The recent debates over the Iran nuclear issue and India-US nuke deal reveal that much of our thinking is still stuck in the Cold War bipolar logic. Bipolarity had its advantages, but so does unipolarity. Instead of railing against US domination, we need to see how best to utilise it to promote our interests. There are opportunities aplenty.

It is natural to feel nostalgic about the bipolar era because bipolarity offered opportunities. As the US and the Soviet Union fought each other, it opened up opportunities for everyone else, including India, to play one off against the other. Third world countries became adept at this Great Game; despite their enormous power, Moscow and Washington found themselves the supplicants in their dealings with the developing world. In South Asia, the Soviet Union had little choice but to follow India’s lead. To give one example, Moscow advised us against going to war with Pakistan in 1971, but they had little choice in supporting us with vetoes in the Security Council when we disregarded their advice. Our soaring rhetoric in those days needed the protection of bipolarity. Non-alignment was the name we gave this game even if, in practising it, we sometimes mistook strategy for religion.

Unipolarity allows no such luxury. There are no potential allies other than the US. Thus, for most countries, preserving ties with Washington trumps all other imperatives. In the unforgiving world of international politics, foolishness is expensive. Are we then condemned to toil under the oppression of the hegemon? Not really. Just as we used bipolarity to our benefit, so should we now use unipolarity. The goals need not change, but the strategy must reflect new opportunities as well as constraints. In bipolarity, we played one power off against the other; in unipolarity, we should use the dominant power to our benefit.

... contd.