The United States of America may have gone past its unipolar moment, but it still is by far the most pre-eminent power around in today’s world. China certainly threatened that position and bid fair to replace the US at some point in the future. But now, legitimate questions are being asked about whether China will ever overtake the US. At any rate, world history does not move in straight lines!
For a pre-eminent power, the strategy and tactics followed by the US to practice its public diplomacy is questionable. The original aims of public diplomacy have remained the same since times immemorial: to explain a country’s diplomatic stand on issues, seek understanding especially of the foreign audience for that stand and finally, to advance one’s own interests in the matter. The US has had an approach which can best be described as “megaphone diplomacy”. For the uninitiated, megaphone diplomacy is a term used to describe negotiations between countries or parties that are held through press releases and announcements, aiming to force the other party into adopting a desired position. It stems from an unnuanced or a manichean world view and the message sought to be conveyed is deliberately provocative.
The United States has also practiced a brand of cowboy diplomacy for some time now. The earliest example of this from an Indian standpoint is the dreaded Special 301 process flowing from the US Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 which has been described rightly as an instrument of aggressive unilateralism. This was used with impunity against countries like India during the Uruguay Round of trade negotiations to make the latter accept Intellectual Property Rights as a subject in the GATT/WTO system. Truth be told it worked for the US. But the point is it left such a bad taste with countries against whom it was targeted, that you have to wonder whether this form of public diplomacy is helpful in meeting the overall objectives for which it is intended. And yet year after year, the US continues with this practice treating friend (India) and foe (China) alike. Trump took this to a whole different level when he imposed tariffs using the pretext of national security.
US also delights in commenting on the internal affairs of other states, regardless of how strategically important those countries might be. It is one thing for the US to comment on whether or not the elections in Russia were fair or not. After all US and Russia are in the middle of an information war, as it were. But the US could not desist from commenting on the notification of the Indian Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). Soon after the Government of India notified the CAA on March 11, a State Department Spokesperson expressed concern over the CAA and made gratituous remarks to the effect that respect for religious freedom and equal treatment under the law for all communities are fundamental democratic principles (sic). This led in turn to the Indian spokesman for the Ministry of External Affairs saying that this is an internal matter of India and is in keeping with India’s inclusive traditions and its long-standing commitment to human rights. The External Affairs Minister Dr S. Jaishankar, as is his wont, was scathing in his remarks and questioned the Americans’ understanding of India’s history. The trouble is if the US makes remarks on the internal affairs of India, any proud country like India will be forced to respond. This tit-for-tat does not serve either country and it certainly runs counter to what has been billed as the most “consequential partnership” between the world’s oldest and the world’s largest democracy.
The US must re-examine its strategy of public diplomacy which appears to have the opposite effect to that of winning friends and influencing people. There are basically two options available for the US. One, take up these things in private as normal friends and strategic partners do among themselves. Or have a closed-door bilateral dialogue giving each other equal opportunity to raise issues of mutual concern. Doing it in public through megaphone diplomacy is clearly counterproductive and it is hard to fathom what, if anything, the US gains from it all.
Diplomacy and Geopolitics 