On January 24, the United States of America (USA) announced a visa ban policy for Bangladesh, ahead of the upcoming election. Prior to that, it also announced the same policy for Nigeria in January 2023. Despite a better election in February, and the US congratulating the president-elect immediately after, the US imposed a ban on Nigerian individuals allegedly undermining the democratic process on May 15, 2023.
Since the beginning of the Ukraine crisis, the US unilaterally sanctioned Russia which brought new complexity to the global economy. The US has followed a sanction-based foreign policy since the Trump administration.
The Biden administration is relying on sanctions and bans to promote democracy and human rights worldwide. However, in terms of geopolitics, it seems the Biden administration's reliance on the “Ramshackle of Democracy” to contain its geopolitical rivals is due to its declining economic and military power.
While the US is relying on coercion, especially in the global south, its rivals, China and Russia who aspire to become alternate hegemons, are basing their foreign policy on development, cooperation, and connectivity. Against this backdrop, it is worth comparing the policies of hegemons -- existing and aspiring -- and their impact on swinging or balancing states, especially from the global south.
US coercive policy: Often lacks efficacy
Generally, our acceptance of the US hegemony leads us to believe that US policy is well-devised and yields the most results. But a closer look at the history of the US policy suggests that the US often fails to achieve its objective through coercive policy.
Lindsey A O'Rourke, an assistant professor of international politics at Boston College found that the US attempted to change governments in foreign countries in favour of it 72 times during the Cold War. The US succeeded 26 times and failed 40 times. According to O'Rourke, even though the US mostly failed, the operations brought devastating impacts to the foreign states.
US coercive diplomacy also had little efficacy in the Middle East after 9/11. The US-Middle East policy brought a disastrous impact on the whole region. The US interference destabilized the Middle East and ultimately increased anti-West sentiment among the Arabs. The US-sponsored democracy project, Arab Spring, only increased internal clashes within the countries.
Even in the long term, the US coercive policy against Iran, Iraq, Venezuela, Cuba, and Gaddafi's Libya ultimately pushed these countries away from the US and only made them long-term enemies.
Why does US policy fail?
The prime reason behind the little efficacy of the US coercive policy is the double standards in its policy objective. Even though the US is promoting democracy and human rights as its foreign policy, they remain second to its national security or interest.
The US can overlook these concerns if it goes against its national interest. Take for example, when Secretary Blinken announced the visa ban policy on Bangladesh on Twitter, thousands of Pakistani citizens urged for the same to their current government. Even though Pakistan has a worse track record than Bangladesh, and is suffering from twin crises -- political and economic -- the US is silent on Pakistan as it fears that it may lose Pakistan's alliance.
During the Trump era, the US breached liberal international norms of “protected persons” and killed Iranian military general, Qasem Soleimani, for its “national interest” in a drone attack.
Besides the double standards, the US policies often fail to accommodate the demands of the global south. Take for instance, when the global south is thriving for economic and technological advancement for a better living standard, they want further cooperation from the US in these regards -- especially in the WTO -- but it seems the US priorities lie elsewhere.
And lastly, the US policies suffer from a “One Size Fits All” mentality. The US is promoting its version of democracy to different geographies and cultures which may not match perfectly. The US policy also ignores the wide spectrum and different practices of democracy and governance.
As a result, it is generating instability and a lack of efficacy. Take for instance, in the aftermath of the Arab Spring, critical scholars such as Bernanrd Lewis are now questioning whether a democracy actually fits in the Arab world or not!
What are the alternate hegemons offering?
Two of the biggest US rivals, Russia and China, can be dubbed as the “alternate hegemons” as they want to break the existing US monopoly on a world hegemony. In the last decade, these two countries have expanded their spheres of influence worldwide. Their rapid “expansion of influence” owes to their diplomacy based on development and cooperation in various sectors. There is no denying that their diplomacy is what the global south primarily needs.
The liberal world order has created a complex interdependence among the countries. Russia and China are capitalizing on this complex interdependence by increasing their trade and investment in the global south. As a result, after decades, they have emerged as more relevant to the small and neutral states from the global south due to a dependence for development.
Their sphere of influence also increased dramatically due to US coercive diplomacy. Take for instance, Iran, Venezuela, and Cuba, have developed closer connections with Russia and China after facing hostility from the US.
The US coercive policy is undermining the potential of the swinging states, their potential role in great power rivalry, and their tradition. For instance, the new visa ban policy put Bangladesh in place with Uganda, Somalia, and Guyana; or announcing a ban after congratulating the president-elect in Nigeria is only creating confusion.
Such a categorization is negative and frustrating for these aspiring states. Perhaps, coercive diplomacy will only push these states toward the alternatives, Russia and China, thereby only increasing the number of failed cases.
Aziz Patwary is a former World Bank employee.