‘EXTREMIST DEMOCRACY’: Reflections on the January Rebellion

by George I. H. Cooke

The propagation of extremism, the political patronage it receives, and the fueling of division in society by extremist elements and their actions, is the very antithesis of democracy and democratic principles. Extremist activities are said to have spawned in developing countries, or those that belong to the global south. It is often claimed that such countries are politically immature, possess insecure governance mechanisms, have denied their people liberties and are themselves to blame for the problems they encounter.

Yet it was the United States of America, identified as a beacon of democracy that faced one of its greatest trials on 6^th January 2021, when the country walked a thin line. A country seen to be at the top of the power ladder, economically surging ahead of the rest, financially the giant amongst other stalwarts, and the home of the Statue of Liberty was the location of the latest explosion of extremism. Supremacy of one community, one party, and one individual remained the narcissistic magnet that galvanized anti-democratic forces and spurred them on. As these elements used violent means to break into the sacrosanct halls of democracy on Capitol Hill, while democratic values were being upheld in the chambers and the recognition of presidential transition was at play, questions have arisen:

Has democracy become a victim of itself?

Has the rise of extremism reached feverish levels?

Has the security apparatus failed?

Democracy

6^th January 2021 could be the harbinger of a new form of democracy, which may be termed Extremist Democracy. This form goes beyond the sphere of radical democracy into territory wherein the achievement of an individual’s goals supersedes all else, and gives effect to freedom of the individual as the supreme form over all else. It is fanaticism taken to an extreme, with an individual, and in this scenario a President, who remained intolerant of the results of an election that pronounced his opponent the winner. The January Rebellion was borne out of democracy. It was a response to democracy. It was also an attack on democracy.

On 6^th January 1941, American President Franklin D. Roosevelt stood in the US Congress and delivered his State of the Union Address highlighting the need to protect freedom in his iconic speech on ‘Four Freedoms’ wherein he talked about the need to protect universal freedom that all people possessed.  Stressing the true value of democracy, he cautioned against the absence of freedom and the rampant effect it would have on America and the rest of the world. He was speaking at the beginning of a year which remains significant as the attack on Pearl Harbour in December 1941 drew the United States into the Second World War and heralded the position and platform that was created for that country from then to date.

Eighty years later another President, Donald J. Trump stood outside the White House and urged his supporters to use those very same freedoms that his predecessor had described and to march on Capitol Hill. While addressing the crowds he urged them to never give up their struggle to see him re-elected to the office of President. Trump stressed that “We will never give up. We will never concede. It will never happen. You don’t concede when there’s theft involved. Our country has had enough. We will not take it anymore.” Seen as a clarion call to his supporters, the words of the President were an encouragement of the masses, their attack on the halls of democracy and the death of people, as well as vandalism of state property and hours of carnage and destruction, all of which was beamed across the world.

Has Roosevelt’s espousal of democracy resulted in society benefitting to the extent that it now formulates its own interpretation by taking it to an extreme? Here the essence of democracy has been submerged, and instead democracy has become a victim of itself.

Extremism

The notion that one’s own beliefs supersede all else, the lack of respect of the other, the inability to see the other for what they stand for rather than who they are, and the self-styled blinkers that restrict ones vision to anything else but what one wants everyone to see and know, has resulted in the rise, and spread of extremism in societies across the world. The recent rise of nationalism, wherein a ‘nation’ is identified to represent a community along narrow lines, rather than a country in a holistic manner, has seen the commitment of acts of violence, the taking of lives, and the destruction of property. The economic and financial impact is yet another arena which remains noteworthy.

At no stage of their actions do extremist elements reflect upon the damage they do to their cause and community. They fail to see the ramifications of their actions, and the deepening of prejudice against that which they espouse. It is this failure that leads to their subsequent downfall.

Since the attack on Pearl Harbour eighty years ago, the United States has always taken a high moral ground on human rights and values, their dissemination and their safeguarding in countless instances across scores of countries. The stance taken has been one in which those affected were asked to adhere to better and improved standards. They were questioned on their choice of policy and its implementation. They were sanctioned, reprimanded, identified at multilateral fora and accused of failing their people as a whole.

Yet today it is the United States that is a victim of extremism. It is America that needs the rhetoric to stop, that needs the healing, and most of all needs to respect diversity of view and vision. This has got to seep into a society that is determined to see it entrenched in other societies around the world. There is much work that the Biden administration would have to contend with. The absence of tolerance and the inability to move beyond tolerance into the realm of respect has driven the extremist elements in United States and in societies across the world to embrace violence to justify their own stance.  Hence it is leaders who are called upon to act with strength of purpose and will, to do what is right by the general populace and the future of the country and not merely what is preferred by a segment.

