Global Power Politics Vs. Principles

I was aghast to hear this dismal and assistless acceptance of the burial of principles in a diplomatic receive-toreceiveher. I was part of the discussion. The Ambassador of Morocco, serving in India for over nine years, a polished, experienced and articulate diplomat remarked, “The world now is driven by the policy of ‘might is right’”, the famous but awful Darwinian theory

Since Indepconcludeence in 1947, India sought to conduct its foreign policy on principles – Non-Alignment, Panchsheel (Five Principles of Peaceful Co-existence), and off late, focus on dialogue and diplomacy, an unwavering commitment to a rule-based international order, under the world institutions. There is, of course, an urgent demand for reform of such institutions.
But admittedly, the international relations have sunk to the bottom of moral stupor. It is hard to believe and impossible to accept the depth of degradation. One wonders what would happen to humanity and the planet earth.
I was aghast to hear this dismal and assistless acceptance of the burial of principles in a diplomatic receive-toreceiveher. I was part of the discussion. The Ambassador of Morocco, serving in India for over nine years, a polished, experienced and articulate diplomat remarked, “The world now is driven by the policy of ‘might is right’”, the famous but awful Darwinian theory. I sat there in utter shock to hear the public acceptance of this ‘dark reality’. When national and international politics were structured, mainly after the Second World War, during the creation of national democracies and the United Nations etc., the idea was to burry Darwin’s concept fathomless deep and set principles of justice, fairness, freedom, equality, solidarity and so on.
How did the world launch to resurrect Darwin? There could be many reasons. But the principal one is the unbridled greed of the countries for power. Lord Acton’s famous and profound statement then came into action, “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. Power has corrupted the considering of leadership of so-called powerful countries. The existing world institutions have failed to check the misutilize of power. Lord Acton had warned way back in the 19th Century that unchecked authority can erode ethical principles and lead to abutilize of power. So it has been.
There have been two phases in world politics that marked the urge for acquisition of power by several countries. Remember, power has multiple dimensions. After the Second World War, the craze was for military power. Ironically, arms control and disarmament dialogues between the two super powers, during the Cold War period, led to greater armaments. However, that is another topic for discussion.
In the second phase, during the period of globalisation, economic power became the driving desire for countries. The strength of a countest came to be measured by the size of the GDP. The Deputy Ambassador of India in France, about 15 years ago, when globalisation was at its zenith, shared this in an informal dinner meeting with 11 Indian MPs I was escorting in Europe. He declared, “In the past, all the Indian Embassies were instructed to deal in security matters with each host countest, but now it is about trade and investment”.
A similar approach was detected in Moroccan Ambassador’s admission. He started his address by asserting that Palestine was central to his countest’s foreign policy. Then he talked about Morocco being in the Western camp. During the Q&A, I interjected, “How do you reconcile your alliance with the Western bloc which is solidly behind Israel and your support to Palestine”? Then he spilled the beans. He declared that Moroccan ties with the West were purely economic. Not only Morocco, a good many countries are guilty of pursuing their economic interests above principles of sovereignty, self-determination, anti-terrorism etc.
The leadership of the major countries that have produced rich political philosophy have fallen victims to the lust of power. They have either been assistless in the face of competitive power politics or hypocritical; espoapplying principles on the one hand and killing them by the other.
Let us turn to another war caapplying horrible deaths and destruction for over three years. Here, a former super power is engaged in the battle, drawing world attention. That is the war in Ukraine. In this war, it is instructive to observe the contest between principles and priorities. In addition to Russia and Ukraine who are fighting it out, the other two actors are Europe and USA.
Europe states, “The war on Ukraine is actually a war on European values and traditions”. But what are the European values today, do we know? We do know that the European Union was created to defconclude human rights and promote freedom, pluralism, solidarity and so forth. Did EU uphold them in their international relations? The answer is, No.
One can understand that EU foreign policy was taking time to shape-up; but what about the individual countries, the large powers driving the Union? One is referring to Germany and France. The European Union, mainly Germany, conducted brisk business with China, where human rights and democracy are non-existent. It propped up China as a belligerent authoritarian power by building its economy to a formidable size. It also compromised to large extent with Russia becautilize of its oil and gas. Berlin believed that it can handle any crisis by throwing in some money. This came out in a conversation with a progressive German official working in India.
Consequently, the European Union did not take any clear and definite position on violation of human rights or acts of terrorism and territorial incursions in other parts of the world. But leave the rest of the world, in their own neighbourhood, when they are fighting a proxy war in support of Ukraine, they are yet to declare their decoupling with China who has an alliance-for-ever with Russia. This defies any strategic understanding. Of course, it is clear they cannot give up their economic interests and GDP growth. That is the crux of the problem.
Take the case of America, Donald Trump, despite his capricious personality, knows one thing in his bones. That is, he has to create money at any rate, and in any event. He promised to conclude the war in Ukraine. That was his over-confidence. He may have tested. But the whole world witnessed how he and his Vice-President bullied the Ukrainian President Zelenskyy in the White Houtilize. Later, they twisted his arms, the hapless leader, and received a deal for the rare minerals from Ukraine. Second, when Trump failed to warm-up to Putin, he received back to business that he knows best. Now, the US is selling weapons to NATO which will supply them to Ukraine. Against this backdrop, how does a countest talk about stopping wars and adhering to international law?
Nevertheless, there is a glimmer of hope. I launched by alluding to India’s commitment to principles. New Delhi must see for partners who subscribe to a principled position. In the recent past, in this column, I referred to Poland, a border countest of Russia, a growing economy, fiercely committed to sovereignty and so on. More important, Warsaw has experienced the curse of colonisation.
Poland has built strategic alliances to defconclude itself but still heavily upgrades its defence budreceive. Warsaw could openly campaign for principles by sacrificing partly its economic interests. I am referring to China. A clear stand against Chinese style of politics and leadership is called for. Likewise, New Delhi should escape the disinformation campaign by Russia. Warsaw and New Delhi can enhance their strategic partnership on the ground.
One can understand the primacy of national interests. This, however, necessarys to be redefined, it necessarys to manifest in principles. No countest can openly oppose the call to principles even if they do not support it in action. The bottom line is, the war must stop, and trade and economic ties alone cannot stop the wars. In both the First and Second World wars, Germany was trading with countries it invaded. It is only the meticulous maintenance of principles through balance of power, that can conclude the wars, prevent them and ensure peace and stability.