Is U.S. imperialism a threat to the world?

Is the U.S. pushing its imperialist agenda especially after President Donald Trump’s return to the White House? If so, how?

Prakash Karat: Yes. The background to this effort by President Trump is the decline in U.S. hegemony and the crisis of neoliberalism which has affected the U.S. and the world. With his ‘America First’ policy, Mr. Trump is squeezing even his allies. He is trying to revive the U.S.’s dominance and hegemony, which is important for him.

Happymon Jacob: American hegemony has been under challenge for some time. The U.S., the world’s sole superpower, has in the past and is today engaged in aggressive military behaviour against regimes that it has issues with. It has violated the international order and international laws that it helped create in 1945. But frankly speaking, it is behaving like any country that accumulates too much power. It is pursuing what it believes are its interests, because it has the power to do so. I am not condoning this; I’m simply saying this is how hegemons behave. In some ways, the Trump administration’s use of power is not even well calculated towards an end; it is just random and reckless.

Do you think the U.S.’s dominance is threatened by China’s advances in areas such as renewables and electronics?

Prakash Karat: The corollary to the decline in U.S. power is the rise of China — its economic power, technological progress, and global political influence. The effort that Mr. Trump is making now did not start with him. During the Obama and Biden presidency, too, the U.S. was focused dealing with this strategic threat from China. So the U.S. definitely sees China’s rise as a threat.

Happymon Jacob: There has been a structural decline in American power. The U.S. is a $30 trillion economy and China is a $20 trillion economy. No other country is close to either of these two in some ways. So, the U.S. is certainly rattled by China’s rise and the decline of its own power internationally. There is a structured rivalry or a new Cold War that is brewing. But having said that, let me also argue that if tomorrow there is a consensus between the U.S. and China about how two great powers must behave internationally, that will create difficulties for other rising powers such as India.

Prakash Karat: For the American ruling class, dealing with the China threat will become the central focus again. The opening salvo was the tariff war. The U.S. finds it difficult to pursue that because China stands firm and does not succumb to tariff threats. I think the Trump administration will start shifting focus to the Asia Pacific region. The rivalry between the U.S. and China will become one of the key features in the coming days. The rise of China is the only alternative pole, and the U.S. will try to continue to do something to contain China.

How will a bipolar or a multipolar global order fare for other rising regional powers?

Happymon Jacob: The problem with having two poles — the U.S.-led pole and the China-led pole — is that rising powers such as India, Brazil, and South Africa tend to have less agency. What is probably more useful is a multipolar world order with more consensus-building and conversations, and where the United Nations is not overruled by countries with more power. While great power consensus is a problem for countries such as India, great power competition is also going to be a problem for us. It is not an easy choice for us and it is going to be more contested and more chaotic as the years go by.

Prakash Karat: What is good for India would be growing multipolarity and us playing a role within that. But the reality is that India has got more aligned with the U.S. through the Quad and other economic and defence ties. If we had been able to have a more independent foreign policy and retain strategic autonomy, we would have been able to take full advantage of this growing multipolarity. But after the U.S. bombed Iran, India refused to condemn the attacks, which were against international law. India also distanced itself from a statement from the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) condemning Israel’s attack on Iran. We are clearly getting aligned with the U.S. and Israel. We are not in a position to take advantage of the growing multipolarity in the world today.

Happymon Jacob: In terms of security, India has China as a neighbour. China has territorial claims vis-a-vis India and we have had conflicts with China in the past. If we have a challenge next door, we need friends and that could be Russia, the U.S., France. If we do not have friends, our ability to meet our security needs will be susceptible.

At the end of the day, in an anarchic international system, states have to look after their own security. If we are convinced that the Global South, the SCO, or the BRICS countries are going to support us diplomatically and politically when we are in trouble with another country, we are going to sort of support them. During the recent Pahalgam attack and the stand-off with Pakistan, not too many countries stood by India. Some say that is because India is too multi-aligned. Israel appears to have stood by India then. This is not to condone Israel’s excesses and the killing of innocent civilians in Gaza as well as its attack on Iran, but at the end of the day, the question we should ask is, who is going to stand by us when there is trouble in our own neighborhood.

Prakash Karat: That’s a valid concern. But despite India having such close ties with the U.S., Mr. Trump said after the Pahalgam incident and the conflict with Pakistan that the U.S. had intervened to settle matters. The U.S. will start treating us like an ally in the way it has always had Pakistan as an ally. This is one of the risks that we take by aligning ourselves with the geopolitical interests of the U.S. in Asia. India has become a member of Quad. If Quad becomes a security alliance, India’s capacity or opportunities in a multipolar world will shrink.

Will India’s efforts to be non-aligned affect the role of BRICS and other groupings in challenging the U.S. imperialist agenda?

Happymon Jacob: There should first be a prioritisation of interests first. In an anarchic international system, the priority is the security of a country. The SCO is a China-dominated entity in some ways, and India and China are not the best of friends. The BRICS has expanded to such an extent that the countries within it don’t agree with one another on most issues. While I am all for multiple groupings in the international system that can offset and balance unipolarity and hegemony, I’m also concerned about jumping on the bandwagon of too many of these, which may not necessarily lead to anything.

Prakash Karat: I agree that the SCO is not a regional body which will be of great use to us, but it is also something which we cannot opt out of because of Pakistan. BRICS shows that there is a potential for the countries of the Global South to get on a collective forum and articulate their interests, notwithstanding the fact that many of them may not have commonality of interest in all issues. When we are a part of BRICS, and a country in the BRICS is subjected to aggression, we should at least take a stand and say ‘no, we are against this’. We can’t say we are neutral. If we want to really make these forums represent the minimum interests of the countries of the Global South, then we should be able to take a stand at least regarding attacks on territorial sovereignty. When we have a strategic alignment with one of the big powers, our claim of being a spokesperson for the Global South gets completely undermined. India’s strategic ties with the U.S. hampers the great potential and the role we can play in a multipolar world.

What role will the Global South play in the future, especially with Mr. Trump’s agenda?

Prakash Karat: Whether it is the reciprocal tariffs or the trade war that Mr. Trump is launching, the real victims are going to be the countries of the Global South. Most of them are going to be really badly affected. Their economies are going to suffer. There will be loss of jobs and serious financial problems. In the coming days, India should be part of the mainstream Global South resistance which, I’m sure, will develop. India must be able to work out a clear strategy to be part of the mainstream Global South, whether it’s the debt crisis, trade imbalances, or climate change, as all these things are going to get aggravated due to the policies being adopted by the Trump administration.

Happymon Jacob: In an age where we have multilateralism failing, and UN-led organisations are finding it hard to survive, we need alternatives. Minilateralisms and alternatives like the Global South have a responsibility to come together, talk about the issues that much of humanity faces, and do something about it. The failure of multilateralism is another reason why the Global South must survive.