In an anarchical system, establishing hegemony is crucial for survival in international relations, no matter how powerful the actors are, leading to a growing security dilemma and a marked lack of trust between actors. This is what encourages these actors to maximize security in the international system. Alexander Wendt, a leading figure of social constructivism, argues that states lead to anarchy. When it comes to the realist tradition, anarchy is a purely physical condition or objective fact that forces states to pursue power politics, whereas in the neoliberal tradition, this condition forces states to pursue cooperation while realizing the benefits of cooperation for all parties participating in the system. Alexander Wendt also gave three models of anarchy: the Hobbesian, Lockean, and Kantian models. While the Hobbesian model gives rise to anarchy, the Lockean model talks about cooperation in anarchy. However, the Kantian model is somewhat similar to the Lockean model, as it advocates establishing peace, arguing that humans are rational beings and therefore, peace is natural to them. Today, given the global geopolitical turmoil, the Hobbesian model of anarchy is on the rise. And here, foreign policy-making plays an important role in balancing all these factors for the smooth running of the international system.
In recent years, India has witnessed a transformational change in its foreign policy-making. However, it is still called a swing state, as it maintains transactional relations with the international community at large. It is also said that India leverages its diplomatic position to gain tangible benefits due to its transactional nature. Foreign Minister S Jaishankar mentioned in his book The India Way: Strategies for an uncertain world That there are five phenomena that are interacting with each other so rapidly that India has no option but to maintain a transactional relationship, of which energy diplomacy is an important component. These five factors are: changes in globalization, rebalancing in the international system, rise of multi-polarity, rise of strategic technology and strategic games played by nations. India’s foreign policy has given up its ideological hangover and has become more transactional. Today, India has realized that a good foreign policy must serve the broader interests of Indian citizens. This has been highlighted many times by the current External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar in many national and international programs. For example, India is not abandoning Russia in the Ukraine war crisis. As the focus of India’s foreign policy objectives has shifted from purely political diplomacy to economic diplomacy, the transactional nature of India’s foreign policy objectives has pushed India into the category of a ‘swing state’.
Now the question arises that why does India not accept defeat from America even after receiving many setbacks from the Trump administration in recent times? This may be because India’s foreign policy is deeply influenced by its ancient civilizational values. Although India’s foreign policy has witnessed a transformational change in recent times, it blends modern strategic interests with ancient civilizational roots. And this is what may lead India to strongly believe in Kautilya’s Madeleine theory, which says that immediate neighbors are natural enemies. Given China’s economic and military stature in the global arena and its decades-long history of actions against India, Indian policymakers are forced to recognize that it is not possible to balance China without the US. Since India has already seen two major wars with China (1962 and 1971) during the Cold War, it cannot afford a third war, as India’s goals and priorities are different now. Since India aims to become developed by 2047, it cannot compromise its relations with the US to meet short-term foreign policy objectives. With major US investments, India also has a trade surplus of about $35 billion. Maintaining diplomatic relations with the US, especially with the Trump administration, has obviously become more difficult for India in the short run, but considering India’s long-term vision, it is essential for India to maintain its relations with the US. However, it is often argued that countries that maintain give-and-take relations and are swing states can become leading powers, but not great powers. Ashley J. Tellis, in his book Understanding Greatness: Making India a Great Power, The argument is that India does not fall in the category of great power. He further says that India, being a leading power, can be called system shapers. Meaning, those who shape the system cannot write new rules of the world order; At most, they can only change a few rules. Therefore, the leading powers are not the real poles of international politics. Therefore, it is the need of the hour for India to achieve Vision 2047 First, then enter the race for great-power status; China has also done the same in its case.
With increasing block politics and strange behavior in leadership around the world, countries have faced enormous challenges in determining their foreign policy objectives. Kenneth Waltz, in his book Man, State and War, Discusses the three levels of foreign policy analysis – individual, state, and international system – that significantly influence any country’s foreign policy decision making. He argues that foreign policy analysis at the individual level tries to understand why certain leaders behave in a certain way. For example, President Trump’s unilateral sudden decisions on various matters such as the imposition of tariffs and engagement with Iran have confused global leaders in determining their foreign policy objectives, as the decisions taken by Trump often contradict each other, which go against the nature of the American hegemonic identity. Therefore, foreign policy-making in the post-Trump era or the singular era has indeed become very challenging and has also caused significant damage to the rules-based international order.
Given that the world is facing unprecedented geopolitical turmoil, foreign policy analysis has in recent times become more prominent in dealing with the rising eccentric leadership around the world. Historically speaking, till 2008, mainly between the early 1990s and 2008, this was the era of geo-economics where everything was being shaped on the basis of globalization. Therefore, geo-economics was a major feature of global politics. After the 2008 global financial crisis, geopolitics rather than geoeconomics took the driving seat of global politics. In fact, the ongoing global turmoil today is driven by geopolitics, which has now become a threat to the economic development of the world. Today, as a country’s foreign policy is increasingly driven by geopolitical aspects of global politics, international politics seems to be shifting back to the pre-Westphalian world order. As geo-economic dimensions are given less priority over geopolitics, the phenomenon of deglobalization may be observed, leading to a rapid increase in global economic disintegration, where countries may be seen forming smaller or regional alliances. At the same time, identity politics and ethno-nationalism are already on the rise; Domestic politics is highly focused on giving primacy to core issues, where the scope for migration and diaspora politics is rapidly shrinking, further threatening the idea of ​​globalization and multiculturalism across the world. Today, these narratives have become so influential that they pose a tremendous challenge to foreign policy makers of any country in drafting their foreign policy objectives.
According to Arnold Wolfer, there are two types of foreign policy objectives of any country: possession-based objectives, which emphasize achieving immediate results, and environment-based objectives, which emphasize achieving long-term results. However, India faces a huge strategic dilemma in striking a balance between the two, as it is said, it is very dangerous for sailors to row two boats at once. This dilemma is happening not only in India but in every country of today’s world system. Today, international relations are so complex that one country has to go through what is going on in the mind of the decision maker of another country. And this is what forces a country to become a swing state by establishing transactional relationships with other actors in the international system.
(Views expressed are personal)
This article is written by Sanjay Turi, Doctoral Candidate, Center for West Asian Studies, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.
