The current foreign policy of the US is extremely hard to fathom. It is inherently perplexing and contradictory in nature. It is driven primarily by President Trump’s relentless ambition to Make America Great Again. It is epitomised by two largely unrelated prongs: one, blatant economic coercion, disguised as a unilateral trade and tariff regime, rammed down the gullets of all countries – friends and foes alike – and two, President Trump’s inscrutable obsession with winning the Nobel Peace Prize. Whereas the first is a national interest, the other is an outright personal milestone to be achieved. To these ends, President Trump appears to have totally recalibrated the well-established paradigms of US foreign policy towards the world at large, its allies including the EU/NATO, India, and global players such as Russia and China. Lesser countries have been largely dealt with according to the prevalent geopolitical warrant of precedence and their importance to the pursuit of US interests. An emphatic “America First” approach is now in operation.

However, the paradoxes in the conduct of this US foreign policy are now becoming apparent. Although President Trump might have successfully interceded in numerous wars, in particular between India and Pakistan, Israel and Iran, Cambodia and Thailand, Serbia and Kosovo, Egypt and Ethiopia, Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo, Azerbaijan and Armenia, etc., he has shown no urgency in bringing about peace in the Middle East. He has been complicit in arming and enabling Israel’s genocide of the Gazans–Palestinians and in its arrogant cross-border drives to eliminate all real and/or imagined enemies. He has also facilitated Israel’s expansionist forays into Gaza, the West Bank, Syria, Lebanon, etc. He attacked Iran and its nuclear programme on behalf of Israel but has shown scant interest in bringing real peace or relief/succour to Gaza–Palestine. Although his desire for peace elsewhere might be well-intentioned, his peace-making falls spectacularly short where the Israel–Gaza imbroglio is concerned. There, it stoops down to the abysmal levels of rank selectivity and depravity, as it callously ignores the horrifying plight of the Gazans–Palestinians at the hands of the heartless, ruthless, remorseless IDF. Selective morality, as a great sage once said, is worse than no morality at all. This glaring dichotomy alone might cost him his much-desired Nobel Peace Prize.

Furthermore, it is well known that the US would always seek to secure its position as the sole hegemon – the most pre-eminent economic and military power in the world. To that end, it had already operationalised its grand strategic design of weakening the Sino–Russia Combine, its designated adversary at the global level. Its main objective, ostensibly, was to defeat them piecemeal. Thus, in Phase One, Russia was embroiled inextricably in Ukraine. The aim was to make it bleed from more than a thousand cuts and leave it economically and militarily enervated and vulnerable. That would, in turn, drastically weaken the Sino–Russia Combine so much that, once China is tackled in Phase Two at some later stage, Russian assistance to it would become limited and inconsequential. China could thus be isolated and ostensibly defeated in detail. The Sino–Russia challenge could have been neutralised comprehensively.

However, this grand strategic design seems to be floundering now, as President Trump appears intent upon adding the Ukraine–Russia war to his growing list of peace-making achievements. This has led to a vital divergence of core national interests between the US and its European/NATO allies, who have felt compelled to start their own economic and military aid programmes for Ukraine. They want the war to continue until such time as Russia is exhaustively defeated. This would, in their estimation, deter all future aggressions by Russia on European soil. However, if the US intends to enfeeble the Sino–Russia Combine, and by implication the challenge to its pre-eminence, then it is imperative that the Ukraine–Russia war must linger on interminably. Russian economic and military capacities could only thus be meaningfully exhausted.

However, peace in Ukraine would grant Russia a critical pause in the war and provide it with crucial time to revive its economy and military prowess, and to restore strategic balance with the US/NATO. That would imply a reinforcement of the Sino–Russia Combine’s challenge to the US. The contradiction in this policy is too obvious to be ignored.

India’s geopolitical and geoeconomic policies, and its compulsive urge to exercise its strategic autonomy, have caused a split in the US–India strategic partnership. It has apparently lost favour with the US – perhaps momentarily. However, it has moved into frantic damage control; it is repositioning itself by re-engaging Russia and China. Any rapprochement between India and China is bound to have far-reaching implications for the region, the US, and the world. Will the US willingly lose India to the Sino–Russia Combine and weaken its policy/strategy for the Indo-Pacific? Implausible, for that would effectively weaken or scuttle the QUAD and I2U2 alliances/initiatives too. The US and India can ill afford to lose one another at this crucial point in geopolitics and time. If they do, then China will gain some critical strategic space and time to deal with the multiple US-led alliances and coalitions likely to be marshalled against it in the South China Sea/Pacific Ocean regions. The US and its allies will seriously struggle to overcome a strong and supremely confident China.

Seeking peace and maintaining itself at the world’s apex are two conflicting strategic objectives for the US. How will it accomplish this? US policies for Europe/NATO and the Indo-Pacific region, especially India, seem to have undergone a basic paradigm shift. Will it make peace with both Russia and China too? Or is a reversion to earlier policy imperatives and strategic compulsions a foregone conclusion?

Where do India and Pakistan stand 

in this fascinating, fast-evolving geopolitical environment?

Imran Malik
The writer is a retired brigadier of the Pakistan Army. He can be reached at im.k846@gmail.com and tweets @K846Im.