this is driving the Americans crazy, and it’s driving the Americans crazy especially about China. Don’t be pulled into it. I know India and China have their own issues. But settle them because between the two of you, you’re 40 per cent of the world population, and you could actually help to run a very decent world together.”
The Ukraine conflict and Nato enlargement
The conversation then shifted to the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. “The war in Ukraine was a terrible debacle that the United States sadly walked into over a 30-year period by expanding NATO despite Russia’s continuing objections, don’t come closer to our border, don’t come closer to our border,” Sachs explained.
“I know it. I was President Gorbachev’s on his economic advisory team 36 years ago. I was President Yeltsin’s economic advisor. I was Ukraine’s economic advisor to President Kuchma. So I know both sides. The basic point was Russia wanted some space so that the United States wasn’t pushing its missile systems, its Aegis missiles, its military bases right up against Russia’s borders. But the United States said, we go where we want, when we want, where we want, how we want. And the war finally ensued.”
Sachs provided historical context. “The war could have ended in 2022. Ukraine and Russia were about to sign a peace agreement based on neutrality for Ukraine. But the United States said, no, no, no, we want military bases, we want NATO there, don’t sign the agreement. So Ukraine continued to fight. So will Trump end this? He could end this. He just has to say very clearly, publicly, explicitly, NATO will not enlarge to Ukraine. That is over. We will not be next to Russia, pushing ourselves into Russia’s front yard, basically. And if the US does this, there will be peace in Ukraine because the war will end. It’s been a war over NATO enlargement. The war will end on that basis.”
Sachs recalled the promises made in the early 1990s. “Unfortunately, President Biden insisted on the last day, NATO will expand to Ukraine. President Trump knows it’s not right, but he hasn’t quite said it yet. So we’re close to the war ending, but we’re not quite there yet. Look, I was there when Gorbachev ended the Soviet military pact called the Warsaw Pact. He ended it and said, peace. And the United States should have ended NATO at that moment. But the United States didn’t end NATO. The United States immediately said, we expand NATO. Actually, not immediately. They told President Gorbachev on February 7th, 1990, James Baker III, NATO will not move one inch eastward. Not one inch. Hans-Dietrich Genscher, the foreign minister of Germany, NATO will not move eastward at all. I was there in those days. They promised, they lied. When the Soviet Union ended, President Clinton in 1994 began NATO enlargement. And Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote a book in 1997 explaining Russia will have no choice but to acquiesce. So it was kind of like playing a poker game. They gambled Ukraine’s safety and they lost. And it was a terrible mistake. And all of the senior diplomats in the United States knew it at the time. Jack Matlock, George Kennan, people that I was dealing with knew that this was a disastrous policy. Very dangerous and very provocative. But the politicians went ahead with it anyway because they had the idea that the US was the sole superpower and it could do what it wants.”
India’s role in global peace
Sachs saw a significant role for India in global diplomacy. “I see a huge role for India in playing a major diplomatic role in the world. If I could tell you a little secret, can I? Just a little secret. My advice is be friendly with China and say to China, you must admit us, you must vote now that we become the sixth permanent member of the UN Security Council. How can we have a Security Council without India being a permanent member?”
“It makes no sense at all. And I want China to be your strong supporter of that. I really do. I know that India can help to bring peace in the world. This is actually a peace-loving country. You just had 600 million people peacefully assemble in the Mahakumbh. Unbelievable. We can’t have 100 people in my neighbourhood get together without a brawl. And if you have 1,000 people, someone gets shot. And you just had 600 million people come. It’s the wonderful philosophy of peace. And you will help bring peace to the whole world. We don’t need these wars. This is the most basic point. We do not need conflict. They make no sense. Wars are the result of politics. You end the war not by war but by political solutions. You end the war in Ukraine by Ukrainian neutrality and stopping NATO enlargement. You end the war in the Middle East by a state of Palestine as an independent, sovereign state living in peace with Israel. It’s obvious. You end the conflicts in East Asia by not having a US military build up all around the East Asian seaways. This is straightforward. India can help bring that about.”
Sachs spoke about the importance of a multipolar world. “But just to say, I talk to Chinese politicians and the diplomats all the time and I’m always telling them, admit India as the sixth permanent member. Because it’s good for China and it’s good for India. It’s good for the whole world. And I’m also explaining it’s good for China because we need a multipolar world. We’re way past the United States leading anything, okay? We want it to be there and be cooperative. Don’t make a mess, be nice, play with the others, okay? To have that kind of world, India needs to be there, right front and centre. And China wants that. So China’s not just facing American bashing all the time.”
The Taiwan dilemma
“If ever there is a place for Henry Kissinger’s adage, it is Taiwan. To be an enemy of the United States is dangerous, but to be a friend is fatal. If Taiwan thinks that the United States is going to save Taiwan from China, oh my God, truly God help us.”
“There is no way, first of all, that the United States could save Taiwan. It would get whooped in a war thousands of miles from its shore anyway. But aside from that, the last thing that this world needs is a war between the United States and China.”
 "Russian drones over Poland: Trump’s tepid reaction a wake-up call for Nato?")
 "As Russia pushes east, Ukraine faces mounting pressure to defend its heartland")
 "Why Mossad was not on board with Israel’s strike on Hamas in Qatar")
 "Turkey: Erdogan's police arrest opposition mayor Hasan Mutlu, dozens officials in corruption probe")
 "Russian drones over Poland: Trump’s tepid reaction a wake-up call for Nato?")
 "As Russia pushes east, Ukraine faces mounting pressure to defend its heartland")
 "Why Mossad was not on board with Israel’s strike on Hamas in Qatar")
 "Turkey: Erdogan's police arrest opposition mayor Hasan Mutlu, dozens officials in corruption probe")
