‘Investing in a 21st-century partnership with India’ — Jake Sullivan outlines American foreign policy goals

In a Foreign Affairs op-ed Wednesday, US NSA says America faces competition in an age of interdependence & will have to engage with countries of 'Global South' on their terms.

File photo of White House National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan | Reuters

New Delhi: As the US faces new challenges in diplomacy with regards to China and the ongoing Russia-Ukraine and Israel-Hamas conflicts, White House National Security Adviser (NSA) Jake Sullivan has come out with a 6,000-word op-ed outlining Washington’s prerogatives that includes developing a “twenty-first-century partnership” with India.

Covering several regions from the Middle East to the Indo-Pacific, Sullivan wrote in Foreign Affairs noting that the US will have to “up its game” in how it engages with the world.

The op-ed comes in the wake of public scrutiny over the NSA’s assessment of the Middle East eight days before the Israel-Hamas war broke out.

One Republican Senator has called for Sullivan’s resignation while the American press joined the criticism. Sullivan’s words have come back to “mock” him, noted The Economist, while The Guardian’s diplomatic editor Patrick Wintour accused him of “nonchalance” and The Atlantic predicted his “Pollyannaish” view would be subjected to great scrutiny.

“We realised that we would not just have to restore US leadership; we would also need to up our game and offer the world, especially the global South, a better value proposition,” Sullivan writes in the op-ed published Tuesday.

Harsh V. Pant, Vice President at ORF, described Sullivan’s op-ed as a “justification” of the Biden administration’s foreign policy as the 2024 US Presidential election nears.

“This is in some ways a justification of the Biden administration’s foreign policy and an enunciation of the fundamental principles that are likely to drive it in coming years. Of course, if Trump wins next year, there might be a shift,” Pant told ThePrint.

Hours before Sullivan’s op-ed was published, former US president Barack Obama had, in a rare note, penned his thoughts on the Israel-Hamas war. He defended Israel, but also criticised the blockage of food, water and electricity to Gaza.

‘Like-minded partners like India’

In his op-ed, Sullivan described India as a “like-minded partner” and termed America’s relationship with New Delhi as a “twenty-first century partnership”. He mentioned the Quad and I2U2 — both multilaterals of which India as a part — of helping improve regional cooperation and bringing about first-of-a-kind initiatives.

“We are deepening technological cooperation with like-minded partners and allies, including with India,” he said.

“We are also investing in a twenty-first-century partnership between the United States and India…we are deepening trade relationships and negotiating first-of-their-kind agreements.”

However, he noted that America’s allies in the Indo-Pacific are “staunch supporters of Ukraine”, even though New Delhi has notably been balancing its relations with Russia and the West. India has abstained from many UN votes on the Ukraine war, and continues to grow its energy imports from Moscow.

That said, Sullivan did concede that Washington will have to be “realistic” about its expectations when dealing with countries from the so-called Global South and will have to engage with them on their own terms.

“The United States’ alliances and partnerships with other democracies have been its greatest international advantage…But these alliances were built for a different era,” he wrote.

Israel, Ukraine, Afghanistan

Sullivan also blamed the Trump administration for pulling back from the international order and that the Biden administration has been trying to repair the immediate damage to US’ alliances and its leadership to the free world.

“Washington too often treated international institutions as set in stone without addressing the ways in which they were exclusive and did not represent the broader international community,” he wrote, later backing Biden’s call for reforms to the UN Security Council.

This comes days after the US vetoed a draft resolution in the UN Security Council that called for a ceasefire and unfettered access of aid into Gaza. Only 5 permanent members of the UNSC hold a veto.

The top American official defended additional funding for Ukraine and Israel despite political resistance at home, and later used the example of Afghanistan to explain the shift away from “forever wars”.

“The American people know a bully when they see one… American support for Ukraine is broad and deep, and it will endure,” wrote Sullivan.

Late last week, Biden made a $105 billion request for military aid to US Congress — mainly consisting of aid packages to Ukraine and Israel. In a rare Oval Office address a day prior, he attempted to defend the additional spending calling it “a smart investment” for American security in the generations to come.

On Afghanistan, Sullivan defended the US’ withdrawal from the war-torn country that paved the way for the Taliban’s return. He called the transition “painful” but argued it was necessary.

“If the United States were still fighting in Afghanistan, it is highly likely that Russia would be doing everything it could right now to help the Taliban pin Washington down there, preventing it from focusing its attention on helping Ukraine,” he argued.

China & seatbelt analogy

Sullivan tipped his hat to China on helping broker a deal between Iran and Saudi Arabia for normalisation of ties, arguing that it’s something the US couldn’t have achieved.

“Washington could not have tried to broker that deal, given the lack of U.S. diplomatic relations with Iran, and it should not try to undermine it,” he wrote. He also argued that China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) — the third forum for which was held last week in Beijing and saw the attendance of Russian President Vladimir Putin — has become “dominant” in recent years.

However, he used the analogy of a seatbelt to explain the vast differences between Washington and Beijing’s worldviews and the need to de-couple from an adversary with which it is economically entangled.

“Unfortunately, Beijing has often appeared to have drawn different lessons about managing tensions, concluding that guardrails can fuel competition in the same way that seat belts encourage reckless driving. (It is a mistaken belief. Just as the use of seat belts cuts traffic fatalities in half, so do communication and basic safety measures reduce the risk of geopolitical accidents.)

“We seek to ‘de-risk’ and diversify, not decouple,” Sullivan added.

(Edited by Tony Rai)