Interests over Principle: A Brand of Foreign Policy
The Indian Foreign minister once said, “I get oil, yes. It is not necessarily cheap. Do you have a better deal?” This sentence describes the brand of foreign policy India and many other countries have adopted. Donald Trump’s administration has also adopted such an approach to diplomacy which can be observed in his handling of the Russia-Ukraine war.
Is this bad? Well, isn’t the existence of a diplomatic organization of a country to represent that country’s national interests? However, this approach can in its own way play to country’s disadvantage. If not executed properly or in a subtle manner, this brand of diplomacy can lead to a country being isolated. An example of this phenomena would be that how many countries, even US allies, turned against the US when the reciprocal tariffs were implemented. This led to some worrying consequences in the geopolitical atmosphere when seen through America’s perspective.
India, which was wary of China until the implementation of the tariffs suddenly reported ‘ties being strengthened’ with China. This could lead to a strong alliance between Russia, China and India which is a powerful combination and can affectively counter NATO’s geopolitical influence. Another consequence was that the ever unstable European Union saw a serge in unity as they prepared to fight back the US. These developments took a toll on the diplomatic influence in US’s possession.
However, prioritizing interests over principle doesn’t always yield adverse results. An example of this would be Russia, China and India who played certain global developments which may not be described as ethically right or moral in certain circumstances to their advantage.
When Russia was hit by sanctions from US and its allies, India managed to obtain oil from Russia at a comparatively cheaper rate. China allowed for the manufacturing of clothing saying ‘Boycott China’ in its country just because that would sell tremendously in The United States. Russia took advantage of the fact that Donald Trump openly declared his intentions of ending the war by cutting all American aide to Ukraine which made things easier for Russia. Why accept a peace deal in which they would receive anything less than the entirety of Ukraine if the small country under attack would not be able to receive any foreign aide (especially after Trump was so determined to blow up the global economy).
Ukraine even insisted that the west impose sanctions upon India due to continued trade between Russia and India inspite of an ongoing war. But you can’t blame India since US has been seen executing much more shadier and morally dark schemes, and you can’t have different rules for each player, now can you?
However, don’t assume that this style of achieving diplomatic goals is new, it was much more openly practiced in the first half of the 20th century and earlier as then there was comparatively less accountability when it comes to governance due to more centralized forms of governance. A modern democratic government has to put up with a lot more scrutiny from the free press, social media and the opposition. This causes the government to tread with caution and in some cases consider humanity, but on the other hand also hampers its ability to act in the national interest.
The path of ethics, morals and humanity and the path of national interests are two different ones, but only few can bend them in order to make them meet each other. So, is this style of diplomacy good? Certainly not morally. In the interests of the nation? Absolutely. However, my take on this is that it only succeeds if executed subtly and not openly.
