Best of BS Opinion: Power is not the same as control

It is in power’s nature to create an illusion of control. A tariff can punish, a controlling stake can command, a strategic chokepoint can threaten, an industrial policy can incentivise, and a superpower can pressure a neighbour. But leverage is rarely absolute. Markets adjust, institutions push back, capabilities matter, and pressure can produce resistance instead of compliance.

 

Our first editorial today, “Tariffs don’t decide wars”, applies that lesson to the US’ attempt to use trade as an instrument of geopolitical coercion. President Donald Trump’s proposed tariffs on countries buying Russian energy may raise costs for Moscow and its trading partners, but the editorial argues that tariffs cannot determine the outcome of the Ukraine war. Economic pressure can influence incentives, but battlefield realities, military capacity, political endurance and the willingness of allies to bear costs matter more. Tariffs may be part of the strategy; they cannot substitute for one.

 

 

The second editorial, “Time for a reset”, turns to the Tata group. Tata Trusts’ controlling stake in Tata Sons gives it enormous formal influence, but ownership power has increasingly collided with the requirements of commercial governance, capital allocation and the interests of other shareholders. The editorial argues that the present structure has reached a point where control itself is becoming a source of friction. A reset is needed so that Tata Sons can operate with clearer accountability and fewer constraints. Control may confer authority, but it does not automatically produce institutional harmony.

 

Mihir S Sharma’s column, “The world’s most unpredictable variable”, takes the theme to oil. Iran’s position with respect to the Strait of Hormuz gives it extraordinary geopolitical leverage because so much of the world’s energy trade passes through the waterway. Yet even this does not give Tehran straightforward control over crude oil prices. Spare capacity, inventories, demand conditions, alternative routes and market expectations all complicate the relationship between disruption and price. Strategic leverage matters, but markets are larger and more adaptive than any one actor.

 

Debashis Basu’s column, “Manufacturing: No skills, no scale” applies the argument to industrial policy. Governments can offer incentives, approve projects and attract factories, but manufacturing cannot scale without the human capability to support it. India still faces shortages of engineers, technicians, machine operators and vocationally trained workers. Financial incentives can bring investment to the gate; they cannot create the skills needed to make that investment productive.

 

“Canada: More than America’s polite neighbour”, Jennifer Szalai’s review of Paul Theroux’s True North brings forth a useful inversion. Pressure from the US has not simply made Canada more compliant. It has also strengthened Canadian nationalism and sharpened the country’s sense of itself as distinct from its more powerful neighbour.

 

Leverage, as these pieces show, can open options, impose costs and alter behaviour. But power is not the same as control, and pressure often produces consequences that its wielder did not intend.