‘We interfere because we can’: How US considers virtue signalling its superpower right

Former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee had termed India and the US natural partners. President Joe Biden has described the US-India relationship as among the “most consequential in the world”. It is beyond doubt that the multifaceted bilateral ties have deepened and expanded exponentially in the previous years.

The change is particularly visible in the areas of defence, security, and technology. India conducts the highest number of military exercises with the US and is a member of QUAD. There is also some speculation, rather pre-mature, about India getting associated with ‘pillar two’ of AUKUS (a trilateral security partnership for the Indo-Pacific region between Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States). The sides have decided to co-produce jet engines for fighter aircraft, marking a historic leap in technology sharing.

India also became the first non-NATO ally to receive armed U.S. Predator drones. Washington reportedly provided critical diplomatic intelligence and munitions support to India in the aftermath of the Galwan misadventure by China in June 2020.

More from Opinion

Putin-Trump talks: Can a fragile trust lead to a Ukraine ceasefire? Apache induction and Aatmanirbhar Bharat: Striking the right balance in defence modernisation

A landmark ‘Initiative on Critical and Emerging Technology’ (iCET) has been set in motion to build open, accessible, secure, and resilient technology ecosystems and value chains. The interests of both countries are broadly in alignment. The US has said time and again that it wants to see India as a major power. We enjoy a strategic convergence of outlook on a wide range of issues, including the challenge of Chinese expansionism. There is an ever-growing realisation of the enhanced mutual benefits of working in concord.

All the same, Washington cannot desist from giving pinpricks to India (and, for that matter, other countries too). Recently, the US State Department issued a gratuitous statement after the arrest of Chief Minister Kejriwal, saying, “We encourage fair, transparent, timely legal processes.”

Impact Shorts

View All

Putin-Trump talks: Can a fragile trust lead to a Ukraine ceasefire?

Israel and Palestine: Two-state solution looks good only on paper

The Ministry of External Affairs summoned the US deputy chief of mission to convey its displeasure. “We take strong objection to the remarks about certain legal proceedings in India,” the Ministry stated publicly, adding, “In diplomacy, states are expected to be respectful of the sovereignty and internal affairs of others. This responsibility is even more so in case of fellow democracies.”

It is ironic that a country where policemen who caused the death of a young Indian woman went scot-free should be sitting in judgement about the Indian judicial system. In January of last year, Jaahnavi Kandula, a 23-year-old Indian student, was struck by a speeding police car in Seattle. The body cams recorded the cold-blooded cops sniggering, “She was 26 anyway…..She had limited value.” This comes as no surprise to knowledgeable observers who find the American legal system under stress and even politicized.

Earlier in March, the American Spokesperson expressed “concern” about the notification of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, saying, “We are closely monitoring how this act will be implemented. Respect for religious freedom and equal treatment under the law for all communities are fundamental democratic principles.”

Those principles obviously do not apply to the US, judging by the treatment meted out to certain minorities and immigrants. New Delhi slammed the remarks as “misplaced, misinformed, and unwarranted” due to a “limited understanding of India’s pluralistic traditions”. There are several other such examples, and the US is not the sole culprit.

The US’ interference historically has not just been verbal or material but has also extended to overthrowing governments. Between the 1950s and 1980s, Washington was instrumental in orchestrating regime changes in Iran, Chile, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Guatemala, and the Congo. In recent decades, it has done the same in Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan, and arguably in the Middle East through the Arab Spring movement.

According to the Pew Research Center report of June 2023, a median of 82 per cent surveyed across all countries—big and small; developed and developing—say the US interferes a great deal or a fair amount in the affairs of other nations. This sentiment was particularly pronounced in Italy, Greece, South Korea, Israel, Japan, Spain, and Sweden.

This interference has had serious consequences, leading to hundreds of thousands of deaths, the dislocation of millions, the wanton destruction of material and property, and widespread misery and instability. Yet it has not dulled the fervour of the practitioners in plying their trade.

This propensity gives rise to many questions. Why do they consciously ignore the golden principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries? Do they suffer from a superiority complex? Is it because they have appointed themselves custodians of value-based politics and good governance, notwithstanding their own track record or conduct?

It is all the above and more. Western sea-faring nations have engaged in coercive diplomacy for centuries, imposing their cultural, religious, and mercantile practices on far-away lands and even colonising them. Old habits die hard. The US’ continued interference in the internal affairs of other countries is very much a form of power projection. They do it simply because they can. That such interference serves little purpose other than hardening positions, causing bitterness, and enhancing acrimony does not seem to concern them too much.

When quizzed about the unwarranted comments, US Ambassador to India Eric Garcetti, said that nations should not be thin-skinned. He tried to take the moral high ground by saying that the US too has “a tonne of flaws. We’re open to criticism. We want to listen".

That may sound even-handed, but it is neither here nor there. It is a mug’s game. As they say, two wrongs don’t make a right. Efforts should be directed at strengthening the architecture of global best practices, not fracturing it, and in any event, the playing field is anything but even. The narrative is controlled by Western traditional and social media, think tanks, and opinion makers who take joy in highlighting the blemishes, real or imagined, of other countries while glossing over their own.

As India rises, such external meddling could increase in tandem with more engagement. Used to having its way, the West isn’t very comfortable with India’s quest for strategic autonomy. India desires partnerships, not alliances, a concept that is alien to them, even though they feign understanding. As noted above, the US wants to see India as a major power but at the same time expects her to follow its cue. That is unlikely to always be the case.

Clearly, India’s independent stance towards Russia and her success in hammering out a common language on the Ukraine conflict at the recent G20 Summit have not gone down very well with certain capitals, which may not be averse to trying to bring India down a notch or two.

We are doing the right thing by not responding in kind but with composure and measure, taking the totality of factors into consideration. In general, our interests are best served by conveying our displeasure to the country concerned while concentrating on nation-building, which is the best antidote to this unwanted proclivity.

The author is a foreign affairs specialist and an ex-envoy to Canada and South Korea. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views.