Font size: 
Suppose that the current currency exchange rate woes between China and the United States are not resolved amicably, putting China at a disadvantage, or that China fails to raise its imports of U.S. goods and services, or Chinese deposits of US$1 trillion are held hostage by the United States, or the Taiwan issue comes to a head in the next five to 10 years. Any one of these issues could lead to a confrontation. Then where will the United States look for support in Asia?
Forget the Middle East, Pakistan, Indonesia and other small Muslim states. There are few U.S. friends in these countries. The misguided war in Iraq has earned the United States the displeasure of the world's 1 billion Muslims. In Africa also, support for the United States is minimal.
Can the United States expect support from Russia against China? Forget that too. It is now 35 years since the United States went to China to militarily corner the Soviet Union. Now the situation is somewhat reversed. If the United States and China come to blows, Russia will enjoy the show from the sidelines.
Then who is likely to be the United States' friend in Asia in the event of misfortune, especially on the China front? It will be India.
India is a democracy. In a democracy, many people share power; hence support will not mean blanket approval of all U.S. actions. The merits of supporting U.S. positions will be fully debated. Nevertheless, support will be provided -- whether it is naval escort service in the Indian Ocean, approval of flights from Diego Garcia to the Chinese mainland, or tying down the Chinese military and air force in Tibet. Any or all of these could play a vital role in assuring the success of U.S. action against China.
Could anybody else provide this kind of support to the United States? No, is the simple answer. Would Pakistani public opinion permit the dictators in Islamabad to support action against their all-weather friend, China? Dictators of course are a separate matter -- they might take a few billion dollars worth of bombs and planes and betray China. But public opinion would be against it. Also geography would not permit extensive support to the United States by Pakistan. Hence India's support would be vital.
Given this reality, why does the United States find it hard to evolve a new policy toward emerging India? Are the U.S. State Department cold warriors standing in the way? Or are the Pentagon generals such good pals with the military leadership in Pakistan that they oppose any policy change? Or is it that the civilian leadership in the U.S. administration and Congress is fed misleading propaganda against India? Something is definitely wrong somewhere, and it is preventing India and the United States from becoming better friends.
A case in point is the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal, which will probably remain on the back burner for quite some time. The heavens will not fall if it remains inoperative. India may be forced into uncomfortable arrangements elsewhere, but India will survive. But the diplomatic setback for both India and the United States will be tremendous. The current happy commercial relationship may continue, but at a slow pace.
With Indian public opinion polls showing a 70 percent favorable impression of the United States, Washington really should sit up and take note. This favorable opinion will surely take a beating should the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal go cold. The politicians who take charge after 2008 in both countries will find it hard to salvage the deal for a long time.
If the United States is short on friends, why let a minor nuclear lobby dictate the terms of an important bilateral agreement, or allow a few members of Congress to hold up the deal? Don't they know that India is a trustworthy friend?
It is just a matter of time until Russia will be back on its feet. Over-enthusiastic U.S. expansion in Eastern Europe is not sitting well with them. Just as Washington did not want Soviet missiles in Cuba in 1962, Moscow does not want U.S. military bases, even under the guise of rogue-nation missile interceptors, near its border. A new confrontation may be brewing in Europe -- and the United States is going to need all the friends it can get. Hence, it would be wise to place Indo-U.S. relations on a firm footing now, rather than later.
China, Russia and the Muslim world do not see eye-to-eye with the United States on most issues, and the future of U.S. influence in the world is clouded. Washington needs to cultivate its relationship with India. Also it should reduce foreign investment funds being sent to China. This practice allows Americans to buy cheap goods, but it also helps China build a more powerful military machine.
In addition, all that money that has been spent on Pakistan in the last five years is a net waste. It only yielded a few minor al-Qaida operatives, while the big fish is still out there, free and laughing. The United States should cut its losses and withdraw. It should let Pakistan collapse under its own civil and military disorder, and deal later with whatever emerges from the rubble.
The U.S. State Department and U.S. politicians need a healthy dose of realism. The new world order as it is emerging now is no longer U.S.-centric. For Washington to retain any semblance of leadership, it will need friends other than its Cold War allies in China, Pakistan, the Middle East and Western Europe. The United States is having difficulty understanding the concept, but it needs to realize that in hard times ahead, it can count on India as a friend.
--
(Hari Sud is a retired vice president of C-I-L Inc., a former investment strategies analyst and international relations manager. A graduate of Punjab University and the University of Missouri, he has lived in Canada for the past 34 years. ©Copyright Hari Sud.)
