REEMERGENCE of Russia as a reckonable military power coupled with the rise of China as a formidable economic giant, from the second half of the last decade, seems to have disrupted the New World Order, envisioned by the US policy makers, after the victory of the US-led alliance in the World War-II. The term New World Order was used for the first time by the US President Woodrow Wilson after the World War-I in the context of reactivating the League of Nations. When the phrase reappeared after the World War-II, many analysts interpreted it as a plan conceived by the World War-II victors to dominate the world under the umbrella of the military might of the US and its allies.
The use of New World Order resurfaced shortly before the end of Cold War and Bipolar Word towards the end of 1980s. The USSR President Mikhail Gorbachev and the US President George H. W, Bush used the term to define the nature of the Post-Cold War era and the spirit of greater worldwide cooperation. The dismemberment of the USSR that was shortly followed by the US victory in 1991 Gulf War, without any military or diplomatic maneuvers by Russia and China to support Iraq against the US aggression, prompted President Bush to remark; “Now, we can see a new world coming into view. A world in which there is the very real prospect of a New World Order”.
Though the term “New World Order” was initially used to imply pooling the resources of the world community to collectively address the issues that could not be handled by individual states alone, the US and its allies operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, etc. after the end of the Cold War era have unfolded their real Global agenda. However, re-emergence of Russia as a global power, and the ever-expanding influence of China, because of its phenomenal economic growth, are perceived as threats to their unchallenged dominance in the unipolar world order by the United States and its allies.
The US policymakers mistakenly picked India for use as a bulwark to reverse the Chinese southwestwards march, and to insulate it from the Russian Influence. The biggest blunder committed by the Americans in this regard is; they failed to realize very visible differences between India and Pakistan. Right from Pakistan’s creation in 1947, the US has been exploiting its economic vulnerabilities to achieve its strategic objectives in the South Asia. In response to the economic and military aid provided by the US, Pakistan leased an air base to the US in 1950s to keep an eye on Moscow. After the occupation of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union in late 1970’s, Pakistan willingly opted to play the role of a frontline state during the Afghan War that stripped the Soviet Empire off its status as a superpower. Following the 9/11 attacks, Pakistan once again chose to support the US in its War on Terror that has so far taken the lives of sixty thousand Pakistanis.
India-US relations were marked by distrust and lack of cordiality during the Cold War era. However, the end of Cold War led to a gradual improvement in India-US relations. After President Clinton’s visit in March 2000, India-US relations developed at a quick pace. The US consented to a nuclear deal for civil use with India in 2015 that was heralded as the beginning of the strategic relations between India and the US.
While opting to develop strategic relations with India to advance their agenda of restricting the influence of both Russia and China through a nuclear capable world’s biggest functioning democracy, having the potentials as well as plans to play its role as a global player, the US policymakers made countless miscalculations. The biggest of these miscalculations is/was that the US and India’s strategic interests in the South Asia do not converge on a single point. Indian policy in this region is Pakistan-centric. India’s military as well as diplomatic efforts revolve around coercing its nuclear powered smaller neighbour to submission. Indians lack the will as well as willingness to challenge China, because it is very well known to them that their military and economic standing is no match to that of Chinese. Contrary to Pakistan, China has never been perceived as a threat to their interests by the Indian military managers. Similarly, the Indians latest arms deal with Russia indicates that the US failed to realize that by consenting to a civil nuclear deal, and by closing eyes to human rights violations in Kashmir and use of Afghan soil for terrorist activities in Pakistan, it would be able to bait India to play its role to halt Russians efforts to re-assert themselves as a world power.
Even ideologically, the US and India have a little in common. Though India boasts of being a secular democracy, the on ground realities are quite different. Narendra Modi is a lifetime member of the radical Hindu nationalist group, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). Indian secular social scientists consider RSS a fascist movement, adhering to the concept of hegemony of a regimented majority. After Narendra Modi’s election as the Prime Minister, Hindu fanatics have geared up their efforts to transform India into a purely Hindu state. The inaction of the US to the ill-treatment meted to the Indian religious minorities under the patronage of Modi government, does not endorse the US claims and reputation as the champion of secularism and human rights. Even if (despite these stumbling blocks on the road to highly unlikely India-US alliance for safeguarding the unipolar world order that took shape after the demise of USSR) the US succeed in luring India to side with it for maintaining the status quo, the New World Order might slip out of the US grip because of the re-emergence of Russia, if China and Pakistan opted to join the Russian camp.
— The writer, a retired Brig, is professional educationist based in Islamabad.
Source: https://pakobserver.net/slipping-new-world-order/