I tend to agree broadly with Walter Russell Mead but in this particular case I disagree. As India and China mobilize forces at their mutual border, his column in the Wall Street Journal makes a point I would dispute:
A wealthy, powerful and democratic India would help frustrate China’s hegemonic ambitions and substantially offset Chinese influence in Central Asia, Southeast Asia and Africa. The stronger India becomes the less the U.S. must contribute to a balancing coalition of India, Japan, Australia and Vietnam that keeps Chinese ambitions in check.
In that kind of world, the nascent Washington-Beijing rivalry could fade into the background, and the U.S. could enjoy trade relationships with a rich Asia that posed fewer threats to American security. India’s emergence as an economic superpower would also strengthen the cause of democracy, demonstrating that people don’t have to give up their freedom to thrive.
That rosy scenario is a long way away. China’s economy is $10 trillion larger than India’s. Byzantine land and labor laws, concerns about corruption, and rickety infrastructure continue to limit India’s ability to attract foreign capital, even as many companies look to diversify their supply chains away from China.
He characterizes India as a “natural U. S. ally” and urges cultivating that relationship.
Frankly, I’m skeptical. What I think is true is that India and China are natural adversaries, especially under Chinese Communist Party and its increasingly aggressive posture. Some interpret that as a sign of strength. Might it also not be a sign of weakness?
As a thought experiment, consider Dr. Mead’s quote, substituting “Russia” for “India”. Isn’t that even truer? China and Russia, too, are natural adversaries and what they are cultivating now is an alliance of convenience which the Russians are well aware could turn to hostility whenever it suits the Chinese leadership.
Meanwhile, I’m concerned about cultivating closer relations with any religious nationalist country, whatever the religion and whatever the country. I don’t think their aspirations are consistent enough with ours for a close relationship. Consequently, I think that India can be a client or a trading partner and those relationships should be cultivated, especially to the degree that it encourages India to reform the semi-autarky it presently engages in. But ally? While it’s persecuting its Muslim minority, the largest population of Muslims in any country?
The mean IQ in China is almost 20 points higher than that of India. India’s government is also more corrupt than China’s. India has no chance of equaling China.
I agree about keeping religious, nationalist countries, like India, at arm’s length, and I would add Israel, which is a religious, nationalist country on steroids.
India is not a natural US ally. They are not a natural ally of anyone. A pillar of Indian foreign policy is non-alignment.
The US and India have some shared interests through; freedom of navigation in the India Ocean, commerce, the suppression of terrorism from Pakistan.
Historically, India has been a leader in the non-aligned movement. However, closer relations between Pakistan and China (one analyst of my acquaintance once waggishly suggested that unless the Pakistanis were very careful they’d wake up one morning to find that they’d been Chinese all along) tends to drive India towards the U. S. My opinion: he who sups with the devil should use a long spoon.