Machiavelli and the Roots of Power Politics
Machiavelli, a senior civil servant and diplomat in the erstwhile Florentine Republic, Italy who is often called the founder of modern political science, said “Men rise from one ambition to another: first, they seek to secure themselves against attack, and then they attack others.”
Origin and Evolution of the Monroe Doctrine
Scanning of American history shows that they implemented the aforesaid Machiavellian doctrine in the year 1823 by the then President of USA James Monroe as the Monroe Doctrine which became foundational principle of U. S. foreign policy which turned out to be a powerful guiding doctrine in international relations even though it was not made as a law or a treaty.
The Monroe Doctrine of United States of America established its position as the world super power, militarily and economically in the course of time. Declaration of Monroe Doctrine led to the veritable realisation of the prime objective of U. S. A to become formidable super power status of the world.
Defensive Origins and Hidden Objectives
In the meanwhile, although the Monroe Doctrine was originally a defence doctrine but in reality, it was a ploy for strengthening American military and economic power. As U. S. A. achieved their objective, the aim and interpretation of the Doctrine changed.
Roosevelt Corollary and Interventionism
The 26th President of United States Theodore Roosevelt (1901-1909) in the year 1904 reinterpreted the doctrine from non-intervention in the European affairs to intervention by way of policing power in the Western Hemisphere by USA.
- The Monroe Doctrine has been invoked many times as per the whims and fancies American Presidents.
- It is not a law or coming under any treaty.
- There is no binding international law backing it.
- It is not enacted by U. S. Congress and hence, it is not implementable under U. S. law.
President Trump now tries to justify his tariffs by introducing his Tariff Act pending Supreme Court of U. S. A assent.
Historical Parallel: The McKinley Tariff Act
It is worth recalling that United States Congress framed the Tariff Act of 1890 known as McKinley Tariff Act on October 1, 1890.
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Tariff Rate | The tariff was raised to almost 50% on imports. |
| Government | Republican Government of U. S. A. |
| Stated Objective | Protecting the domestic industries and workers from foreign competition. |
| Political Outcome | Denounced by Democrats; led to fierce debate during 1890 congressional elections. |
| Subsequent Change | Replaced by the Alison-Gorman Tariff Act in 1984 and lowered tariff rates. |
Contemporary Context and the Dontrump Doctorine
History is being repeated now. Present American President Donald Trump clearly established that he is a person whose global political approaches are being guided by political expediency and compromise on the principles of democracy and treating international relationship and global peace as products of a trade.
His recent dealings with Indo Pak confrontation and his trade dealings with middle east nations stand as testimonies to his doctrine.
He has imposed his own Dontrump Doctorine unilaterally and arbitrarily by levying exorbitant tariff on imports in to United States on nations not amenable to U. S. like India, China, Russia, Brazil and other Bricks nations and showing concessions to favored countries belonging to European Union and some of the Middle East nations.
Indo-American Relations at a Low Point
The Indo-American relationship has plunged into the lowest ebb on account of the attitude of the American administration under the aegis of President Trump through actions initiated by him with regard to tariff imposition without rhyme or reason, unilaterally and arbitrarily, against international and domestic laws, through coercion, intimidation, and threat.
Early Phase of the Trump Presidency (2017–2021)
During the first phase of the presidency of Donald Trump (2017–2021), the Bonhomie between India and America, specifically between President Trump and Prime Minister Narendra Modi, was visibly seen, confirming the shared democratic values and strategic alignment in the Indo-Pacific region through a signed declaration of cooperation.
- The strongest democracy and the largest democracy of the world pledged to resolve disputes through negotiation.
- Commitment was made to multilateral trade rules under the WTO.
- Both nations agreed to act in good faith and with mutual respect.
Betrayal of Declared Mutual Cooperation
But the present reality is that President Trump and his American administration betrayed the declared mutual cooperation and lost their credibility. The strength of democracy is based on alliance stability, global confidence in agreements, and rule-based orders, which are torpedoed by President Trump by perpetuating his own doctrine.
Erosion of Credibility and Trust
The American President Donald Trump and his administration, through their actions of betrayal, lack of commitments, unilaterally and arbitrarily penalizing nations, dangerously poised rhetoric, and threats, lost their credibility and trustworthiness.
Further, the American rhetoric has created a strategic volatility, especially in sensitive regions like South Asia and the Western Hemisphere, which shows the U.S.A. following not democratic leadership but its transactional dominance.
