Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s second visit to India in less than five months comes at a crucial juncture in India-US ties, with the trade deal yet to be finalised and the about-turns in Washington’s tariff regime and its dealings with Moscow keeping Delhi on the tenterhooks. In an exclusive interview with The Indian Express, Rubio describes the ties between India and the US as “positive”, and “the feature of our foreign policy”. Edited excerpts:I think positive, and in many ways, it has become a feature of our foreign policy. It’s one that we are very focused on. In fact… my very first meeting was with the Quad (grouping) that includes, of course, India, and since then I have had multiple interactions with… must be over a dozen… with my counterparts here, at every forum. This is my second visit here, you have also seen at high levels of our government, (people) visit here, and of course, we had the bilateral visit by the Prime Minister (Narendra Modi) to the United States. We are going to continue to build on that.Now look, we have some challenges because this is not a small country, it is big and important. It has a large economy, it has an enormous business class. So trade has been an irritant, and we are working through on the trade relationship… it needs to be solved. But I also think that, even as that process continues, we have so many areas of cooperation. The Quad being an example, an area of very strong cooperation that is beginning to turn ideas into action… It’s a very, very positive relationship, and that would not be possible without a strong US-India relationship.* While President Trump has just waived sanctions on purchase of Russian oil, which is a relief to India, there is concern that it might be imposed at some point. Does it put some stress on economic ties?It can, there is no doubt about it. And that is why it has to be managed very carefully, and the relationship we have is so critical… None of these tariffs are meant to punish or harm India. They are part of a broader foreign policy that, unfortunately, involves a war going on between Russia and Ukraine, that we would like to see come to an end. And I’m sure you saw it in our media and our political system (that), when the President issued those waivers and did not impose the tariffs required under a law passed by our Congress, he got criticism for doing it. But one of the reasons why he didn’t impose them is because he understands that it would have a very detrimental impact on a very important relationship with India.So, it’s part of balancing foreign policy, and it’s difficult because, on the one hand, you want to make sure you can pressure the warring parties to the table to negotiate an outcome in that war… and, on the other hand, sometimes by imposing pressure through tariffs, you’re creating stress on other important relationships… I think the President is trying very hard to balance that… but it will be a challenge.* Washington and Delhi have been negotiating a trade deal for almost a year-and-a-half now… Both sides have indicated they are trying to find a landing ground. How far are we from a deal, and what are the sticking points?I don’t want to get into the details of the sticking points. I can simply tell you that (they are) there. I won’t call them technicalities, but it’s language-related. It’s basically down to what certain words mean, what certain phrases mean. Because it’s important for both sides to have full agreement. Both sides have to 100% agree on what a deal means. If they don’t, then in the future it can unravel….Story continues below this adI think we’re incredibly close. The way I would say it is, we are weeks, not months, away from I think finalising it. I think 99% of the work is done. The remaining factor, you have to have 100% done. But I feel very positive about the trajectory that it’s on.* You have been an early champion of the Quad framework (including US, India, Australia and Japan), as you said. But there is a sense that the Trump administration’s view of China has changed from the first term to the second. It’s seen as soft on China.Soft is not the right terminology. I think the right terminology is that China – and you know this well, because India also has relationships with China – is a large economy. It’s a powerful country. It’s a country we have to have relations with… our relationship with them needs to be balanced. We are most certainly going to have disagreements with them. We have them now… There are things they are doing that we consider harmful to the interests of the United States, and so even now action is being taken, whether export controls or measures that cause irritants. So the attitude of this administration has been to try to find a level of strategic stability, an understanding that if things go bad, if the United States and China get into a trade war or any other conflict for that matter, it would be incredibly detrimental to the world.But it won’t be easy because you have these two very large, powerful countries, large, powerful economies, large, powerful militaries… So we’re going to continue to press on those items that we think are against our national interest, but at the same time, try to manage the relationship in a way that doesn’t escalate into something far more dangerous or detrimental, not just for us but for the world. A US-China trade war would be devastating to the global economy. It would impact India. It would impact virtually every country… So it’s a challenge this administration has taken on, in a way that has been reasonable and balanced.