CHINA AND THE QUAD BOTH NEED SRI LANKA: An opportune moment

 by George I. H. Cooke

Renewed international interest in Sri Lanka in recent months has coincided with the consolidation of the Quad, which brings together Australia, India, Japan and the United States of America; and with the resumption of China’s rise after the impediment the country faced with the outbreak of the pandemic. The remaining months of 2020 and the next couple of years remain crucial from both vantage points, but it is of importance for Sri Lanka at this stage to strategize foreign policy, avoid getting drawn into a much bigger game on the world stage, and quite crucially ensure that the developments are in favour of the island.

The visit of the US Secretary of State, Michael R. Pompeo is a welcomed one. It comes weeks after the visit of the Chinese Foreign Minister, Yang Jiechi earlier in October 2020 The presence in Colombo of two of the leading diplomats of the world, speaks volumes for Sri Lanka and the realization of the growing importance of the country’s geographic positioning. It was the American naval strategist, Admiral Alfred Thayer Mahan who once stated that “Whoever attains maritime supremacy in the Indian Ocean would be a prominent player on the international scene. Whoever controls the Indian Ocean dominates Asia. This Ocean is the key to the seven seas in the 21^st century, the destiny of the world will be decided in these waters”.

As we surge into this century, the admiral’s vision is coming to fruition, and Sri Lanka at the heart of the Indian Ocean, possesses immense potential, if only adequate strategizing is applied to secure and bring to fruition Mahan’s observation, in Sri Lanka’s favour. For too long, conquerors and capitals of foreign lands have realized the potential of the island, its resources and its waters. Yet domestic developments have mired the ability to comprehensively encapsulate everything that the country possesses and use it to the advantage of the island its people. Historic ties and the sound diplomacy have seen Sri Lanka making critical decisions in the realm of Foreign Policy that have often augured well.

In relation to China and the United States, Sri Lanka has maintained a diverse relationship. These are two countries at the forefront of leadership in the world in the 21^st century, and two countries with which Sri Lanka has the possibility to interact constructively, if the correct policy formulation is adopted.    

From the recognition of China in 1950 and the signing of the Rubber – Rice Pact in 1952, to the establishment of diplomatic relations in 1957 and beyond, Sri Lanka has continued to enjoy a close and cooperative relationship with China throughout the ensuing seven decade period. In the last decade and a half Chinese infrastructure investment has augmented the development drive in Sri Lanka but it has come at a cost. Sri Lanka needed support and it was readily given. Faulting the giver, or encouraging those who do, is not the ideal. It is instead the responsibility of the receiver to ensure that that which was received was used in the most opportune manner, and not squandered away. While China, as a matter of policy, does not interfere in the internal affairs of Sri Lanka or any country it deals with, the continuous support Sri Lanka has received, especially in the United Nations, remains paramount in the bilateral relationship.

With the United States, seen today as the de-facto leader of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, the bilateral relationship with Sri Lanka has experienced moments in which the relationship has soared as during the visit of Vice President Nixon in 1953, the Jayewardene presidency, and the second Wickremesinghe premiership, and other times at which relations soured especially over pressure that was brought to bear on issues such as human rights. Yet despite the political variations, the economic and social engagement has remained a pillar of strength.

American missionaries were instrumental in establishing some of the leading schools in the country, American multinationals introduced prominent electronic brands into the country, and America has been at the forefront of trade ties with Sri Lanka. The annual report of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka for 2019 indicates that the United States remains the single largest buyer of Sri Lankan exports, which increased to 26.3% from 25.9% in 2018. The US also remained the single largest garment export destination for Sri Lanka accounting for 45% of total garment exports in 2019. It is this relationship, these statistics and these opportunities that need to be nurtured and grown, for the US-Sri Lanka relationship to intensify.

US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Thompson commenting, on the eve of the Secretary of State’s visit, that economic development options were being brought during the visit portends well for the bilateral relationship, and if delivered, would translate into positive news. Sri Lanka has been looking to engage across the board and America expressing an interest of this nature is welcome as it hasn't been forthcoming in the recent past. Whilst the relationship with India and Australia remains sound, and that with Japan needs a further degree of emphasis, consolidating this US connection is vital for Sri Lanka at this juncture.

Renewed American interest in the economic realm should ideally focus on investment and wider market access to generate tangible opportunities. This is exactly what Sri Lanka needs. A country that went through decades of conflict and experienced continuing international pressure has not been able to write its own narrative, but today the island is gradually inching towards that possibility. Sri Lanka needs concentrated interaction, well-nurtured ties and political will to realize the prospects of its geographic positioning.  

Sri Lanka needs to be mindful of diverse engagement, with the leadership and diplomatic machinery handling this delicate process of interaction in the most effective manner, but it can be done. With the correct guidance and commitment it is possible for the country to regain its image and position in the international community, which was largely damaged by the conflict. Sri Lanka needs opportunities. If key players in the world are willing to provide them, they need to be skillfully negotiated and swiftly acted upon.