The usage of violence to achieve ones goals is akin to the engagement in terrorism. Countries have experienced egoistic individuals, who utilised the grievances of peoples and communities to allegedly espouse causes but have done so through the means of terror. Such individuals, now relegated to history, identified violence as the means to their goals, and operated rigid mechanisms of violence but did so within democratic societies, and against democratically elected leaders and governments. What then is the difference between terrorist leaders who grab power through the might of the bullet, and democratically elected ones who, possessing the will of the ballot, choose, when faced with defeat, to resort to the same means as terrorist leaders?

Extremist elements have drawn countries into an abysmal hole. They have destroyed the fabric of society, pushed moderates to an extreme, and ensured the solidification of biases through their views and actions. The wrecking of havoc remains at the heart of their mandate, as they try to gain their objectives by any means possible irrespective of the impact their deeds have on themselves, their cause, and their communities. The Christchurch attacks in New Zealand and the Easter Sunday bombings in Sri Lanka are just two of the numerous incidents. Yet the divisions brought on by extremists increase the frequency and intensity of violent incidents and are today the bane of any society.

Security

Freedom is guaranteed as long as it is secured. Failure to secure it, results in its defeat and destruction. Whilst democracy remains value-based, and extremism is a form of radicalization also based on beliefs, it is the security apparatus that needs to thwart and root out any form of threat to freedom. The inability to secure the most pivotal of democratic institutions in the world remains highly questionable. Capitol Hill has been the home of the US Senate and House of Representatives for over two centuries. It is the repository of democratic traditions and values that have been passed down for generations. How then could such a secure, pivotal building in the capital of the United States of America be infiltrated by marauding extremists, especially while sessions were ongoing, and sessions that were to consolidate the election victory of a President of America? Failure on the part of the security mechanism resulted in the carnage that was wrecked by extremist elements and ensured that 6^th January 2021 entered the annals of history as another dark day for democracy and freedom.

An intensification of security has remained a critical concern for the United States when carried out in other countries. Those which have been victims of terrorism and extremism have resorted to a bolstering of security for purposes of defence and to prevent any form of threat to their societies. This has drawn the ire of America and her leaders on numerous occasions, which see such intensification as a direct attack on democracy. How will the United States now balance this apparent dichotomy? America, like other countries is today faced with the same security dilemma. Although this dilemma is relative it still remains a critical issue which demands immediate attention.

Roosevelt called for the safeguarding of democratic values. Presidents before him and after him have done the same. Trump himself has opted to toe the line at this late hour and has now called for a smooth transition having realized the futility of his demands and the mob approach. Thus the January Rebellion becomes the milestone at which America, other countries and most importantly their leaders realize the relevance of security and the need to thwart those who support and/or engage in terrorism and extremism in all forms and manifestations. The January Rebellion becomes the rationale for implementing the true meaning of democracy and learning to respect that which it espouses, so as to ensure that the freedom enshrined in a democracy doesn’t erode that which its attempts to safeguard.

This Rebellion is cry of warning to countries to remain vigilant at all times. Those who are determined to wreck havoc, kill people and go on the rampage, do so using the attributes that democracy affords them. Paying scant regard for the upholding of democratic values, they remain a cause for concern, but more significantly are a threat to the freedom of all. These are the instances in which democracy often becomes its own victim.

Future Trajectory

On 6^th January 1661, the Fifth Monarchists attempted to seize control of the city of London, but were unsuccessful. The extreme sect of the 17^th century was determined to rid themselves of a leader, their King. The extreme sect of the 21^st century is determined to ensure continuity of a leader, their President. In 2021 it is assumed that societies, communities and individuals have evolved, in their rationale, understanding and ability to comprehend the true essence of democracy. Whilst the January Rebellion highlighted the inability of some to evolve in just manner, it is also a moment of reckoning to all countries that times are changing.

It is not possible for countries like United States of America to take the high moral ground anymore. Extremism has been present in the past, is currently prevalent, and worryingly appears to continue to persist in the US in the future. This is not only an American problem, nor is it one that can be placed on a particular country, ideology or community. It is a collective issue that demands collective action. However for that action to be taken there has to be comprehension of the problem. Sauce for the goose remains sauce for the gander. Extremism in the United States, in New Zealand, in Sri Lanka or in any country on Earth is still extremism, and must not and cannot be condoned. Until all countries and their leaders realize this, we will continue to see extremism raging, terrorists resurging and democracy under threat.

It is now time for America to engage with other countries that face threats to their democratic forms of governance, and similar forms of extremism that persist in their societies. It is time to realize that terrorism and extremism are not developing country problems, nor are they issues brought on due to want and despair. It is lack of tolerance, lack of respect, and a lack of understanding.

The ensuing days and the action of American leaders will become pivotal to the position the country has enjoyed to date. Whether an impeachment is passed to remove Donald J. Trump days ahead of the end of his term and thereby bar him from running again, whether the extremists are quelled, or whether the security chiefs are changed on Capitol Hill and security in general is given a deeper degree of thought, all of this would depend on the actions taken in the days ahead.

