The New US Security Strategy

The United States unveiled its new National Security Strategy (NSS). This document defines the Indo-Pacific region as stretching from the west coast of India to the western shores of the United States, explicitly including India. The strategy identifies China and Russia as 'revisionist' powers aiming to reshape the world according to their ideals. It also favors bilateral trade deals over multi-country agreements, reflecting a view that countries are in intense competition.

The 2018 US National Security Strategy: A Pivot to the Indo-Pacific and Great Power Competition

The 2018 United States National Security Strategy (NSS), released by the Trump administration, marked a significant shift in American foreign policy, particularly concerning its approach to the Indo-Pacific region and its relationships with China and Russia. The document served as a comprehensive articulation of the administration's worldview, outlining its strategic priorities, identifying key threats, and proposing a roadmap for maintaining American leadership in a rapidly changing global landscape. Its emphasis on great power competition, the redefinition of the Indo-Pacific, and the prioritization of bilateralism over multilateralism had profound implications for India and its foreign policy trajectory.

Redefining the Indo-Pacific: India's Ascendancy on the Strategic Map

One of the most notable aspects of the 2018 NSS was its explicit definition of the Indo-Pacific region. Unlike previous conceptualizations that primarily focused on the maritime space from the Indian Ocean to the Western Pacific, this strategy extended the Indo-Pacific's geographical scope to encompass the area stretching from the west coast of India to the western shores of the United States. Crucially, this definition explicitly included India as a central player in the region, underscoring its growing strategic importance in the eyes of the United States.

This redefinition was not merely a cartographic exercise; it reflected a fundamental shift in American strategic thinking. The inclusion of India in the Indo-Pacific construct acknowledged its rising economic and military power, its democratic values, and its shared interest with the United States in maintaining a free and open maritime order in the region. It also signaled a willingness on the part of the United States to deepen its strategic partnership with India as a counterweight to China's growing influence.

The concept of the Indo-Pacific itself is not new, but its formal adoption by the United States as a core element of its national security strategy represented a significant development. The term gained traction in the early 2000s, initially championed by Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, who envisioned a strategic arc linking the Indian and Pacific Oceans as a means of promoting regional stability and economic integration. Over time, the Indo-Pacific concept has evolved to encompass a broader range of issues, including maritime security, counter-terrorism, and the promotion of democratic values.

For India, the US embrace of the Indo-Pacific strategy was a welcome development. It validated India's long-standing efforts to play a more prominent role in the region and provided a framework for closer cooperation with the United States and other like-minded countries, such as Japan and Australia. The Indo-Pacific construct also offered India a platform to project its power and influence beyond its immediate neighborhood, allowing it to engage more effectively with Southeast Asian nations and other key players in the region.

Great Power Competition: China and Russia as Revisionist Challengers

Beyond the Indo-Pacific, the 2018 NSS placed great emphasis on the resurgence of great power competition, identifying China and Russia as "revisionist powers" seeking to challenge the existing international order and undermine American interests. The strategy accused China of engaging in unfair trade practices, intellectual property theft, and military expansionism in the South China Sea. It also criticized Russia for its aggression in Ukraine, its interference in foreign elections, and its efforts to undermine the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

The characterization of China and Russia as revisionist powers reflected a growing concern within the United States about the erosion of its global dominance. China's rapid economic growth and military modernization have allowed it to challenge the United States in a variety of domains, from trade and technology to geopolitics and military power. Russia, while economically weaker than China, has demonstrated a willingness to use military force and disinformation campaigns to advance its interests and disrupt the international order.

The US strategy towards China, as outlined in the NSS, involved a multi-pronged approach. This included strengthening its military presence in the Indo-Pacific region, countering China's economic coercion, promoting human rights and democracy in China, and working with allies and partners to push back against Chinese aggression. The strategy also acknowledged the need to cooperate with China on issues of mutual interest, such as climate change and North Korea.

Similarly, the US strategy towards Russia focused on deterring further aggression, countering its disinformation campaigns, strengthening NATO, and working with allies and partners to isolate Russia diplomatically and economically. The strategy also emphasized the importance of maintaining open channels of communication with Russia to manage potential crises and prevent escalation.

The identification of China and Russia as revisionist powers had significant implications for India. While India has historically maintained a non-aligned foreign policy, it has also grown increasingly concerned about China's assertiveness in the Indo-Pacific region and its growing strategic partnership with Pakistan. The US strategy of containing China and countering its influence aligned with India's own strategic interests, creating opportunities for closer cooperation between the two countries.

