Limitations of genius in diplomacy

It would be prudent for India to follow the footfalls of the most astute practitioner of multi-dimensional diplomacy in the current world order — Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman who is operating out of an incredibly more difficult environment.

Speaking on the sidelines of the 60th Munich Security Conference in Bavaria, External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar said it’s hard to have a unidimensional relationship in the contemporary world.

He said this in his characteristic way, by expanding on a maxim that is universally practised in the emerging multipolar world order and presenting himself as the objective co-relative of India’s petroleum policy by saying, “Is that a problem, why should that be a problem? If I am smart enough to have multiple options, you should be admiring me. Is that a problem for others? I don't think so…”

Yes, there is a ‘problem’, because none of India’s foreign ministers has ever claimed to be a smart guy and it is presumptuous that god is in the heavens and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) will rule India for the next millennium — and Jaishankar will forever remain the minister navigating India’s diplomacy in an increasingly chaotic world. The prudent thing will be to follow the footfalls of the most astute practitioner of multi-dimensional diplomacy in the current world order — Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman who is operating out of an incredibly more difficult environment.

Saudi Arabia must be the most astute practitioner today of the ‘purely unsentimentally transactional’ external relationships in the pursuit of national interests. Basically, MbS (as Salman is commonly referred to) always speaks softly — even while holding the big stick — that is, except on such a rare occasion when the White House trampled upon the ‘reputational image’ of the House of Saud by deliberately peddling fake news that Riyadh is game for establishing a formal relationship with Israel even as search continues for a settlement of the intractable Palestinian problem.

The ferocity with which the Saudi foreign ministry came down like a ton of bricks on White House’s national security spokesman John Kerby was extraordinary, underscoring, “The Kingdom has communicated its firm position to the US administration that there will be no diplomatic relations with Israel unless an independent Palestinian state is recognised on the 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital.”

But then, the Saudis had reason to be furious since this was not an esoteric foreign policy issue for the Islamic world, but held the high potency to discredit the custodian of the holy places personally, create confusion in regional perceptions about Saudi Arabia’s intentions apropos of the current West Asian crisis (which is undoubtedly the prime motivation of the Biden administration to mollify Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu) and least of all, muddy the power dynamic in the region which is in a period of transition to multipolarity with Riyadh charioting the complex process in critical areas, and giving it traction (such as its BRICS membership, rapprochement with Iran or OPEC+).

The Saudis who were key allies of the West in the Cold War era — Ronald Reagan’s comrade-in-arms in the 1980s to give the call of jihad against the Red Army in Afghanistan and, far more potently, bring down the price of oil to $8 a barrel which ruined the Soviet economy — sense that the United States’ hegemony is in retreat and is ending; they have lost confidence in the US’ capacity to shore up its allies in distress (e.g., Hosni Mubarak); and, they are intensely conscious of the rising Islamophobia in the US.

Consequently, the Saudis are doing what other middle-ranking powers are doing — Indonesia, the United Arab Emirates, Turkey, Egypt, South Africa, Brazil, etc.— namely, asserting their interests by diversifying their international relations. They see ‘safety’ in such diversification in the current transitional period of global disorder — China was for the first time the dominant presence at the recent defence exhibition in Riyadh.

India’s motivations, in comparison, are rather Philistine; there’s nothing metaphysical about it — Russian oil is cheap, plentiful and, most importantly, the value-added petroleum products out of it that are exported to the European market bring windfall profits. There is nothing really ‘smart’ in what India is doing; on the contrary, it would have been plain idiocy to do otherwise by sanctioning Russia.

The crux of the matter is that Jaishankar spoke up in the esteemed presence of the top diplomats of the US and Germany, Antony Blinken and Annalena Baerbock. The jaded doctrine ‘You are with us, or are against us’, has become an albatross that prevents the US from leading a normal and happy life, whereas, Germany, which was a rising superpower two years ago, is Washington’s doormat today and grappling with de-industrialisation and a faltering economy. The limitations of genius in diplomacy must never be underestimated.

MK Bhadrakumar is a former diplomat.

(Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.)