Foreign policy pursued by any country is essentially an exercise in balancing one’s national interests with individual and collective values one holds dear.
Foreign policy pursued by any country is essentially an exercise in balancing one’s national interests with individual and collective values one holds dear. It is the mix of the two, but it’s the weight given to ethical principles as opposed to realpolitik that determines the direction a country takes. Nothing illustrates this axiom better that the military aid showered on Egypt’s new ruler and former Army Chief, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, by the United States. He came to power in a coup and his record, thus far, has been worse than that of the long-time former military ruler Hosni Mubarak, overthrown by a popular uprising in 2011. Washington withheld military and economic aid for a time and then simply restored it for reasons of state. Egypt is simply too important for American geopolitical interests in the region to be placed in the doghouse for long.
Muchkund Dubey belongs to the ethical values component of the equation, rather than the Chanakyan or Machiavellian side, although as foreign secretary he, like his predecessors and successors, often had to hold his nose to pursue policies for reasons of state. What distinguished him in his foreign policy career was that he was a thinking official, carefully weighing the dilemmas before taking a stand. In the process, he won the admiration of some of his colleagues in the Indian Foreign Service and professors at Jawaharlal Nehru University from where he graduated. And they felt the need to record their appreciation in the form of a book of essays on “building a just world” featuring themselves and other specialists.
Dubey specialised in economic diplomacy in line with his academic background and felt at home in the tongue-twisting acronyms of organisations that have tried to shepherd the world to a new economic order — how new is a subject of debate. The former UN secretary-general, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, has written a thoughtful forward to the volume which sharply brings out the truth that the genuine reforms he recommended were promptly vetoed by the major powers, directly, or through the time-honoured method of neglect. The fact that the permanent members of the UN Security Council have veto powers means that some are more equal than the rest.
India’s quest for a permanent berth in the UNSC will rest among the pending until it develops the economic and military strength commensurate with its aspirations. It is no secret that Germany, the strongest economic power in Europe, and until recently in India’s ranks as an aspirant, has been quietly co-opted in important deliberations in the form of “Five+One”. And so the run around for India and other aspirants continues.
To take one instance, why do Palestinians continue to be subjugated and their lands possessed forcibly without enjoying the rights accorded to Jews in Israel The UN cannot play a major — as opposed to a peripheral — role to bring an end to this tragedy because the US has geopolitical interests in Israel, and Israel enjoys the almost overwhelming support of US Presidents, both Democrats and Republicans, and members of the two Houses.
There are, thus, limits to the just world we can build, but specialists will find interesting suggestions in the volume on how to seek a better order, given the formidable obstacles placed by the powerful. There are arguments galore on how to strengthen the weak (South) against the strong (North). As an academic exercise, such arguments have their place. After all, the world is built on dreams, but an equitable world order remains a mirage on the horizon.
