The idea of a strategic triangle between China, Russia and India sounds like a sci-fi thriller from the Cold War days. But given the strategic partnerships being forged among these powers -- and between each of them and the United States -- it may also be an idea for promoting global peace, prosperity and freedom. Franz Schurmann, professor emeritus of history and sociology at UC Berkeley and author of numerous books on foreign politics, writes a weekly column called "Predictions". His email address is fschurmann@pacificnews.org.

Last summer former Russian prime minister Yevgeny Primakov, on a visit to New Delhi, came up with a great idea: why don't Russia, India and China form a strategic triangle amongst themselves?

Fifty years ago the very idea of an alliance between the world's then most powerful communist countries sent America into a panic mode, conjuring millions of Russian and Chinese Reds pouring over Europe and Asia. Only months after the January 1950 formation of the Sino-Soviet pact, NATO arose in Europe and the Korean War broke out.

But last week, when China and Russia conducted joint naval maneuvers, the event -- headlined by the pro-Taiwan Chinese-language World Journal -- was barely noted in the English-language U.S. news media.

Why no panic? The big reason is that in 1950 the U.S., despite its atomic bombs and fleets of intercontinental B-29s, felt weak vis a vis the powerful new Sino Soviet bloc. But now America is the recognized solo superpower of the entire world. It has waged two virtual zero casualty wars during the last nine years: early 1991 in the Gulf and last spring in Kosovo. It could now be on the verge of developing an effective National Missile Defence that will make it invulnerable to any Russian and/or Chinese attack.

This time, it is the Russians and Chinese who fear the American solo superpower. Both countries are awed by the Gulf and Kosovo wars. Many Chinese are openly worried that America some day could keep peppering China with long and medium range missiles until its economy is destroyed and millions die -- with zero casualties on the U.S. side.

Such fears suggest that Primakov could be plotting a strategic triangle of the world's weak great powers pitted against its one superpower, America. But a closer look at how and why these partnerships are being formed suggests a very different scenario.

India, after all, has no reason to fear America. Rather, the Indians are resentful that America has so long ignored them in favor of their enemy neighbor Pakistan. Last summer America for the first time courted India militarily. America -- and China as well -- surprisingly backed India in the mini-war it and Pakistan were waging in the Himalayas. Rumors are that early next year, when U.S. Defense Secretary Cohen visits India, he may well offer a strategic partnership.

There is also a strong link between Russia and India. Some 70 percent of the weaponry in India's arsenal are made in Russia. In 1962, moreover, when India and China fought a war with each other the Russians sided with India while China sided with Pakistan. Since then, the India-Russia tie has remained strong.

By the year 2000, China, India and Russia may all have strategic partnerships with each other and -- at the same time -- with America as well. After all, America and China have had a strategic partnership since November 1997, and since May 1997, NATO (aka America) has had a "partnership for peace" with the Russian Federation and several of the former Soviet Republics.

If India accepts America's offer of a strategic partnership next year, the "strategic triangle" Primakov talks about could well become a quadrangle with America as the fourth member.

It's an old truism among historians that countries go to war when they are rich and powerful, not poor and weak. America's destructive capabilities are awesome. But American leaders also know that war can end up in destroying the global economy, bringing America's robust economy down with it.

If in 1950 America had opted to work with -- and not against -- Russia and China, there is a chance the world could have skipped over a Cold War. Today America is in a much better position to meet its global antagonists at least half way. And Primakov's idea, far from being the script for a new Cold War, could help usher in the global peace, prosperity and freedom the Clinton Administration has been talking about.

(100799) **** END **** (c) COPYRIGHT PNS