Bi-partisan collective action within America and with the world is the need for the hour. If democracy is at the heart of governance, then democratic values have to be centred upon for decision making. It is time for collective realization that challenges to democracy are common causes for concern and need to be addressed together, in a strong and coherent manner. They affect all countries and their democratically elected leadership and hence it is imperative that cooperative action, especially through multilateralism remains the arena of operation. It is thus an era of equality, as the challenges affect all, and need solutions from all, for all.

Donald J. Trump continuously campaigned on the slogan of ‘Make America Great Again’. Irrespective of the verdict on that call, what he has succeeded in doing is making America equal to all.

 

FRANCE: A force to be reckoned with in the Indian Ocean

GUEST COMMENTARY 

by Sisaru Chithrasiri

With the rise of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), much of the west has struggled to stay relevant in the Indian Ocean region in the recent past. This is, for the most part, driven by the PRC’s Belt and Road Initiative; a grand Marshall Plan-like program for the 21^st century. 

While the United States of America has historically found this region relatively difficult to influence, the United Kingdom and France has had some luck in the region, mainly due to their colonial past. However, Britain’s influence did not stand the test of times in her former colonies. Out of the main colonial powers, France remains dominant in the region; culturally and politically with French overseas territories (La France d’outre-mer) – La Réunion and Mayotte whilst Madagascar and the Seychelles being former French colonies. This article will examine how France is working to exert its influence in the region and how it’s allies in the west may use it to deter China’s rise.

As of lately, France’s concerns in the region have been defense focused as evidenced by the presence of several military bases in La Réunion and a 270 strong legion detachment in Mayotte. The French have also committed to opening a military base in the United Arab Emirates – Camp de la Paix as well as another in Djibouti: a former French colony in the horn of Africa (Bouchard & Crumplin 2011). Since the beginning of this century, France and India enjoy warm bilateral relations.  As stated by Saint-Mézard (2015), France’s military exercises with India began in 2001 in the areas of, civilian nuclear technology, space programs and counterterrorism initiatives. Thus, one can assume that the relationship between India and France is strategic, particularly when it comes to deterring China’s influence in the region. In fact, one may even conclude that India is desperate for closer ties with the EU and its powerful member states. France, in this regard, understands that it is crucial to have important strategic allies and partners in the Indian Ocean.

In comes Australia – a country that has enjoyed a significant trade relationship with China and a western democracy in the Asian region, bordering the Indian Ocean to its west and the Pacific Ocean to its east. Australia’s relationship with China has turned relatively sour with its Prime Minister Scott Morrison calling for an independent investigation into the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic (Karp 2020). France, like its allies, sees Australia as a key strategic partner in the region. To reiterate, France sees Australia as a like-minded country and one of the very few regional states capable of contributing substantively to regional stability. The Royal Australian Navy joined the United States, India and Japan for military exercises in the Indian Ocean between October and November 2020 in what is known as the “quad” (Greene, Dziedzic & Oaten 2020) – a hostile, yet subtle message to China; all of whom are allies and partners of France. In such a case scenario, France with its territories and defense forces scattered across the Indian Ocean might provide vital logistical and technical support.

France’s cultural ties and military capabilities may further influence the rhetoric in countries such as India, Sri Lanka, Madagascar and other Indian Ocean region countries to France’s benefit. Given the increasing involvement of China in the affairs of many countries in Asia, France may look to increase its own regional involvement as a way of staying relevant in the Indian Ocean region and its efforts may be backed up by traditional allies such as Australia and the United States. For France, forging much closer political, economic and security ties with these democracies should be an opening for the Europeans to establish a deterrent force against Chinese influence in the region. The D10 – a group of democracies that comprises Australia, Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, South Korea, the U.S and the E.U provides a platform for like-minded countries to adjust the wind from tilting towards China in the region and will establish a solid stance for France to exercise their will in the region (The Economist 2018).

The possibility of the western powers making use of French influence and power in the region is becoming a reality in order to deter China’s ever-growing influence. Smaller states such as Sri Lanka, the Maldives and the Seychelles must be aware of this realistic possibility and chose to construct, if not mend their foreign policies to the more realistic possibilities that may send shockwaves in the near future or risk being another pawn in the great power rivalry.

References

Bouchard, C & Crumplin, W 2011, ‘Two faces of France: France of the Indian ocean / France in the Indian Ocean’, Journal of the Indian Ocean Region, vol.7, no.2, pp.161-182.

‘Fatwin V MAGA’ 2018, The Economist, vol.428, iss.9103, pp.51-52.

