Complementary or contradictory? – Firstpost
President Donald Trump’s rhetoric of “America First” has pleased the common masses in the United States and has unsettled American allies, strategic partners and friends in various parts of the world.
Those Americans who are pleased with this rhetoric appear convinced that the United States has been spending a lot of the tax payers’ money abroad in the form of foreign assistance for the welfare of foreigners. In order to give a further push to this idea, Secretary of State Mark Rubio hours after assuming office announced a halt to all foreign assistance understandably to examine its relevance and scope.
But those who understand the nuances of international politics very well realise that foreign aid is an instrument of diplomacy where a State uses to promote its interests abroad and that it is not even a profit losing venture that costs the country a lot.
Then there are those, including President Trump, who believe that his predecessors have allowed several countries to have billions of dollars of trade surpluses, which is not in the interest of the country. President Trump wants to raise unilateral tariff and adopt a policy that would keep American interests uppermost in the mind. In reality, trade in goods is only a part of America’s engagements with the rest of the world. There are numerous service industries where the US excels and billions of dollars of American investments around the world where profits flow into the United States.
Foreign economic relations are a complex phenomenon and President Trump as an accomplished businessman do understand this. His “America First” policy is a political ploy to garner public support and votes. It can also be a bargaining chip in trade and tariff negotiations.
In the real world of global politics, every country both normatively and pragmatically follow a foreign policy keeping the interest of the country upper most in considerations. In fact, no leader anywhere can be faulted to announce a policy of “Country First”.
However, whether the country’s interest is put ahead of other considerations in foreign policies by a particular leadership is a matter of domestic political dispute. The US has many times withdrawn itself from international institutions when an administration felt that it was not in the country’s interest and another administration rejoined. Trump’s withdrawal from WHO and Paris Climate Accord is neither new nor may it be permanent.
Trump also believes that the US membership in NATO in its present form is not serving the interest of the country best and such views have rattled NATO members. His statements on making Canada 51st State and gaining control over Greenland have dealt a blow to NATO unity. Trans-Atlantic partnership appears to be in for a big change both in economic and strategic areas.
However, the Trump 2.0 sees no contradiction in “America First” and promoting the Quad. The first meeting between the new US Secretary of State Mark Rubio with any foreign counterparts was the Quad Foreign Ministers meeting held a few hours after the inauguration ceremony of President Donald Trump. It was anything but a symbolic gesture. The joint statement issued after the meeting signalled unity among the Quad members (USA, India, Japan and Australia) to work towards a free, open and stable Indo-Pacific. Without naming a country, the Quad cautioned against unilateral change in the status quo and coercive diplomacy or action to do so.
In fact, all the Quad members are concerned with China’s attempt to alter the status quo in the South China Sea and the East China Sea by issuing new maps, claiming sovereignty over disputed islands, indulging in grey zone warfare and even harassing fishermen and navies of smaller countries in the region. The individual members of the Quad often hesitate to use a language that would be confrontational in their dealings with China. But so intense has the Chinese assertive and sometimes aggressive manoeuvres that the Quad has come up with clear statements against violation of freedom of navigation on the seas or the sky in South China Sea.
The “America First” policy is not contradictory to the interests of the Quad members because it is an area of strategic convergence for all in the group. Nevertheless, there may be differences over the methods and approaches to deal with Chinese assertions or aggressions. As a result, Japan, Australia and India may have to walk the diplomatic tight rope to balance their policies in the Indo-Pacific to ensure that dealing with China does not cater to the interest of only the United States.
The responsibility of India in this matter becomes more acute in view of the fact that the US has long standing bilateral alliances with Japan and Australia and has a fast-maturing strategic partnership with India. The Quad thus cannot be characterized as a US-led military alliance. Moreover, the US, Japan and Australia do not share land borders with China, unlike India. Japan has maritime dispute with China over Senkaku Island, which cannot be compared with the huge territorial dispute India has with China. All the Quad members have varying degrees of economic engagements with China too.
The Indian interest will surely be better protected if Quad remains and further evolves into a mechanism that would resist Chinese unilateralism and Chinese threats to territorial integrity of the regional countries and high-handed interferences in the internal affairs of Indo-Pacific countries by leveraging the economic power. The unity among the Quad members to work together on public health, cybersecurity, maritime domain awareness, and emerging technologies has already sent signals to China that its uncooperative, unilateral approaches cannot be tolerated. The Quad members are also united in their views that this grouping is not a military association to promote their interests and contain others.
Yet, Japan, Australia and India may also have differences and concerns about the Trump Administration’s policies, such as the ones on tariff or expressed desire to expand its control over other countries, such as over Panama Canal in Latin America, Canada in North America and Greenland in Europe. But the Quad will surely navigate through such differences to achieve the converged goal of maintaining a free and open Indo-Pacific. There is unlikely to be any contradiction between America First policy of Trump and the Quad.
The writer is Editor, ‘India Quarterly’, and Founder Chairperson, KIIPS. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views.
Post Comment