Whilst agreements are being touted as potential pre-requisites for such economic cooperation, there needs to be more openness and understanding. If a new policy or agreement is to be introduced it needs to be explained as clearly as possible. Given that Sri Lanka is a democracy, and has remained so for decades now, there are varied voices and stances in society. It is this diversity, which is representative of any democracy that needs to be engaged with, and the United States understands this only too well. The need for such cross-sectional engagement is in itself a pre-requisite in any democratic environment, as is the need for transparency.

The last high level visit was in 2015 when Secretary John Kerry came months after the change of government in Sri Lanka that year, but it was a visit to express solidarity with the new administration and not precisely to provide any form of tangible support or enhance economic cooperation. At present, on the eve of a Presidential election in the United States, there is renewed American interest not only in Sri Lanka but in a greater part of South and East Asia.

In Sri Lanka's case, while the country is looking to gain investment and access to international markets, it is also hoped that enhanced economic ties would boost political relations. However the US is not only taking a keener interest in Sri Lanka, it is also looking at neighbours and hoping to increase the momentum of the US relationship with South Asia in general. This same narrative applies to China, which is looking to South Asia as an imperative aspect of its widening Belt and Road Initiative. This needs to remain a fundamental note from a Sri Lankan perspective.

Sri Lanka may sit in the middle of the Indian Ocean but is not the only country in this region, and the vigourous engagement of China and the United States with countries in South Asia remains a wakeup call for Sri Lankan Foreign Policy formulators to firstly act, secondly, act fast and importantly, act smart.

 

 

UN AT 75: TIME TO CHANGE PERCEPTIONS AND REALIZE POTENTIAL

 by George I. H. Cooke

In 2020, the United Nations completes seven and half decades since its inauguration and since its Charter came into operation on 24^th October 1945. Following the brutality of war and the misery it left in its wake, the words of American President Harry Truman remain relevant. In addressing delegates to the opening conference in April 1945, in San Francisco, Truman noted that humanity had learned long ago that it was impossible to survive alone. He stressed that “This same basic principle applies today to nations. We were not isolated during the war. We dare are not become isolated in peace.”

This was a warning. A warning that unless countries realized the potential of collective action, they would toil in vain in their attempts to overcome challenges they face. The clarion call on the need for uniting and progressing under a common banner remains relevant 75 years later, and would certainly remain so in the future.

Sitting at the apex of leadership in multilateralism with numerous agencies and organisations under its umbrella, the United Nations is today faced with countless challenges. It is however through those challenges that the organisation has been able to rise further, and ensure that we, the human race lives a relatively peaceful life. It is owing to the promotion of multilateral engagement and cooperative action at the international and regional levels, that world wars have been averted, disease eradicated and violence reduced. 

Countries, their leaders and peoples have been made to realise, especially in the context of the pandemic sweeping the world, that cooperative action is mandatory for survival and progression. Not just survival of peoples in countries, but the survival of the whole of humanity. For those who opt to go it alone and use unilateral action, as some do, the consequences remain harsh.

Why multilateralism?

Various concerns have been expressed about the effectiveness of multilateral interaction, especially in the 21^st century. Whilst a world war hasn’t broken out, several conflicts rage in different neighbourhoods of the world. Whilst deadly diseases like small pox have been eradicated numerous others pervade the planet. Whilst attempts are being made to eradicate hunger, there are still people who fall asleep hungry. So has multilateralism and collective action failed?

At the political level, it is alleged that through multilateral engagement, countries are called upon at times, to dilute strong positions in a bid to build consensus. Also through such engagement, there is it is argued, an apparent loss or a reduction of sovereignty, which is a hindrance for countries in their forward march as they are required to conform to that which is acceptable for the greater good of all, as opposed to ones own people. So has multilateralism and collective action failed?

If a listing of grievances that exist in the world were done, the list would undoubtedly be endless, with problems and challenges in abundance. Yet of importance at this juncture is a reversal in the understanding of that which occurs around us, and the manner in which we look at it. It is the potential and not the problem that needs to be comprehended.

Yes, wars rage in different corners but a world war hasn’t broken out. Yes, numerous diseases, like Covid-19 and many others are around but other deadly ones like small pox are not. Yes, people still fall asleep hungry but that number has drastically reduced owing to efforts, which were even recently recognised in the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to the World Food Programme.

In relation to challenges at the political level, yes, multilateralism results in the need to dilute positions to build consensus. Yet of importance is that the consensus that is built is for the benefit of all stakeholders, and not to the detriment of some, as might occur if an issue is resolved through a vote or war. The UN and many other multilateral bodies always explore the potential of building consensus first and leave the option of voting to the last, as voting divides. It creates camps of those in support of a resolution, or those against one. Instead, the process of building consensus generates mutual benefits and collective responsibility in the final result.