Greene, A , Dziedzic, S & Oaten, J 2020, Australia to rejoin quad naval exercises in move certain to infuriate Beijing, viewed 28 December 2020, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-10-20/australia-rejoins-naval-exercise-in-move-certain-to-anger-china/12784186

Karp, P 2020, China bristles at Australia’s call for investigation into coronavirus origin, viewed 28December 2020, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/29/australia-defends-plan-to-investigate-china-over-covid-19-outbreak-as-row-deepens

Saint – Mézard, I 2015, ‘The French Strategy in the Indian Ocean and the Potential for Indo-French Cooperation’, S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies. https://www.rsis.edu.sg/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/PR150312_French-Strategy.pdf

MULTIPLYING MULTILATERALISM - Strengthening Multilateral Diplomacy for strategic synergy

by George I. H. Cooke

In commemoration of the 65th anniversary of Sri Lanka’s membership in the largest multilateral forum, the United Nations, which is on 14th December 2020

Multilateralism is at the core of global governance. It has been in and through the League of Nations and its successor, the United Nations that the core of multilateralism has been reposited. The UN marks its 75^th anniversary and over the last seven and half decades, the many agencies and organisation within its system have grown, and contributed immensely to the furtherance of global goals. Yet in the century ahead, the growth and integral value of the UN is being augmented by the presence and active participation of a plethora of groupings. These are not in competition with the UN, but instead complement cooperation, which is highly favourable for countries and their peoples. Having emerged in the second half of the last century, these entities are based on geography, politics, economics, finance and other factors of connectivity, and today embody the future of diplomacy.

The formalization of multilateralism a hundred years ago yielded overwhelming results. At the completion of a milestone and commencement of another century it is opportune to widen its understanding by strategizing diplomacy and deepening the synergy of its use. The inclusion of such measures in foreign policy provides innovative avenues for nation states, ensures strength for regional groupings and guarantees an enhancement of the world of diplomacy.

The placement of emphasis on multilateralism has been realized throughout the passage of time, as a means to garner greater support, build deeper awareness and promote harmonious engagement and existence. The multitude of groupings have contributed towards the realization of a semblance of co-existence and hence the ability to avoid the outbreak of a third world war or anything even close to it. Despite such efforts and the ability to stave off the challenges, they continue to abound. From nationalism and prolific movements, to global crises and pandemics, the doubt mounts, yet opportunity is even found in such situations.

The rise of nationalism in many parts of the world calls into question the potential of multilateral engagement and the prospects for countries to collaborate and compromise. The emergence of the far right in the legislative and executive arms of states appears to threaten the process of deepening and widening multilateralism as evidenced in numerous regions. The impact of multilateralism has however been ingrained in the fabric of the state. From preferential trading agreements to beneficial investment plans, and cooperative security measures to guaranteed support in times of difficulty, neighbours are realizing the need to rely on each other. This extends to those without common borders but instead share common interests, and who explore common solutions for common problems.

The era in which countries attempted to or indeed managed their affairs alone, if ever it existed, is certainly over. It ended a long time ago. Whilst the political rhetoric may attempt to persuade the populace to embrace nationalist stances, the practical aspect of governance proves the antithesis. Nationalism has risen, it has done so in the past too, but multilateralism hasn’t declined. Its superseding nature, advantageous positioning and promising returns have collectively made multilateralism indispensable on the planet.

When confronting global crises and pandemics, as 2020 revealed, countries have had to adapt to the new norm wherein their own safety may remain within their remit of control, but the onslaught of catastrophes is well beyond their capability to control. Therein assistance received and examples utilised often originate elsewhere. It is through the assistance received, be it material or technical, that the degree and depth of changes to dynamics occur at the national level. This is applicable largely to developing countries which have relied on international assistance in coping with the pandemic but also refers to situations in which developed countries have sourced medicine, equipment, and personnel from elsewhere to mitigate the impact of the pandemic. The examples derived from similar scenarios in other countries, either in learning from measures taken or not, have served all countries as they understand the ramifications of actions or the absence of such actions, through example.

Multilateralism has made the world more aware of the need to share. By sharing countries have been able to enhance their status, and improve their well-being. Whilst those possessing the wherewithal to share gain crucial positioning on the world stage, others are beneficiaries and have their well-being improved. Yet it is not limited to this equation alone. Situations abound where countries classified to be industrially poor yet resource rich, and those perceived to be financial giants but power in terms of resources, rely on each other. This dichotomy has thus spawned a deeper sense of cooperation.

The concept of one planet and one world is reiterated through every multilateral organisation. Their membership joins with the intention of contributing and receiving. Thus the building of consensus by means of giving and receiving make countries rely on each other. Though the degree of reliance maybe contested, it is still a relationship that is constructed and expanded. Given the synergy accrued from such relationships, it is possible to further grow such bonds ensuring positive returns.

The opportunities to be derived from those relationships are determined by each country and their representatives in policy formulation and implementation. Each country while possessing inherent strengths is responsible for ensuring the best returns for their respective country. It is here that strategizing becomes critical, and negotiation becomes the conduit through which strategized diplomacy is achieved.

