It seems odd at first to make such claims regarding countries that, at face value, are so different. India is a large, democratic nation reported in the news as successfully integrating into the global economy. Pakistan is an economically struggling country ruled by a professional military that only makes headlines by seeming to be on the cusp of becoming a failed state.

However different, they share countless historical grievances that remain as the legacy of British rule. This affects the United States because these grievances make the bilateral strategy used with other Asian countries inapplicable to India and Pakistan. Like siblings, both countries turn negotiations with the United States into excuses to one-up each other.

Exclusively dealing with Pakistan on counterterrorism efforts makes India feel like a legitimate middle power in Asia left out of security arrangements – ones that could potentially affect its own security. The image of American presidents walking the streets of New Delhi make Pakistanis feel left out of some of the most incredible cultural exchanges of their lifetime. The result is that our bilateral efforts with each country become, to a degree, counterproductive in advancing our national interests.

To be clear, I am not saying America engages with both countries on every issue in South Asia; I am saying that where possible, having both in the room together means less headaches and conflict down the line. In my view, the most effective way to start this three-way relationship is through an Indian-Pakistani infrastructure initiative funded with foreign direct investment.

Attracting foreign directing investment, or FDI, is the quickest way to increase growth in developing countries. It accelerates economic growth, develops business relationships and has incalculable spillover effects to the local economy. The challenge is to do it right. Newer, more efficient means of production cause those working in older industries to become unemployed.

Indian politicians have recently delayed and limited FDI in their retail sector because of domestic fears that multinational corporations will crush mom and pop shops. Given Pakistan’s economic and security instability, unfettered FDI would probably cause more problems than it would fix. They are both looking for successful economic development strategies, and interestingly, they both spend similar percentages of their GDP on infrastructure.

Accordingly, foreign direct investment focused on developing basic infrastructure is the least controversial and most effective way to develop and link both countries. Successful models, such as the European Union’s Infrastructure Bank or tax-exempt bond financing used in American cities, give incentives to global investors through providing great returns on investment. A public-private partnership tailored for India and Pakistan — perhaps for their underdeveloped electrical grids – could be similarly successful. The result would be India and Pakistan being forced, at least at a contractual level, to work together for a common purpose.

The American contribution in this three-way relationship wouldn’t even need a monetary component, as most of the capital needed for this project would be privately funded. What would be needed would be the lobby of an American president to convince global investors that this infrastructure project is good for economic growth and stability in Southern Asia.

The result would be all three countries in single headlines, as opposed to the United States lumped with one or the other.

Following in the classical realist tradition of American foreign policy, I am not so naïve to think that a single infrastructure initiative can return peace to two countries that, at their core, cannot trust each other. And I am aware that three-way negotiations break from the bilateral tradition that has served our interests in Asia well in that part of the world.

But the historical grievances between India and Pakistan require nuanced policy prescriptions. Adopting a three-way dialogue is a practical strategy to better advance American security and economic interests in a way that responds to this centuries-old security dilemma.

For it to be successful, the United States must rise to the challenges in South Asia as it has in the past. Former Secretary of State Robert Lansing created bold security arrangements to ensure a nonhegemonic, prosperous and democratic Japan. President Richard Nixon’s engagement with China helped unleash their economy to the rest of the world. Perhaps the American president that initiates a lasting relationship between our country, India and Pakistan will be seen as having started the next great pivot in American foreign policy.

Ameek Singh is a State News guest columnist and international relations and political theory and constitutional democracy senior. Reach him at sodhiame@msu.edu.