Democratic Values and Legitimacy
In short, President Trump and his administration are not compatible with democratic values and ethics and hence erode democratic legitimacy. What India seeks are dignity, equality, and respect.
Unfortunately, instead of treating India as a natural democratic strategic partner, President Donald Trump treats India as a pressure point and practices not democratic cooperation but geopolitical opportunism.
India as a Strategic Democratic Partner
If only President Trump and his American administration understand and accept India as a strategic democratic global partner, it will be better for both the U.S.A. and India to develop and progress for impact-making growth, not only for their mutual benefit but also for global welfare.
Ethical, Strategic, and Moral Concerns
But the unbecoming acts of President Trump and his administration are not ethically, strategically, and morally justifiable or applicable. Democracy is not merely conducting elections.
| Core Elements of Democracy | Description |
|---|---|
| Policy Consistency | Stability and predictability in governance and decision-making |
| Fairness | Equal and just treatment of partners and stakeholders |
| Accountability | Responsibility of stakeholders for actions and commitments |
| Respect for Security Concerns | Honoring partners’ core security and welfare priorities |
A Transactional Approach to Democracy
President Trump’s gimmicks can be attributed to his treating alliances as deals, trade as leverage, and security as a bargaining chip. Such selective morality and transactional alliances damage democratic legitimacy.
President Donald Trump and his administration stand at a crossroads, not knowing which direction and what decision they have to take.
An Appeal to Conscience and Values
I wish President Trump and his administration remember what Martin Luther said when he was facing his own problem:
“I cannot and will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand, I can do no other, so help me God. Amen.”
But is there any conscience, values, ethics, and civility left with President Trump and his administration?
Democratic Propriety and Venezuela
If democratic propriety is still left, how can President Trump and his administration justify their draconian and unlawful attack on the sovereign and independent country of Venezuela and the abduction of their President Nicolás Maduro and his wife and keeping them in the jail in America to undergo trial in the American Court?
U.S. Legislative Framework Cited
U. S. A. passed two important laws as narrated here under.
International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), 1977
- Which is the main law under which U. S. President has powers to declare emergency and impose economic sanctions, asset freezes, and trade and financial restrictions.
- This law does not permit military interventions.
National Emergencies Act, 1976
- Which works along with IEEPA enabling the President to maintain emergency economic and diplomatic sanctions annually.
- Besides U. S. Constitution requires Congress to declare war.
In the case of Venezuela, no such war authorisation has been sanctioned which makes the entire military intervention and abduction of the Venezuela President and his wife illegal.
International Law and United Nations Authorization
The American action on Venezuela is not approved either by United Nations Security Council (UNSC) or by United Nation under Chapter VII of Authorisation.
Besides there is no peace keeping or enforcement mandate from United Nation (U. N.).
Unilateral Action and Global Precedent
In view of the aforesaid facts, President Trump’s unilateral and arbitrary forceful intervention in Venezuela is nothing but unilateral political coercion and international bullying.
A dangerous precedence has been set in by President Trump’s actions of unilateral tariff declaration and coercive intervention on Venezuela which can lead to a vicious circle globally in the days to come.
President Trump has already made clear about his future intimidating actions against Columbia, Cuba, Mexico, Green Land and any other country who may not be amenable to U. S. policies.
Trump’s examples will be emulated by China, Russia, and any other country who has the military power and economic resources either alone or along with support of any of their allies to intimidate their opponents leading the world towards chaos and anarchy.
What happens then?
In this connection what Morgan Rhodes said is worth recalling that “Fear and intimidation are tactics that work very well on those who allow themselves to be afraid and intimidated.”
Towards a Solution: Dialogue and Listening
What is the solution?
Dr. Gary Chapman, an American author said, “When people respond too quickly, they often respond to the wrong issue. Listening helps us focus on the heart of the conflict. When we listen, understand, and respect each other’s ideas, we can then find a solution in which both of us are winners.”
And former President of United States of America Donald Regan said, “I’ve always believed that a lot of the troubles in the world would disappear if we were talking to each other instead of about each other.”
Conclusion: Hope for an Amicable Settlement
If only President Trump and his administration listen, understand, accept and put into action what one of their fellow Americans said and a former President told, then only the stake holders can aspire for an amicable settlement which the world political eco-system ardently desire and hopefully implemented.
Written By: T.R.Radhakrishnan