Strategizing Diplomacy

In the decades ahead the demands of the planet will continue to increase with growing populations. The increasing presence on the globe will not be supplemented with increasing space for existence. Contending with the existing landscape would lead to aggravated conflict over a multiplicity of wants from food and water at the individual level, transcending onto the national, and thereafter causing constant consternation at the regional and global levels. Numerous other battles have the potential to arise and their effects would severely impact the progress of states, having a direct bearing on people once more.

How concerned are individuals of such eventualities? How prepared are governments for such developments? And how equipped is the world to face and overcome such challenges? Covid-19 generated much needed dialogue on the ability of countries to face such issues. It went beyond dialogue to ensuring that countries did cope, to the best of their abilities, with the unfolding effects. Yet questions exist from Andhra Pradesh to Ankara, and Wuhan to Washington on whether adequate, timely measures were taken, and are being taken, as the pandemic is far from over. Such discourse will continue well past the pandemic as the economic effects of it are gushing through societies around the world. The lesson to be derived is that no country, state or peoples can hope to remain immune or isolated when a crisis of this magnitude strikes the planet. Neither can a country battle the effects on its own.

The most strategic of tools in the armoury of a state, to assist its peoples and engage internationally, is its diplomacy and diplomatic machinery. Whilst arms and ammunition remain relevant to an extent, and finances and economic prowess stand them in good stead often, it is only through the skillful use of diplomacy that states are able to avert further contribution to impending disasters, avoid the devastating repercussions and evade human-constructed debacles or natural ones.

Of all aspects of policy formulation within a state, foreign policy needs to be included at the very core of decision-making given its pivotal nature. As an extension of domestic policy, it is foreign policy that enables a government to reach out, engage, consolidate and strengthen the goodwill a country enjoys on the world stage. Such goodwill is mandatory for co-existence as countries, though sovereign entities operate in collaboration with others and not in a vacuum. The promotion of this goodwill postulates well, especially at times of crisis and certainly in the growth of a country.

The conduit for garnering this goodwill is diplomacy, and more assuredly strategized diplomacy.  From the most powerful of states to tiny islands, or landlocked countries to economic powerhouses, the common denominator remains diplomacy. Whilst size and power matter to an extent, it is instead the quality of diplomacy, tenacity of diplomats and direction of policy that results in countries playing significant roles on the world stage. The resources at their disposal would understandably have an impact on their role but individuals with potential make the true difference.

St Lucia, an island in the Caribbean with a population of less than 200, 000 recruited Vera El Khoury Lacoeuilhe in 2001 to serve as deputy permanent delegate to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO). Possessing acumen and expertise she was instrumental in making Saint Lucia a country of great significance at this UN agency headquartered in Paris. From chairing several inter-governmental committees including the World Heritage Committee and the Independent External Evaluation Ad Hoc Working group, to heading the drafting group of the International Convention against Doping in Sport, the representative of Saint Lucia gave that country a place at the table. Serving in that position till 2016, the institutional memory and experience she gained, made her a pillar of the organisation and one to whom many other diplomats would turn to for advice and guidance. This accrued goodwill for the country she represented.

Saint Lucia’s choice of an individual resulted in the country gaining immense goodwill and the positioning of the country in a crucial arm of the UN system. Irrespective of the prospects of that country or its position on the global power ladder, Saint Lucia wasn’t subsumed within the greater machinations of a large organisation like UNESCO. Instead the choice of an individual to lead its cause made the difference and ensured effective engagement and the building of a positive image.

Positive Image

Countries are concerned about image. The desire to project a positive image is at the heart of diplomacy. Strategizing diplomacy to project that positive image becomes its very raison d'être. It is only through concerted diplomatic action and engagement that projections, alteration of perceptions, or even interaction can hope to be established. Diplomacy rests at the very heart of international relations. Possessing a systemic approach through the institutionalization of the field for centuries, diplomacy is at the vanguard of international issues. Being the peaceful and preferred option, its multifaceted construct, makes diplomacy in all its forms and manifestations the pivot of progress in the world.

Often countries struggle with three main causes for concern - reality, perceptions and resources. In conducting diplomacy, countries have to be mindful of understanding the reality themselves.  It is only when one comprehends the ground reality and is able to communicate its circumstances effectively is the challenge overcome. Similarly with perceptions, attempting to change them instantly is redundant given that perceptions are built up over a concerted period of time and will only be demolished over a similar period.

It is however mandatory that steps are taken through the diplomatic apparatus to deconstruct such perceptions, irrespective of the time involved, through repeated clarifications. Going further countries are called upon to be proactive rather than predominantly reactive. Waiting to respond to others narratives complicates messages and it is always better to commence the process rather than merely contribute to it.

In terms of resources a continuous increase and improvement of resources is essential for a comprehensive undertaking in diplomacy. Countries need to ensure that resources, in whatever form from individuals, infrastructure, and infusions of finance are devoted to the foreign policy sector. Budgets have to prioritize this sector as it is the most crucial in international engagement and will determine the success of numerous other sectors within the country, which rely on the outside world.

