Who will occupy the White House as the 47th US President is entirely for the American electorate to decide However, given the influence the US has on global affairs, it is natural that the prevailing uncertainty and divisive politics would be a matter of concern for many countries. The even bigger problem is that it could not have come at a worse time.

There are several reasons for this. On the domestic front, the US is sharply polarized, and it confuses many as to how a nation that has been deeply proud of its cultural diversity is witnessing a resurgence of white supremacy and ultra-nationalism. Insularity might well come to define American politics challenging prevailing notions of the defining openness of America. This is triggered by the threat perception among rightwing supporters that migrants are not only taking over their jobs but also running the country, and, hence, need to be reined in, if not expelled from US shores.

Several global developments have also exposed sharply waning US influence. The recent decision of the Saudi government not to renew the petrodollar agreement will see the clout of the dollar sharply decline as a global currency and impact the US economy. More importantly, it signifies how a close US ally could undertake such a bold step knowing full well that it openly challenges US interests. 

The Biden years have also demonstrated a lack of coherence in US foreign and security policies. Take the Russia-Ukraine war, for instance. Europeans stand confused with no end in sight to the conflict, despite regular shipments of arms to Ukraine and promises of continued support financially and militarily from Washington. NATO, itself, appears to be struggling to find cause and purpose, crippled by a lack of adequate weaponry to conduct a full-scale military operation if called upon to do so. Moscow, meanwhile, has strengthened its relationship with anti-US forces, especially, China and North Korea. If Western intelligence reports are anything to go by, the balkanization of Ukraine is simply a matter of time.

China's combative approach

 And then, of course, there is President Xi Jinping. Beijing has openly challenged existing power equations and the global order, plunging the Indo-Pacific into unprecedented chaos. It is undeterred by Quad or AUKUS, as it brazenly continues with its combative approach, especially threatening smaller countries, like the Philippines, on the South China Seas. Yet, Biden continues to see China as a lesser threat than Russia, purely because of the trade relations it enjoys with Beijing, but more importantly, the absence of an Asia policy that sends an unambiguous response to deter Beijing’s hegemonic ambitions.

Or consider Biden’s decision to withdraw US troops from Afghanistan. So horrendous was the withdrawal that former British prime minister Tony Blair was forced to call it "wrong, immoral, and imbecilic". To date, three years after US troops withdrew, the Taliban government has yet to honour the promises it apparently made to the US administration as part of the withdrawal deal. The absence of an Afghanistan policy will certainly go down as a serious misstep by the US administration.

Gaza is yet another nightmare. Washington is fully aware that Qatar holds the key to peace since the top Hamas leadership has taken refuge there. Yet, pressure on the Qatari leadership has not been put primarily because it is Qatar that brokered the talks with the Taliban and has emerged as an important interlocutor for Washington.  

These are only some instances of the extraordinary disorder confronting the global and how the US has been reduced to a failed superpower. Consequently, Washington no longer enjoys the global support and confidence that it once commanded, other than Western countries that have relied heavily on the US on matters of foreign and security policy. For most countries, strategic complacency that Washington would be the predominant superpower has given way to strategic frustration that the US has possibly lost its mojo. Indeed, in a world going through great turbulence, an indecisive and ineffective White House creates a profound sense of uncertainty, as it gives space to China to assert its adversarial intent. For the next US president, this needs to be a core concern.

India's strategic autonomy

Especially because of such a troubling global scenario and the prevalence of strategic ambiguity, India will not be overly concerned as to who occupies the White House. This is notwithstanding the unprecedented and inappropriate endorsement by Prime Minister Narendra Modi of Trump, before the previous presidential elections. For South Block, the singular objective is to navigate the space it finds itself in and to ensure what serves its national interests best and consequently, its adherence to maintaining a policy of strategic autonomy and flexibility. Consequently, it will deal with the new administration with equal vigour. 

New Delhi is also well aware that even strategic partners pursue their own strategic interests, despite grand statements about shared concerns. China, for instance, is genuinely India’s biggest threat at present, and while the US and several Western countries acknowledge the China threat to their own interests, they still refuse to distance China, which they see as a far lesser evil than Russia. Consequently, India is conscious that it would need to manage the China problem on its own and has demonstrated that it is capable of doing so. This translates into New Delhi charting its own future and destiny.

Quite unequivocally, strategic autonomy would be a hallmark of India’s foreign and security policy allowing it to oscillate between strategic proximity and strategic distancing depending on the circumstances and need of the hour. New Delhi would certainly not be guided by the script the US, or its Western allies prescribe. Annoyance at who India seeks to engage with is certainly not the gratuitous concern of other countries, especially western. In this context, it is worth recalling the utterly bizarre and patronizing statement by the US Ambassador to India, Eric Garcetti, following Prime Minister Modi’s successful visit to Moscow and meetings with President Vladimir Putin. Garcetti said that strategic autonomy had no place in times of conflict. If he had spent a little time familiarizing himself with American history, he might have exercised greater caution and recalled Washington’s position in the Second World War.  When Great Britain declared war on Germany on August 14, 1914, the US immediately declared its neutrality, which it, in fact, maintained for 32 months! The scenario was no different when the Second World War broke out. While Great Britain declared war on Germany in September 1939 following the invasion of Poland by the Germans, and Europe was plunged into another devastating war, the US joined the war only on December 7, 1941, following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour. It helps for diplomats to know their own history before giving advice to others.

It is hoped that the US and its Western allies recognize their rapidly declining influence on the world stage and the need for them to smell the roses if they wish to engage with the world for global good. Who occupies the White House then becomes a matter of academic interest for much of the global community, especially the Global South.

(The author is a former Indian diplomat. Views are personal.)