Washington and New Delhi are talking past each other in the mistaken belief that they have shared vital national interests with respect to the so-called Indo-Pacific Region (IPR) that are increasingly threatened by Beijing. The term Indo-Pacific is misleading as it suggests geostrategic unity, which, in fact, does not exist.
It is time for the United States and India to discard the delusion of a strategic partnership or military alliance within an imaginary Indo-Pacific framework. Instead, over the next two decades, the two countries should acknowledge their separate, non-conflicting strategic realities and focus on mutually beneficial areas of cooperation in intelligence, technology, trade and investment.
Ultimately, the nature of the relationship between the two countries will be determined by choice, not necessity.
The United States, as a nation with important territory in the Pacific, has a vital national interest in safeguarding its sovereignty and control over this territory. By contrast, India’s territory, both areas currently under its administrative control as well as territory not under its control but with respect to which it claims sovereignty, is exclusively in the Indian Ocean Region (IOR).
America is and intends to remain a power in the Pacific Ocean Region (POR); it has no existential interest in who controls the Indian Ocean Region. Likewise, India is and intends to remain a power in the IOR; it has no existential interest in who controls the Pacific Ocean Region.
Latest stories
China’s poverty victory and America’s poverty shame
Is Canon’s factory closure tied to strains in China-Japan ties?
PRC-linked Spamouflage works to spread antisemitic disinformation
In an increasingly multipolar world, strategic clarity with respect to vital national interests reflects strength, not weakness. Accordingly, Washington should clearly articulate the sphere of influence within which the United States would be the hegemonic power or primus inter pares (first among equals).
From a national security perspective, the area encompassed by the sphere of influence is existential in nature as Washington would be prepared to use the full range of US power, including nuclear weapons, to safeguard this geostrategic envelope. Within this sphere of influence, territories not subject to US sovereignty would be effectively US protectorates.
The components of such a US security envelope or cordon sanitaire would have three facets: the Americas core, the Pacific Ocean Region wing, and the Atlantic Ocean Region wing. The Americas core encompasses the entire American continent from the Danish island territory of Greenland to the north to the Chilean island territories of Cape Horn to the south.
The POR wing stretches in an arc from Alaska at the northwestern tip of the Americas to the US island territory of Guam and the Republic of Palau in the western Pacific Ocean and thence to the US island territory of American Samoa in the south Pacific and continuing to Cape Horn at the southern tip of the Americas.
The AOR wing stretches in a line running from the eastern coast of Greenland in the north Atlantic to the Azores in the central Atlantic and continuing to the South Sandwich Islands in the south Atlantic and thence looping to Cape Horn. India’s sphere of influence is defined and shaped by the Indian Ocean Region. The components of India’s security envelope has four facets:
(1) the territorial core over which it has both de jure sovereignty and administrative control; (2) four neighboring countries that are effectively, albeit to varying degrees, Indian protectorates – Bhutan, Nepal, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka; (3) a maritime arc in the eastern Indian Ocean from the Bay of Bengal to the Andaman Sea, continuing to the Malacca, Sunda, and Lombok Straits, and terminating in Sri Lanka; and (4) a maritime arc in the western Indian Ocean from Sri Lanka to Maldives, Mauritius, and Seychelles, and thence to the Gulf of Aden and proceeding to the Gulf of Oman, and then looping back across the Arabian Sea to the Rann of Kutch on the coast of western India.
India has territorial disputes with Pakistan and China, but these disputes do not jeopardize any US vital national interests. If one focuses on India’s actions rather than its rhetoric, these disputes do not appear to be existential in nature.
Sign up for one of our free newsletters
- The Daily Report Start your day right with Asia Times' top stories
- AT Weekly Report A weekly roundup of Asia Times' most-read stories
Certainly, the escalatory ladder has not spiraled out of control, although a pathway to a modus vivendi has yet to be found. It is up to India, China and Pakistan, as responsible nuclear powers, to resolve their issues and determine the nature of their relationships. The rational expectation must be that mutual assured survival trumps mutual assured destruction.
The challenge for New Delhi is to ensure that India’s capabilities are sufficient to safeguard its sphere of influence for the foreseeable future. According to US government forecasts, by 2045 the size of India’s economy at US$33 trillion will be larger than that of the US at $31.5 trillion (as measured by GDP).
The two countries have an extraordinary opportunity to shape their relationship as equals whose vital national interests are non-conflicting rather than converging. Washington and New Delhi should press the reset button and start talking to each other.
Samir Tata is founder and president of International Political Risk Analytics, an advisory firm based in Reston, Virginia, and author of the book, “Reflections on Grand Strategy” (Palgrave Macmillan, 2022).
Sign up here to comment on Asia Times stories
Sign in with Google Or Sign up Sign in to an existing account
Thank you for registering!
An account was already registered with this email. Please check your inbox for an authentication link.