Irrespective of whether it is in understanding reality, clarifying perceptions or devoting more resources, it is the usage of personality that matters to the greatest degree. As evidenced with Saint Lucia, the choice of individuals ensures the success of strategized diplomacy or its dismal failure. While that which is formulated might be the most suitable, and timely action plans could be drawn up in strategizing diplomacy of a given country, it is the human resources involved in implementing it that play a most crucial role and cannot be compromised at any cost.

Generating growth

Through multilateral fora states are afforded the unique platform of being able to reach out to a diversity of countries, with which bilateral connectivity may not be strong. This arena gives policy formulators the ability to strategize in a manner which would accrue greater dividends and provide better visibility in their interactions.

The appointment of ambassadors singularly to regional headquarters that are located in many capitals increases momentum of interaction, helps a country realize its potential and more importantly guarantees visibility in that grouping. This visibility can transcend into tangible returns as the presence of an envoy on the ground has been proven to be far more valuable owing to the ability to network, rather than to have distant contact with a grouping.

Of those organisations in which states are categorized as Dialogue Partners or Observers it is essential that special attention is devoted if that state intends increasing its involvement and/or membership in the long term. Irrespective of the status of membership in such multilateral fora of significance is the seat at the table, and inclusion in the dialogue.

Countries that didn’t have direct connection with the British Empire, nor were colonized by Britain have gained membership in the Commonwealth. The rational is the ability to gain that much more by being a part of it, than being apart from it. Rwanda is one such country and will be hosting the next Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) once the pandemic recedes. The country is keen to be endorsed as an international conference destination and to change the perception that existed owing to its troublesome past. The opportunity to serve as the next Chair-in-Office will give Rwanda recognition within the Commonwealth and thereby attract tangible benefits, especially through the Commonwealth Business Forum which is set to take place on the sidelines of the summit.

The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) has six Dialogue Partners of which Turkey drives the energy discourse within the grouping. Turkey is not a full member but has been instrumental in this sector since 2017 and has the opportunity of increasing momentum towards full membership. The contribution is being viewed in positive light from a political perspective, is bolstering energy cooperation and is aiding the country in its efforts to become an energy hub.     

The African Union (AU) in partnering with the United Nations through the Joint Task on Peace and Security has become the key to the success of peacekeeping operations. From the Central African Republic, to the Democratic Republic of Congo, Guinea-Bissau, South Sudan and the Horn of Africa, contention remains a critical factor yet the collaborative nature of work has seen a decrease in tension. Ethiopia has faced internal political issues but as host of the AU, member states have rallied around the country. From an Ethiopian perspective the steps taken by Haile Selassie in forming the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) in 1963 is seeing affirmative action today.

The Association for South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) at its inception in 1967 was deemed a grouping that would fail given the internal issues that the five founding members were facing as well as the animosity amongst these countries. Yet collective action facilitated change. The change has resulted in ASEAN being regarded today as one of the most progressive regional groupings and its members have gained immensely from the stability it brought to the sub-region, and from the peace that followed. Identified as the ‘Balkans of the East’ owing to the diversity and friction, the member states were able to alter such differences to their advantage through cogent policy formulation individually and collectively, and generate growth.  

Diversifying approaches

Through multilateral fora, states are at liberty to evolve innovative means of engaging in the world of diplomacy, though particular parameters do exist, to enable the sphere to be globally accepted. The freedom afforded countries makes it possible for them to adopt unique approaches. The diversification of the field and inclusion of new actors makes it more competitive and deserves attention in its totality if countries are going to remain relevant on the global stage.

Whilst culinary diplomacy is relatively new as a concept the deed has existed for a considerable period of time. The showcasing of gastronomic delights, through food exhibitions, not only introduces nationals of other countries to one’s own cuisine but more importantly generates a platform to present culture. Cultural exchanges or cultural diplomacy augments mainstream diplomacy as a soft power tool. Ranging from movies to music, and dance to drama, that which can be highlighted through cultural diplomacy remains limitless. Such forms extend to Public Diplomacy to reach people, and to further areas such as Military Diplomacy, and its varied off shoots, including Gunboat Diplomacy, Air Diplomacy, Maritime Diplomacy, as well as Religious Diplomacy, and its variant forms of usage notably Buddhist Diplomacy and Islamic Diplomacy in particular.

Similarly with more political forms of diplomatic engagement such as Shuttle Diplomacy complimenting the main diplomatic channels, branches dealing with science, sports, energy and economics all form deeply ingrained areas of diplomatic connectivity. Using these models in multilateral fora or basing multilateralism on such formats enables member states to explore hitherto tapped spheres and diversify their approach to diplomacy.

The characterization of diplomacy, with pioneering and widening scope of each and every sub-sect that exist to-date has given diplomacy opportunity as never experienced before. Through multilateral bodies states have the ability to promote themselves, support regional groupings they belong to, engage as widely as they wish by sharing best practices, undertake mutually beneficial arrangements, bolster existing cooperative mechanisms and establish new ones.

