The recent talks between the US and China, and their on-again-off-again trade war, are of more than academic interest to us in India. In contemplating the intricate dance between the United States and China, one cannot help but reflect on the tumultuous and ever-shifting contours of their relationship – an alliance oscillating between cooperation and conflict, marked by a history as profound as it is turbulent. For an Indian audience, this narrative offers not only a mirror to understand our strategic environment but also a prism through which to interpret India’s own aspirations and vulnerabilities in a multipolar world.
The Collapse
Renowned American scholar David Shambaugh, in his incisive latest book, Breaking the Engagement: How China Won and Lost America, cautions us against the romantic notion that some in the US still advocate – of a return to an idyllic, cooperative bilateral relationship between the two countries. He asserts – quite starkly – that the era of American engagement with China is (in his words) “dead”.
Such a diagnosis is rooted in reality; the American public’s sentiment towards China has soured dramatically, with surveys indicating that eight out of ten Americans view China unfavourably, and nearly half regard it as an adversary. This sentiment is strongly reflected by the political class and is now reflected in policy: high tariffs (though susceptible to the turnarounds that the Trump administration has become known for), visa restrictions, and crackdowns on Chinese students – the last particularly ironic, considering that many American universities have unknowingly educated the very individuals shaping China’s future as a rising superpower.
American Paternalism
This evolving landscape is not merely a matter of diplomatic posture but also marks a prodigious shift in global geopolitics. Historically, the United States’ approach was characterised by an overarching “missionary complex”- a desire not merely to trade with China but to mould it, to see it conform to a certain Christian notion of liberal order. From the late 18th century onwards, America’s policy sought to influence China’s religious, intellectual, social, economic, and political fabric, often underpinned by a curious admixture of capitalism and paternalism. These efforts oscillated as Chinese nationalism gained strength – a pendulum swinging between American condescension and Chinese assertion.
Until 2012-13, the phenomenon of indulgent American paternalism still held sway, as the interests of US capital in cheap Chinese labour and efficient manufacturing (which produced cheaper goods for American consumers) coincided with a Chinese commitment to fashioning their nation’s “peaceful rise” through materialism rather than dialectics. China embraced a strategy of growth through manufacturing for the world’s capitalist societies, particularly under leaders like Deng Xiaoping, Jiang Zemin, and Hu Jintao – leaders who, for all their differences, perceived China’s rise as compatible with a global order shaped by American norms.
Xi’s Radical Approach
However, the ascent of Xi Jinping has radically transformed this dynamic. Xi’s nationalist, hardline posture, which is tantamount to a repudiation of large elements of the reformist path – has compelled the US to redefine its approach from one of engagement to one of strategic competition. This is what New Delhi has found itself increasingly paying close attention to.
The election of Donald Trump for the first time in 2016 further accelerated this shift. Trump’s policies, aggressive and confrontational, were supplemented – and arguably amplified – by the rhetoric of the current Trump 2.0 administration. Even as differences in tone and nuance emerge between the Biden and Trump eras, the overarching trajectory remains firm: a recognition that the United States must now prepare for a world where China is no longer a potential partner but a formidable rival. Shambaugh’s analysis points us towards a nuanced understanding: the core of the conflict is rooted in systemic differences. China’s one-party system, marked by widespread repression, economic overcapacity, demographic challenges, and an assertive foreign policy, exposes vulnerabilities – weaknesses that are often masked by its rapid growth. For India, this offers a lesson: reliance on an inflexible systemic model – be it the excesses of Chinese authoritarianism or the inefficiencies of India’s over-regulated “partly-free-enterprise” culture – carries risks, especially when intertwined with global power struggles.
‘Competitive Coexistence’
The trend, as Shambaugh suggests, is towards “competitive coexistence”, that is, a state where both powers contend for influence but avoid outright conflict. For India, a nation intent on rising peacefully and asserting its own regional and global influence, this paradigm underscores the importance of strategic autonomy. We must learn to coexist with the US, China, and other giants, not merely by balancing power but by cultivating our unique strategic identity. At the same time, this is not an argument for non-alignment in a potential future superpower standoff; during the original Cold War, we could afford to be non-aligned because one of the superpowers was not sitting on our frontiers, nibbling away at our territory, and arming our hostile neighbour to the teeth. Today’s new Cold War does not afford us that luxury.
One of the most radical proposals from Shambaugh is perhaps also the most pertinent for India: his call to re-evaluate economic relations with China by invoking historical statutes, like America’s “Trading With the Enemy Act”, to scrutinise dealings that threaten national interests. While controversial, the principle remains vital – India cannot afford to be unwittingly complicit in bolstering a system that may, in turn, undermine its own sovereignty. We seek, even welcome, Chinese investment, but we must be mindful that it could so easily become a Trojan horse for more sinister designs on our vital national interests.
Don’t Fall For Passive Acccommodation
Ultimately, the Indian lesson here is one of pragmatic assertiveness. As China continues its ascent – motivated by a complex mix of nationalism, economic resilience, and systemic weaknesses – India must remain vigilant. We need to harness our strengths – our democratic vitality, our still-ticking demographic dividend, our burgeoning technological innovation – and forge a foreign policy that recognises the realities of bipolar contestation without succumbing to the seductions of passive accommodation in the name of shopworn doctrines.
In conclusion, the US-China relationship, as analysed through Shambaugh’s lens, offers a sobering reflection for India. It underscores that global power is no longer a unipolar dance but a multipolar chessboard demanding strategic finesse, resilience, and clarity of purpose. As we chart our own course, India must understand that the future does not belong to those who imitate – neither the American model nor the Chinese one – but to those who craft their own narrative of growth and sovereignty amid the inevitable tumult of international politics in a turbulent and uncertain world.
(Shashi Tharoor has been a Member of Parliament from Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, since 2009. He is a published author and a former diplomat.)
Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author
