Chasing Red Herrings (Part 1)

There is an old phrase that a photo or painting is worth a thousand words; I assumed the same would be true with emoji’s and how young people communicate.  Last week when seeking consent to reference my daughter, I sent her a draft of the article to read in between her romance languages homework.  Her response was 🤪 for which I quickly realised I did not understand emoji.  So much for these pictures being worth a thousand words.  Nonetheless, when we did speak, she offered her consent as follows; ‘sure dad, I like how you mentioned me and I am now going to be famous.’

In the last article, I discussed the consistency of US policy that was, and essentially remains expansionist, neo-colonial and unapologetically self-serving.  But I do appreciate the self-portrait presented is one of benevolent support and regard, supposedly grounded in a strict adherence to the principles of modern diplomacy.  Again, the reality differs from the picture painted.  The question posed from last week, which I know I am yet to answer; is what can we do in response to Trump 2.0 policy initiatives?  Like the emoji from my daughter that I did not understand, for the benefit of those who do not have a background in international relations, I hope now to build a shared understanding.

To appreciate policy prescriptions; let us begin by achieving a shared definition of three important concepts: foreign policy, globalisation and soft power.  We start with foreign policy, and Britannica offers some guidance in this regard by noting that ‘the development of foreign policy is influenced by domestic considerations, the policies or behaviour of other states, or plans to advance specific geopolitical designs.’  In other words, foreign policy begins with the domestic agenda that is internationally articulated, while adapting for the character and motivations of other States.

Globalisation ‘in international relations, refers to the increasing interconnectedness and interdependence of nations, driven by the flow of goods, services, capital, information, and people across borders.’  But in summary, globalisation means that the world trades and States rely upon each other.

Due to globalisation that creates interconnectedness and the flow of people, ideas, culture, and goods across borders, it results in a State’s ability to influence policy in another.  In the 1980’s, Joseph S. Nyr Jr. titled this ability to influence; ‘soft power.’  In simpler terms, soft power is the ability to indirectly manipulate or control the attitudes and circumstances of other states to [your] benefit. While there is an etymological debate on the differentiations or lack thereof between power and influence, and whether soft power actually refers to influence; for the purposes of this article, I will not be adding to that discourse here.

Foreign Policy, Globalisation, & Soft Power

Ultimately, the national agenda of Small Island Developing States (SIDS) has invariably remained economic development.  As such, the objective of foreign policy within this context is to manage the variables of globalisation and soft power, and therein execute policy in the better interest of the state to achieve economic development.  Given this goal and understanding, let us now examine how the pursuit of economic development is impacted by another State’s exercise of soft power to enhance their own policy execution.

Earlier, I stated that the US’s self-portrait presented was one of “benevolent support and regard, grounded in a strict adherence to the principles of modern diplomacy.”  Unlike my daughter’s use of an emoji I did not understand, we have long been taught by the US to view them benevolently due to their exercise of soft power, and the attending neo-colonial ties that bind us through globalisation.  But let us examine how and why a State cultivates a reputation, and motivates another to act not in its own best interests.  This is achieved through the use of Official Developmental Assistance (ODA), controlling access to finance, controlling of the media and the flow of information, and through cultural dominance.  But most important is the perpetuation of the belief that working collectively is in the better interest of all.  Too seldom has there been independent consideration whether the collective goal is actually shared, and even when not shared we toe the line because we dare not offer a dissenting voice, lest we jeopardise attending benevolence.

Official Developmental Assistance, the benevolent gratuitous contributions to another State’s development.  What is less known is the complex conditionalities that somehow see in many cases a large percentage of these ODA funds return to the donor country.  Curious how that would happen?  Take for example the United Kingdom.  The now defunct Department for International Development (DfID) was found following a 2012 investigation by the Sunday Telegraph, that the organisation was paying hundreds of millions of pounds to a group of primarily UK-based consultants, some of whom earn six or seven-figure incomes and, as former government employees, did the same in the consultancies as when previously employed with the department.

So obscene was the ODA “fraud” that the consultants in question were commonly titled “poverty barons.”  In essence, the consultancy fees at inflated rates became the larger portion of the assistance package given staying within the donor country.  (Somehow the concepts of lacking good governance and corruption seem only to apply to the Caribbean and Africa.)  Nonetheless, another strategy is to require that all the raw materials and contractors be from an approved list of suppliers from the donor country.  So ingrained and commonplace had the idea of ODA benefitting the donor country, we within the region practiced the same.  One may recall a known politician within the region saying in 2010 that Trinidad and Tobago expected to get something back for any aid given to CARICOM colleagues following a natural disaster.