Multiplying multilateralism through strategized diplomacy ensures a synergic effect that will guarantee rich dividends for groupings and states alike, and most importantly ensure the prevalence of stability. States and their leaders have the option of either remaining static and volatile or synergized and stable. Though the effect of synergy remains elusive, at least from an International Relations perspective its effect when applied through multilateralism becomes more apparent and weighs heavily towards the effectiveness of the sphere.

In 2020, we mark the centenary of multilateralism. Stakeholders owe it to the founders of multilateralism to strengthen, strategize and synergize the scope of the field. With deeper engagement and wider collaboration, states will be able to reap a bountiful harvest, which would stand them in good stead in the years and decades ahead.

The time for action is here and now.

REALISING THE BRI: Will China emerge as a Panda or Dragon?

GUEST COMMENTARY 

by Trivan Annakkarage

The Belt & Road Initiative (BRI) of China is a widely discussed topic today since its concept is unique to the discipline of global geo-politics. This is because the latter is the study of how one powerful nation-state applies a grand strategy (it may be argued) to gain control over most of the world’s population and its resources. Grand strategies implemented by current and former world super-powers (such as the United States of America, Soviet Union, British Empire, Dutch Empire etc.) focused on exerting their power of influence either on land or sea through political and military might. However, BRI envisioned by China focuses on spreading its influence on both land and sea through mutually benefiting economic collaborations with other nation-states. Thus, the political leadership of China proclaims BRI as a revival of the ancient Silk Route.

The Belt and Road Initiative is China’s grand strategy to make its mark on the global geopolitical stage (Clarke, 2017; Ploberger, 2016). Curran (2016) states that the magnitude of this project is even larger than Marshall Plan which was USA’s initiative to financially aid Western, Central, Northern and Southern European countries to rebuild their economies after WWII. However, Shen and Chan (2018) object to this argument because they believe it is too early to make such a comment.

From 1948 to 1951 the Marshall Plan donated US$13billion to war-torn nation-states which are now part of the collective defence agreement, NATO (Shen & Chan, 2018). The present value of the Marshal Plan is estimated above US$135billion (Steil & Rocca, 2018). Contrastingly, BRI is estimated to spend over US$900billion to fulfil the infrastructure gap in more than 68 developing countries (Bruce-Lockhart, 2017). Therefore, if China’s Belt and Road Initiative comes into full realization it will be seven times larger than USA’s Marshall Plan.

President Xi Jinping first announced China’s ambitious project of reincarnating the ancient silk road and maritime silk routes at the Nazarbayev University in Kazakhstan and at the People’s Representative Council of Indonesia in 2013 (Cai, 2017; Phillips, 2017). According to The State Council: The Peoples Republic of China (2018), this road and maritime silk route was officially termed ‘Belt & Road Initiative’, and part of its mission is determined to lend a hand to those developing economies that require capital investment to boost their exports and logistic facilities.

BRI thus focuses heavily on addressing the infrastructure gap in many developing nation-states which are members of this initiative (Cai, 2017). The governments of these nation-states have welcomed China and BRI with open arms (Xuequan, 2016). When this geopolitical grand strategy is fully realised, BRI will enable China to connect with the world through five routes. These include West & Central Europe through Central Asia and East Europe, West Asia through Central Asia, South Asia through South East Asia, Southern Europe through South China Sea, Indian Ocean, Red Sea, Suez Canal and Mediterranean Sea followed by South Pacific Ocean through South China Sea (HKTDC, 2018). The map below illustrates the above routes.

 

Through BRI China anticipates to fulfill four objectives. The first is to mitigate the over-dependency on existing sea lanes (Brady, 2017; Ploberger, 2016). This is because most of China’s trade flows through sea routes. As an ocean-based super-power, the United States has a strong presence in the Yellow, East China and South China Seas. This is a major concern for China because the security and uninterrupted journey of its shipping lines that pass through these waters depend on its relationship with USA. Since China is a potential rival for USA’s world dominance, the Government of China is wary of any strategic motive by its rival that can incapacitate China’s smooth flow of imports and exports (Harper, 2017). The second is to bridge the inconsistent economic disparity within China’s western and eastern populations.

Most of the wealthiest population resides in the metropolitan eastern coastline while the poorest live in the rural western interior. This growing disparity is considered a threat to China’s sovereignty because separatist movements in provinces such as Inner Mongolia, Tibet and Xinjiang-Uyghur blame the Government of China for the impoverishment of their people and justifies it as their cause for self-determination (Armstrong, 2012; Rao, Spoor, Ma & Shi, 2017; Reuters, 2015). The third is to provide employment opportunities to its growing working class (Shen & Chan, 2018) and the fourth is to exert its political, economic, cultural and technological influence on those 68 nation-states which are part of BRI (Albert, 2018).