Yes, sovereignty gets reduced when countries join international organisations and are called upon to accept binding treaties or adapt domestic policy in accordance with that which is agreed to at the multilateral level. However there isn’t a single country on the planet that hasn’t had its sovereignty compromised. Even the most powerful country, the United States of America cannot lay claim to having its sovereignty completely intact.

When trading internationally there is reliance on outside entities. To purchase goods or services that are required within a country, it is necessary to engage overseas and provide finance in return for that which is being purchased. That makes a country reliant on the country from which it is purchasing. It is the same when selling products of a country internationally. The seller and buyer need to enter into an agreement which is mutually beneficial, and not in favour only of one and to the detriment of the other.

When countries want to generate finances, bonds are sold internationally, making that country reliant on external actors, who have a stake in that country thereafter. When countries want to ensure development occurs, they look to the international community to provide investments. This is reliance once again. Where then is the country that is entirely in charge of its affairs, and is wholly competent and self reliant, and which has its sovereignty completely intact?

The era in which sovereignty was touted as the most sacrosanct aspect of a state has passed. In the 21^st century, more than ever before, countries and their leaders are realizing that without the other, their own existence is compromised. It is here that the United Nations has been a beacon of hope in a world often viewed through a lense of gloom.

With its involvement in every imaginable aspect of life on the planet, the UN is today the crucible of change. From its inception, the organisation at the centre and its agencies at the periphery have striven amidst numerous obstacles to overcome, and remain relevant through a process of evolution. Polices are formulated to suit the present, and they are implemented in a concerted manner. Thereafter reviews are conducted and necessary adjustments made as required. As such the UN has been able to do what Charles Darwin remarked was necessary for the human species to continue – to adapt.

The UN has and continues to endeavour to adapt. In the last few decades alone, the UN identified the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and thereafter the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as objectives of where humanity should progress. These objectives are relevant to all peoples irrespective of where they are located on the planet. It is in and through the realization of such aspirations that we as a people will make a degree of progress along each of these roads.

In a world of corruption and greed, the achievement of noble goals, in their entirety, is not always feasible, but what is possible is the ability to make considerable progress towards their achievement, which wouldn’t have happened if the goals were not set up at all. 

It is here that countries, leaders and individuals can, and must make a difference. For too long those in positions of leadership have endeavoured to consolidate power for themselves, and those around them, and acted in a manner that they felt would suit them alone. The realization that they too would pass, and others would occupy such positions is not realized when one is at the zenith of power. The need to implement policies that are for the benefit and betterment of all, and for the long-term, and not just a select few, at the present moment, are sometimes conveniently bypassed.

The failure to realise the need to engage far and wide creates a situation in which, owing to rising nationalism and the tacit support given to it, leaders attempt to portray the ability to survive without the support of the outside world. Or on the other hand attempting to pick some over others proves futile as countries require deep forms of exchange with added frequency, if they are to reap the benefits of cooperative action.

Trickling into society too, individuals sometimes prefer to remain silent, ignorant and nonchalant in the face of adversity, exploring instead only that which would benefit oneself. This has resulted in the creation and propagation of a corrupt and greedy society. The inability to ascertain that which occurs around us, or the disinterest in affairs of state and the world, and the impact these developments continue to have on individuals, results in a serious lack of support or appreciation for that which is done for all, by some.

At the individual level it is easy to condemn. It is the same at the international level. Until and unless perceptions change at the individual level and at the level of leadership, the manner in which some view the UN in particular and multilateralism in general, won’t change. It is only with this change the real potential of the UN and multilateralism will be realized.

The synergic effect of international cooperation, especially through multilateralism and its institutions is, it can be argued, the future. As countries collaborate, explore mutually beneficial outcomes and implement policies for all, it will be possible to realise the objectives for which the UN was first established. Whilst all peoples everywhere are not encountering war and violence, starvation or famines, there are some amongst us who are. It is for them that collective action is required. It is for them, who although seen as another in the present context, could well be ourselves in the future, that the UN strives.

In looking back at the last 75 years of its existence, it is opportune to also look ahead to the coming decades. The UN has much to offer, through its consolidated structure, overarching mandate, abundant resources and unique outreach. It remains the main form of hope for humanity as all other multilateral bodies augment the action of the UN, and attempt to enhance that which is done through this global body. At the institution level, the UN and regional organisations have evolved. At the theoretical level, multilateralism and regionalism as concepts have also evolved. It is now time for individuals and those in decision making positions to evolve too.

Former UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon would often state that “there is no plan B, because we have no planet B.” At this juncture of the 75^th anniversary of the UN, it is relevant to reflect on the need to change perceptions, and realise the potential of the world body if effective engagement and outcomes are to be achieved.

2020 marks a century since multilateralism was introduced through the League of Nations. From then to date, countries have learnt the hard way that cooperation at the international level is the only means through which existence on the planet can be guaranteed, as we have only one planet to live on, at present. 

Lest we forget Truman’s words - “We were not isolated during the war. We dare are not become isolated in peace.” The 75^th milestone is yet another reminder that collective action was, is and will be the way forward.