Mulling over Mulfordspeak

It is difficult to defend US Ambassador David Mulford, not because what he said was wrong but because the way he said it and its timing was ...

It is difficult to defend US Ambassador David Mulford, not because what he said was wrong but because the way he said it and its timing was wrong. However, it is a very peculiar Indian understanding that this country’s foreign policy is made without any influence or inputs from other countries and therefore attempts by other countries to influence our foreign policy are impermissible. In our own classical literature, Panchatantra and Hitopadesa, four methods of influencing another king’s policy are mentioned: sama, dhana, bedha and danda (negotiation, gifts, division and force). In a globalised environment every country has to formulate its foreign policy in the light of benefits and penalties to its own interest.

When it is argued that voting against Iran will have an adverse impact on its energy policy towards India, is there not an implied threat there? When it is highlighted that any enhancement in Indo-US relations may lead to China stepping up its arms supply to Pakistan and Nepal, does that not constitute a crude attempt at influencing our foreign policy through an implied threat? This happens all the time and it is an integral part of diplomacy.

When India tells the Nepal king that Indian arms supply will not be forthcoming unless he starts to negotiate with political leaders, is that not a threat? Some would argue that this is implied in the nature of a relationship between the two countries — India as the arms supplier and Nepal, as the arms recipient. When China objects to Japanese Prime Minister Koizumi’s visit to the Yashukuni shrine, it is no doubt interfering in the internal affairs of Japan. The Japanese have said so, and yet the Chinese persist with their criticism of such visits. When the Iranian president sets forth his beliefs on the holocaust, many countries protest and even threaten penal action. Therefore it is unrealistic to maintain that each country makes its foreign policy in total isolation and should not be influenced by implied incentives, implied penalties and other offers of mutuality of benefits in shaping its foreign policy.

Story continues below this ad

Effective diplomacy would call for the shaping of another country’s foreign policy in a manner more sophisticated than the model Ambassador Mulford seems to favour, but there is no escaping the harsh truth that every country’s foreign policy is influenced by implied penalties and threats; hidden and not so hidden incentives, and the perception of mutuality of interests.

Since all nations are not equal in their capabilities and endowments, the reciprocity in promoting national interests is bound to reflect the inequality in power. Weaker nations attempt to maximise their power and endowments through their relationships with stronger powers. In the post-Second World War world, nations cannot use military force to occupy other territories. That compels nations to seek augmentation of their interests and capabilities through a relationship of reciprocity.

There was a time when the domestic affairs of another country were deemed to be beyond comment. No longer. Now the UN Human Rights Commission sits in judgment on individual nations on their respective human rights records. There were proposals by a high level UN committee that if nations are not able to control internal developments like genocide, the UN should intervene. The development of terrorism and its transnational impact often call for comments on the internal affairs of other nations. For the right or wrong reasons, India has intervened in the domestic affairs of Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Maldives. Some recent disclosures reveal that other countries have been surreptitiously intervening in our election process through clandestine payments. The Chinese leadership once wrote about ‘Spring Thunder over India’ — a gross intervention in India’s domestic politics. It has also supplied arms to our insurgents. India extended support to Afghanistan’s Northern Alliance, along with Iran during its anti-Taliban struggle.

All this does not excuse Ambassador Mulford for the manner in which he chose to make his comments. But they make clear the harsh nature of international realpolitik. Our political class clearly understands the role of reciprocity in a domestic political relationship. A great deal of criminalisation in our politics is tolerated on the basis of the need for reciprocity. But many political parties, which play the game of realpolitik with great skill to their advantage, appear to think that in international politics this country is entitled to benefits without any reciprocity on our part.

Story continues below this ad

India will be voting on the Iranian issue along with China and Russia. Is it the contention of the parties that screamed against our Iranian vote that China will be voting with the US because of US pressure and an implied threat to its 200 billion dollar trade with that country? Surely the US and the West would have employed sama, bedha, dhana and dhanda to bring China and Russia around from their earlier stand of abstention on the Iran vote?