However, India also faced a delicate balancing act. While it shared concerns about China's rise, it also recognized the importance of maintaining a stable relationship with its powerful neighbor. India also had a long-standing relationship with Russia, particularly in the areas of defense and energy, and it was wary of becoming too closely aligned with the United States at the expense of its traditional ties.

Bilateralism vs. Multilateralism: A Preference for Direct Deals

Another key feature of the 2018 NSS was its preference for bilateral trade deals over multi-country agreements. The strategy argued that multilateral agreements, such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), often failed to serve American interests and that bilateral deals allowed the United States to negotiate more favorable terms. This preference for bilateralism reflected a broader skepticism towards international institutions and a belief that countries are in intense competition for economic advantage.

The decision by the United States to withdraw from the TPP in 2017 was a clear signal of its shift towards bilateralism. The TPP, which was negotiated under the Obama administration, was intended to create a free trade zone among 12 Pacific Rim countries, excluding China. The Trump administration argued that the TPP would harm American workers and businesses and that the United States could negotiate better deals with individual countries.

The preference for bilateralism had mixed implications for India. On the one hand, it created opportunities for India to negotiate trade deals with the United States and other countries on its own terms. On the other hand, it undermined the multilateral trading system, which had been a key driver of global economic growth for decades. India, as a developing country, had benefited from the multilateral trading system, which provided it with preferential access to developed country markets.

Furthermore, the US emphasis on bilateralism created uncertainty and instability in the global trading system. As the United States pursued bilateral deals with individual countries, it risked alienating its allies and partners and undermining the rules-based international order. This could have negative consequences for India, which relies on a stable and predictable trading environment to support its economic growth.

Historical Context: The Evolution of US National Security Strategy

To fully understand the significance of the 2018 NSS, it is important to consider its historical context. The United States has issued a National Security Strategy periodically since the end of World War II, with each document reflecting the priorities and worldview of the incumbent administration. The early NSS documents focused primarily on containing the Soviet Union and preventing the spread of communism. During the Cold War, the United States pursued a strategy of containment, which involved building alliances, deploying military forces, and providing economic assistance to countries threatened by Soviet expansionism.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the United States emerged as the sole superpower. The NSS documents of the 1990s reflected this new reality, emphasizing the importance of maintaining American leadership and promoting democracy and free markets around the world. The Clinton administration pursued a strategy of engagement, which involved working with other countries to address global challenges, such as terrorism, climate change, and poverty.

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, dramatically shifted the focus of US national security strategy. The Bush administration's NSS, issued in 2002, declared a "war on terror" and emphasized the importance of preemptive military action to prevent future attacks. The United States launched military interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq and increased its spending on homeland security.

The Obama administration's NSS, issued in 2010, sought to recalibrate US foreign policy after the Bush years. The strategy emphasized the importance of diplomacy, multilateralism, and economic engagement. The United States worked with other countries to address global challenges, such as the financial crisis, climate change, and nuclear proliferation.

The 2018 NSS represented a sharp departure from the Obama administration's approach. The Trump administration's strategy emphasized great power competition, the redefinition of the Indo-Pacific, and the prioritization of bilateralism over multilateralism. This shift reflected a growing concern within the United States about the erosion of its global dominance and a belief that the existing international order was not serving American interests.

Stakeholder Positions: Diverging Interests and Converging Concerns

The 2018 NSS elicited a range of reactions from different stakeholders around the world. The United States, as the author of the strategy, sought to promote its national interests, maintain its global leadership role, and counter perceived threats from China and Russia. India, while welcoming the US embrace of the Indo-Pacific strategy, also sought to maintain its strategic autonomy and balance its relationships with the United States, China, and Russia.

China, as a target of the strategy, rejected the US characterization of it as a revisionist power and accused the United States of engaging in Cold War mentality. China argued that it was pursuing peaceful development and that its growing economic and military power was not a threat to the existing international order. Russia, also targeted by the strategy, similarly rejected the US accusations and accused the United States of pursuing a policy of containment. Russia argued that it was acting to protect its national interests and that its actions in Ukraine and elsewhere were justified.

Other countries in the Indo-Pacific region also had their own perspectives on the 2018 NSS. Japan, a close ally of the United States, welcomed the strategy's emphasis on the Indo-Pacific and its commitment to maintaining a free and open maritime order. Australia, another key US ally in the region, similarly supported the strategy's focus on great power competition and its efforts to counter Chinese influence.

