Lord Palmerston, one of Imperial Britain’s most distinguished prime ministers of the 19th century, is remembered as a liberal at home, but a hardliner in promoting British interests abroad. He was a firm believer in the maxim that in foreign policy, the ends justify the means. His clearest elucidation of the conduct of foreign policy came when he stated: “I say that it is a narrow policy to believe that this country or that has marked out the eternal ally or the perpetual enemy. We have no eternal allies and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual and these interests it is our duty to follow.” In the present day and age, every nation professes to observe the highest principles and moral standards. But are values like love for democracy or ideology really respected or observed, in the conduct of foreign policy?
Just over half a century ago, the world was divided between the alliance of democracies calling itself the “free world” led by the US and its NATO allies, pitted against the Soviet Union-led Communist Alliance, the Warsaw Pact. Confronted by the implacable hostility of the Americans, Mao’s Communist Government inevitably made common cause with the Soviets. American and Chinese soldiers were soon fighting each other in the bloody Korean conflict, sparked off by the invasion of a democratic South Korea by the Communist-led North Koreans. Barely a decade later, the US was defending military dictatorship in South Vietnam, against a takeover by the Communist-inclined but charismatic Ho Chi Minh of North Vietnam. Both the Soviet Union and China backed Ho Chi Minh, describing his cause as a national liberation struggle.
Within a year of the US withdrawal from Vietnam, China invaded Islands claimed by Vietnam in the South China Sea and in March 1979 staged a full-scale invasion of Vietnam to teach its southern neighbour a “lesson”. In the meantime, former “Communist allies”, the Soviet Union and China, had become implacable foes, with the Soviet Union giving the Chinese forces a battering on the banks of the Ussuri River. This was followed by the unbelievable event of the staunchly anti-Communist President Richard Nixon visiting Beijing, to forge a new Sino-American alliance. India was a target of this alliance during the Bangladesh conflict in 1971 and thereafter during the Clinton Administration, after the Soviet Union collapsed.
Indians can be uniquely sentimental in world affairs. There was and is no dearth of persons who assert that as fellow democracies India and the US are “natural allies”. But the reality is different .For over three decades, the US armed and equipped Pakistan’s armed forces and openly or tacitly supported it on the Kashmir issue. In 1971, India was confronted by a US-Pakistan-China alliance and responded by signing a treaty with the Soviet Union, which was immensely useful during the Bangladesh conflict. Despite claims of being a champion of democracy, the US did not hesitate to join Communist China and Pakistan’s military dictatorship in an alliance against India.
The world has changed substantially in the last two decades. With their economy in decline, the US is now confronted by a Pakistan, whose military establishment is arming, training and harbouring terrorists, who are killing their soldiers in Afghanistan. At the same time, a resurgent China is now seeking control over natural resources worldwide, expanding its military potential and threatening US allies like Taiwan, Japan and the Philippines. The Americans are now making common cause with Vietnam, against whom they had fought a bloody war not too long ago. A resurgent India is, therefore, a country to be courted by the Americans and many others. Let’s make the best of this situation, but not get carried away. Remember, India has no permanent friends or enemies. It has only permanent interests.
The writer is a former diplomat