It must be noted that China was well into implementing strategic solutions to curtail the above four issues through the Belt & Road Initiative before the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted all economic activity around the globe and it is rather poignant that the source of this virus was also from China. Since the beginning of 2020 BRI has experienced hostility from people round the world who criticize it as a sinister plan for China’s world dominance more so now than ever before. Taking this concern into account Beijing has decided to revamp BRI to meet present day demands.

COVID-19 highlighted the vitality of developing medical infrastructure facilities and not only focusing on commercial structures in order for its member nation-states to prosper economically. Beijing has therefore, captured this deficiency in BRI as an opportunity to re-invigorate the importance of their geopolitical super-mega project to give it a new meaning. To emphasize China’s concern in medical welfare, Beijing has introduced and incorporated the Health Silk Road concept into BRI in 2020. Furthermore, since the world is moving towards an internet based ‘working from home’ culture due to COVID-19, Beijing is focusing more on the Digital Silk Route in parallel.

The Health Silk Road is associated with providing medical supplies and medical teams from China (free-of-charge) to countries that are extremely vulnerable to COVID-19. According to Beijing this is done as a symbol of goodwill. The many countries benefitting from the Health Silk Road such as Italy, Iran and South Korea have embraced this initiative. However Beijing has not been clear on how the Health Silk Road would continue to operate if COVID-19 is fully eradicated. The Digital Silk Road on the other hand is a more ambitious project that was introduced in 2015(two years after BRI was introduced in 2013) by an official Chinese white paper. It deals with connecting BRI member states with China on a digital platform. The implementation of 5G through Huawei Technologies Group Co., Ltd. is just the beginning of Beijing’s vision to overpower USA’s dominance in the entire World Wide Web.

The Business Reporting Desk (2020) of the Belt & Road News site has stated several updates and changes Beijing wishes to incorporate in BRI so that this geopolitical endeavour better address present day requirements of developing and developed nation-states. Due to member states being adversely affected by the economic crisis caused as a result of COVID-19, China has announced it will cancel interest-free loans to countries in the African continent amounting to US$ 3.4 billion. These funds may be directed towards the Health Silk Road. However, Beijing has no intention to write-off commercial and concessional loans but to re-structure them on a case-by-case basis. This is a possible solution because BRI is largely bilateral than multilateral. However, this is a clear indication of China’s debt trap diplomacy. Nevertheless, it unreasonable to accuse China and its state run finance companies alone for such a devious strategy because Washington backed IMF and World Bank do not act any different.

Due to the logistical constraints imposed by COVID-19, there are discussions within the political elite in Beijing to re-think their current method of deploying Chinese boots, construction material and machinery in foreign infrastructure projects financed by Chinese loans. This system is known as EPC+F (Engineering, Procurement, Construction and Financing). The possible solution that Beijing might introduce is to contract public/private companies in those host countries to partner with BRI projects.This may be owing to BRI being criticized for limiting direct employment of local labour and expertise of the host nation. Therefore, this will provide opportunities for either public or private firms of the host nation to benefit thus providing a level playing field and countering various other accusations regarding the EPC+F model which is viewed as being only advantageous to China.

Buckley (2000), states that COVID-19 has further exacerbated the existent concerns regarding the necessity, feasibility and transparency of the infrastructure projects in member nation-states. Even before the pandemic there were cracks emerging between China and some host countries when executing projects. These were largely due to the debt burden related to asset seizures (such as the deep sea port in Hambantota, Sri Lanka; Khorgos Dry-Portin Kazakhstan; and Bar-Boljare Highway in Montenegro infamously referred to as the ‘highway to nowhere’). Learning from these experiences some countries have become sceptical of prospective BRI projects. Examples include Myanmar deciding to involve other international partners for its US$ 800 million Yangong City project and Sierra Leone cancelling the US$ 400 million worth Mamamah Airport project.

In addition to issues faced from BRI, China is being severely accused of intellectual property disputes and assertions of non-transparency in the disclosure of the origin and spread of the virus. During 2020 however, the latter has been highlighted more than the previous allegation. Hence Japan has extended loans to its companies operating in China to relocate back to Japan or to another country. This can be viewed as a strong diplomatic message to China.

In conclusion, the Belt and Road Initiative despite it being shrouded in ambiguity and lack of transparency will one day be fully realised even if it does not match up to the magnitude President Xi Jinping wishes it to be, due to his vision being overwhelmingly hampered by COVID-19. It is inevitable that China will one day defeat the existing American hegemony. Therefore Beijing will be the creator of a new world in the 21^st century like what Washington did back in the 20^th.The issue however is that although BRI would genuinely uplift the living the conditions of the people of its member nation-states, will the latter have to pay the heavy price of giving up their civic rights (such as free speech, public franchise etc.) and cultural identity which they currently enjoy, to the Communist Party of China? Therefore, let us hope this next super-power from the east would not turn out to be ruthless like a dragon but as compassionate as a panda.

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.