Southeast Asian countries, while generally welcoming the US engagement in the Indo-Pacific, also expressed concerns about the potential for increased tensions between the United States and China. These countries sought to maintain a neutral stance in the competition between the two superpowers and avoid being forced to choose sides.

Broader Implications: Geopolitical Shifts and Economic Uncertainties

The 2018 NSS had a number of broader implications for international relations. Politically, it contributed to increased geopolitical competition between the United States, China, and Russia. The strategy's explicit identification of China and Russia as revisionist powers signaled a hardening of the US stance towards these countries and a greater willingness to confront them on a range of issues.

Diplomatically, the strategy led to strained relations between the United States and China and Russia. The US accusations of unfair trade practices, intellectual property theft, and military aggression angered Chinese and Russian leaders and made it more difficult to find common ground on other issues. The strategy also increased the emphasis on bilateral diplomacy, as the United States sought to negotiate trade deals and security agreements with individual countries.

In terms of security, the strategy led to increased military spending and deployments. The United States increased its military presence in the Indo-Pacific region and conducted more frequent exercises with its allies and partners. China and Russia also increased their military spending and conducted their own military exercises, leading to a heightened risk of miscalculation and conflict.

Economically, the strategy contributed to trade wars and economic sanctions. The United States imposed tariffs on Chinese goods and threatened to impose further sanctions if China did not address its unfair trade practices. China retaliated with its own tariffs on American goods, leading to a trade war that disrupted global supply chains and slowed economic growth.

India's Strategic Calculus: Navigating a Complex Landscape

For India, the 2018 NSS presented both opportunities and challenges. On the one hand, the US embrace of the Indo-Pacific strategy and its willingness to counter China's influence aligned with India's own strategic interests. This created opportunities for closer cooperation between the two countries in areas such as maritime security, counter-terrorism, and economic development.

On the other hand, the US strategy also created challenges for India. The US emphasis on bilateralism undermined the multilateral trading system, which had been a key driver of global economic growth. The increased tensions between the United States and China also created a difficult balancing act for India, which sought to maintain a stable relationship with both countries.

India's response to the 2018 NSS was to pursue a strategy of strategic autonomy. This involved strengthening its strategic partnership with the United States while also maintaining its non-aligned foreign policy and engaging with China and Russia on issues of mutual interest. India also sought to promote its own vision of the Indo-Pacific, which emphasized inclusivity, respect for international law, and peaceful resolution of disputes.

India's strategic calculus was further complicated by its long-standing relationship with Russia. Russia has been a key supplier of military equipment to India for decades, and the two countries have a long history of cooperation in areas such as space exploration and energy. India was wary of becoming too closely aligned with the United States at the expense of its traditional ties with Russia.

Related Ongoing Issues: The South China Sea and Beyond

The 2018 NSS was closely related to a number of ongoing issues in international relations. The US-China trade disputes, Russia's intervention in Ukraine, and tensions in the South China Sea were all examples of the great power competition that the strategy sought to address.

The South China Sea, in particular, was a key area of strategic competition between the United States and China. China has been building artificial islands in the South China Sea and militarizing them, despite protests from other countries in the region. The United States has conducted freedom of navigation operations in the South China Sea to challenge China's territorial claims and uphold international law.

India has also expressed concerns about China's actions in the South China Sea, as they threaten freedom of navigation and regional stability. India has supported the principle of peaceful resolution of disputes and has called on all parties to respect international law.

Historical Connections: Echoes of the Cold War

The 2018 NSS also had historical connections to the Cold War. The US strategy of containing China and Russia was reminiscent of the Cold War strategy of containing the Soviet Union. The emphasis on military spending, alliances, and ideological competition also echoed the Cold War era.

However, there were also important differences between the Cold War and the current era. The Cold War was primarily a bipolar competition between the United States and the Soviet Union. The current era is characterized by a multipolar world, with China, Russia, India, and other countries playing increasingly important roles.

Furthermore, the Cold War was primarily an ideological competition between communism and capitalism. The current era is characterized by a more complex mix of ideological, economic, and geopolitical factors.

Future Outlook: A Contested International Order

The 2018 NSS provided a glimpse into the future of international relations. The US will likely continue to pursue a strategy of containing China and Russia while strengthening its alliances with countries like India. The Indo-Pacific region will remain a key area of strategic competition, and the United States will continue to challenge China's actions in the South China Sea and elsewhere.

However, the future of international relations is uncertain. China and Russia will likely continue to challenge the existing international order, and other countries will seek to assert their own interests and influence. The world will likely become more multipolar and more contested, with a greater risk of conflict and instability.