* There is a huge Indian diaspora. A lot of students travel to the US to study. But in recent times, the H-1B debate, restrictions on visas, and the political anti-immigrant rhetoric are seen as antagonistic towards Indians. A plot to attack a temple was foiled just last week. How do you assuage these concerns?So the first thing is that every country has to have immigration laws. If they don’t, they are not a sovereign country. And, this is not about India, this applies globally… What has happened in the United States, unfortunately, is that for a number of years, especially under the four years of President Joe Biden, 20 million people entered the country unlawfully… Frankly, we have seen many of these programmes being abused. Again, it is not unique to Indians or India… We have seen a rise in birth tourism, that has nothing to do with India but with other countries. Things of this nature. So we are trying to fix 20 years of neglect of an immigration system… and that is not targeted towards India.Story continues below this adNow, obviously, because of the developments, because of the ties between our countries, because of how developed your economy is, there are certain categories of visas that see a large number of Indians applying for… We are simply trying to fix our immigration system so that we can arrive at one in which we are always going to welcome immigrants and visitors to the United States. We want people to visit the United States. We want people to study in the United States. There are certain people that we want, that want to come work for a time in the United States. We want people to invest in the United States, and we are always going to have people immigrate to the United States. But we want it done through a system of laws that are complied with…The biggest threat to legal immigration is illegal immigration. The biggest threat to legal immigration is mass migration, which again is not an Indian phenomenon (but) more unique to other parts of the world… That’s what we are trying to solve. And while I know that from your perspective here in India, it may seem targeted at India, (but) it’s not. There is virtually no country on Earth that I visit where I don’t get a complaint about some visa or process, because we are fixing it globally. Once it’s fixed, it will be far more sustainable. I actually think it will be better for the people using those programmes, and right and good for the United States.* The proximity between the Trump administration and Pakistan, particularly its General, has not gone down well in India. Some in India even see a return to the Nixon-Kissinger era, when the US administration backed Pakistan’s military rulers.Well, I would not use the 1970s as an example because the world looks nothing like it did back then. Back then, we had the Cold War and all sorts of other dynamics that no longer exist. Number two, I would say that our relationship with no country in the world, in any way, comes at the expense of our relationship with India. I hope my visits here, our commitment to doing the trade deal, all of the engagements that we have done, all the work that we do together, is evidence of that….Pakistan is a country we have a relationship with, and we need to have a relationship with. And, in some ways, it could be a positive thing if we could help discourage actions that could potentially lead to conflict, if we could use our influence in ways that are positive… But what everyone should be assured of in India is that our relationship, not just with Pakistan but with any country in the world, will never come at the expense of our relationship. We don’t view it that way in our relationship with India.Story continues below this ad* You are stopping over at Jamnagar, Gujarat, during your India visit, and I want to talk about the energy cooperation on the agenda, Reliance investment in a Texas refinery, and your meeting with the Ambanis. Incidentally, this comes a week after Elon Musk accused the Ambanis of blocking the entry of his Starlink to India.Yeah, well, Elon Musk is a private citizen, so you know he has the right to express himself and say whatever he wants. Our country has free speech, and he is an important private citizen. He owns important businesses, but he is a private citizen. So I can’t speak to that.What I can speak to is why it’s important that we have this meeting… The whole world is interested in diversifying how we get energy. I don’t think we want a world in which an overwhelming amount of the global energy comes from one part of the world that is prone to conflict. I think this is a company (Reliance) and this is a country (India) that has refining capacity. We have, for example, Venezuela that is going to be rapidly increasing the production of oil and crude, heavy crude, which can only be refined in certain parts of the world. One of those places is the Gulf Coast of the United States, but one of the few other places in the world that can actually refine Venezuelan heavy crude is India, and Reliance.That is important because it helps utilise and unleash the energy that is being developed in the Western Hemisphere. But also, they have invested in the United States… it’s one of the first new, refining expansions in the United States in recent times. That is a very important investment. So I think it’s an opportunity to see how they operate, but also to identify opportunities to achieve our mutual goal of diversifying our energy resources.* India has initiated a proposal for a Russia-Ukraine ceasefire. How do you see India’s involvement?It can be very positive. Unfortunately, as I said, the problem with the Black Sea ceasefire has been that the strikes occurring there have strategic value to the combatants. That is what has made it so difficult. But we applaud the very positive work. I reviewed the text that about a week-and-a-half ago the Indian side put together.Story continues below this adI think they have played a very positive role to try solve a very difficult conflict… to sort of save the world from the implications that it’s having on energy. And we welcome India’s involvement. I think they have a very professional diplomatic corps and have done an excellent job of trying to bring the parties together. It has just been difficult.