Daily Times

Every state has its own distinct interests and goals, and in world politics, only those states which can achieve these interests survive. Whenever a state interacts with other states, both are trying to push their own agenda. As such, the nature of interaction is either zero-sum or win-win. This can be observed most clearly in interactions between big and small powers.

Each state adopts a sound foreign policy, to help it better pursue its interests. The formulation of a sound foreign policy is dictated by several factors. In the 21st century, sound public diplomacy is a big piece of the puzzle. Under the Presidency of Donald Trump, the US has been diluting its foreign policy aim of countering terrorism across the globe because of his poor public diplomacy. This is mainly the result of Trump’s bigotry towards Muslim countries in general and Pakistan in particular.

Public Diplomacy can be defined as influencing foreign governments by trying to win over their own people. It is another name for propaganda that is aimed at influencing other governments for one’s own political interests by manipulating public opinion of that state’s people. The term was coined by Edmund Gullion in 1965 who was a former US Foreign Service officer and then later on became Dean of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. In an age of globalization in which we are connected through a plethora of means, public diplomacy is becoming popular in the discourse of foreign policy. The more clever and creative a state can be in public diplomacy, the more easily it can achieve its foreign policy interests.

In his obsession to make ‘America White Again’, the card which he capitalized on during his campaign, he is pushing the world to a new order in which the US will no longer be the leader of the free world

Here are some of the examples through which readers can understand how big powers approach public diplomacy. In small states various programs like the British Council, Goethe-Institute of Germany, Chinese language centers, US cultural exchange programs are used to influence the population. Through all these and many other programs, a state indirectly influences the public opinion of the other state and influences public opinion in a way that prompts the citizens of that state to be in favor of the state which is running these programs.

Now let’s apply the theoretical discourse of public diplomacy to the US in its chase to root out terrorism. As the sole super power after the end of the cold war and as a state that is at the forefront in the fight against terrorism after 9/11, the biggest challenge before the US at the moment is its own Frankensteins monster: the Taliban. It was the US which backed these rogue elements in the 1980s against the Soviets in Afghanistan. After 9/11, it has been fighting that lot of lunatics which, at during the 1980’s, it used to compare with the forefathers of America.

In the last few years, this monster has morphed into something more lethal: ISIS. At present, to root out terrorism, the US needs the support of Muslim countries. This is because the monster of extremism led terrorism feeds off of a convoluted version of Islam; however, what is reflective in the US approach to hunt terrorism is its about face since Trump has come into power. Trump’s bigotry and xenophobia aimed at Muslim countries has turned out to be the worst form of public diplomacy the US could take in its fight against terrorism.

Not too long ago, Trump imposed a ban on six Muslim countries because of his insane approach towards politics. In his obsession to make “America white again”, the card which he capitalized on during his campaign, he is pushing the world to a new order in which the US will no longer be the leader of the free world. At a point in a time when the world needs sensible leadership making a clear sense of what is going on all around the world and the enormous global challenges in the likes of global warming, poverty etc. on the part of the US; unfortunately, Trump’s exclusive style of presidency is not catching up to sensible leadership. Being a steward of the US, there are clear omens that world might face states fighting in brutal forms with each other.

Apart from making Muslim countries in general as a target of his diatribe, Trump recently tried to make Pakistan a scapegoat for the US’ failure in Afghanistan. It is worth remembering that Pakistan is the first state that joined hands with the US in its war against terrorism and so far Pakistan has lost 70,000 citizens in a war that was thrust upon it by the US. The ‘Do more’ mantra is something that Pakistanis are now fed up of; this is why the foreign ministry of Pakistan had to take a stand against Trump.

Trump’s unprofessional and tactless attitude makes it highly unlikely that the US will be able to achieve any of its foreign policy goals. Sanity dictates that the US review its public diplomacy with respect to countering extremism fed terrorism in Muslim countries and make a collaborative effort with Muslim countries to wipe out the monster of terrorism once and for all.

Inamullah Marwat is an MPhil scholar studying International Relations at Department of Political Science in University of the Punjab, Lahore. He can be reached at uinam39@gmail.com, https://www.facebook.com/inamullah.marwat.56

Published in Daily Times, January 13^th 2018.