Recently, there have been a number of indicators of the waning impact of threats by the U.S. government. Attempts to advance the U.S. government’s foreign policy interests by making threats in Niger, at the International Criminal Court, and in China have recently all failed to bring about their desired outcome.
On March 16, 2024, the coup government of Niger terminated its military partnership with the United States. The decision was announced just days after a U.S. delegation traveled to Niger for discussions, which, reportedly, went very badly.
Alex Thurston, assistant professor of political science at the University of Cincinnati and a specialist in the politics of northwest Africa, says there are reports that American officials criticized Niger’s turn towards Russia. The State Department says that, while exchanging “views on how to chart a new path of cooperation forward,” the “U.S. delegation met with Nigerien officials, expressing concerns over Niger’s potential relationships with Russia.” In a March 18 briefing, Deputy Pentagon Press Secretary Sabrina Singh referred to “direct conversations about some of our concerns, about some of their, you know, pursuing relationships with Russia.”
But the pressure was ineffective. Niger’s government did not kick Russia [Russia’s what? Diplomats? Troops?]out; instead Niger kicked out U.S. troops. The threats regarding relations with Russia outraged Niger. Niger’s military spokesman, Colonel Major Amadou Abdramane said, “Niger regrets the intention of the American delegation to deny the sovereign Nigerien people the right to choose their partners and types of partnerships. Also, the government of Niger forcefully denounces the condescending attitude accompanied by the threat of retaliation from the head of the American delegation towards the Nigerien government and people.”
Abdramane was referring to Molly Phee, the State Department’s top official for African affairs, according to Prime Minister Ali Mahaman Lamine Zeine. Phee made it clear that a continued security relationship with the U.S. was contingent upon Niger breaking relations with Russia and Iran. Zeine said Phee threatened Niger with sanctions if it sold uranium to Iran.
Zeine responded by telling Phee that he would summarize what she had said. “First, you have come here to threaten us in our country. That is unacceptable. And you have come here to tell us with whom we can have relationships, which is also unacceptable. And you have done it all with a condescending tone and a lack of respect.”
U.S. government threats and condescension had lost their effect in Africa.
They lost their effect at the International Criminal Court too. As the ICC considered seeking arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Washingtonwent into action in defence of Netanyahu and threatened retaliation against the ICC if it sought the warrants.
House Speaker Mike Johnson called for the Biden administration to “immediately and unequivocally demand that the ICC stand down” and to “use every available tool to prevent such an abomination,” including sanctions.
The U.S. government has been working “to prevent the International Criminal Court from issuing arrest warrants against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.” A group of senators from both parties met with officials of the ICC to “express their concern about the possible arrest warrants.” A group of Republican Senators warned ICC chief prosecutor Karim Khan, “Target Israel and we will target you. If you move forward with the measures indicated in the report, we will move to end all American support for the ICC, sanction your employees and associates, and bar you and your families from the United States.” Members of Congress threatened the ICC that arrest warrants “will be met with retaliation,” forcing the ICC to insist “that all attempts to impede, intimidate or improperly influence its officials cease immediately.”
As in Niger, U.S. pressure and threats seem to have lost some of their force. On May 20, the ICC prosecutor announced that he is seeking an arrest warrant against Netanyahu, and Israeli Defence Minister Yoav Gallant as well as three Hamas leaders.
Most important is the reduced force of American threats against China.
On April 26, Secretary of State Antony Blinken travelled to Beijing with a threat for Chinese leader Xi Jinping. The U.S. government wants China to cease its support for Russia’s defense industry. Blinken says he “made clear that if China does not address this problem, we will,” alluding to economic sanctions.
Russian President Vladimir Putin’s state visit to Beijing just three weeks later would test the efficacy of the U.S. warnings. They, seemingly, had little effect.
The joint statement offered by Putin and Xi was critical of the U.S. government and of its attempt to interfere with the relationship between the two countries. The two countries, the joint statement says, “are willing to further deepen comprehensive strategic coordination” and “firmly support each other on issues involving each other’s core interests,” including “the legitimate security interests” of Russia with regard to Ukraine. They say that “both sides resolutely defend their legitimate rights and interests and oppose any attempt to obstruct the normal development of bilateral relations.” Relations between the two nations are, they say, “at the best level in history.”
As for Blinken’s attempts to threaten China into curtailing its military relationship with Russia, the joint statement announces instead that “The two sides will further deepen military mutual trust and cooperation, expand the scale of joint training activities, regularly organize joint maritime and air patrols, strengthen coordination and cooperation under bilateral and multilateral frameworks, and continuously improve the ability and level of both parties to jointly respond to risks and challenges.”
As The New York Times evaluated, Xi’s “support for Mr. Putin remains steadfast” and “Western leaders looking for signs of any meaningful divergence between Mr. Xi and Mr. Putin, particularly on the war in Ukraine, would find none.” “The threat of U.S. sanctions targeting Chinese banks that aid Russia’s war,” did not appear, The Times concludes, “to deter Mr. Xi’s embrace of Mr. Putin.”
Perhaps more indicative of the failure of coercive diplomacy are remarks Russian Foreign Minster Sergey Lavrov made the day after the state visit. He reminded his audience that Russia-China relationships “are so close and friendly that they exceed the quality of classic alliances of the past.” Although an alliance is unlikely to occur because Russia’s and China’s governments oppose Cold War style alliances, Lavrov raised, perhaps for the first time, the possibility of a “true alliance.”
“This issue,” Lavrov said, “deserves a special discussion. We are willing to debate and discuss the ideas… that are aimed at building a genuine alliance with China.”
As in Niger and the ICC, U.S. threats in China seemed to have little effect. Perhaps it is time for the U.S. government to abandon its foreign policy of threats and adopt, as Biden promised, “a new era of relentless diplomacy.”
Ted Snider is a regular columnist on U.S. foreign policy and history at Antiwar.com and The Libertarian Institute. He is also a frequent contributor to Responsible Statecraft and The American Conservative as well as other outlets. To support his work or for media or virtual presentation requests, contact him at tedsnider@bell.net.
