HISPANIOLA DIVIDED: The fate of Dominican Republic and Haiti

GUEST COMMENTARY

by Trivan Annakarage

Due to vast ethnic variations in appearance, language differences, diverse religious beliefs and ideological distinctions of the human populous (amounting to 7.8 billion), the world has been partitioned by imaginary lines to form 195 sovereign nation-states and over 60 dependent territories. In addition to these factors, forceful migration conducted during the Colonial Era from the 15^thcentury to 20^th century, has also shaped the appearance of the global political map we see today. Hispaniola, the largest island in the Greater Antilles located in the Caribbean Sea is one such example, which is home to the people of the two nation-states; Dominican Republic and Haiti.

The larger eastern section of the island is the sovereign land of Dominican Republic while the relatively smaller western portion is under the sovereignty of the Republic of Haiti. The relationship between these two countries has always been at odds and this has led to insurmountable bloodshed throughout their disturbing colonial and post-colonial past. Unfortunately, tensions between the two countries persist even to this very day. Rivalry between these two nation-states is a result of colonialism and is based upon racial and linguistic divisions. Of its 14 million population 13.5% are considered white while 15.8% are regarded as black. Over 70.4% are recognized as people of mixed ethnicity that form the majority and the identity of Dominican Republic. In contrast, from the 13 million that reside in Haiti, more than 95% are considered black. Furthermore, the official language of Dominican Republic is Spanish while in Haiti it is Haitian Creole and French.

The Dominicans are passionate about their colonial past and associate themselves to be of Spanish ancestry despite the majority’s ancestors being descendants from Africa. Therefore, they prefer to maintain lighter skin complexions through cosmetic procedures. The Haitians on the other hand are resentful of their former colonial past and embrace their African ancestry while being loyal to collective Sub Saharan African culture. This mind-set thus prevent people from both sides to agree with one another to form one united nation-state on an island, which has a land area of only 76,192km².

Even the former President of Dominican Republic, Rafael Trujillo would powder himself immensely before appearing in public to conceal his dark complexion and appear as a direct descendent from Europe. His belief in white supremacy trickled down to the common Dominican citizen where it stigmatized Dominicans as being fairer and elite while Haitian were labelled as darker and uncivilized. This led to the unfortunate Parsley Massacre of 1937 where over 23,000 Haitians residing in Dominican Republic were killed and to which Trujillo’s government was responsible. However over the years since the 19^th century there have been various attempts to unite the entire island under one flag either through coercive or diplomatic means.

Christopher Columbus established the first colonial town in Hispaniola in 1494 and named it La Isabela, which later became the current capital of Dominican Republic, Santo Domingo. The town was named after the Spanish Queen Isabella I who financed his voyages to the new world. By 1550, the indigenous Taino people had become extinct because of disease, conflict and slavery to which the Spanish hold full responsibility. Two hundred years later, in 1697, the western part of the island (1/3^rd of Hispaniola’s territory) was ceded by the Spanish Empire (under King Charles II)  to the emerging power at the time; Kingdom of France (under King Louis XIV) as part of the Peace of Ryswick which ended the Nine Year’s War between France and the Grand Alliance. The latter included Great Britain, Holy Roman Empire, Dutch Republic and the Spanish Empire. These two colonial powers were responsible for the forceful migration of slaves from the African Continent to territories they governed in Hispaniola.

After establishing its domination in Hispaniola, the Spanish used the island as a base to expand into mainland North and South America in which they solidified Spanish rule over its vast territory. Therefore, Spanish Hispaniola lost its significance and not many slaves were brought to this colony. Over the years, remaining Spanish settlers would intermarry with the surviving indigenous Taino people and African slaves to form a more culturally mixed and tolerant society. However, the slaves in French Hispaniola experienced a much harsher reality. French Imperialist exploited the land. They brought in slaves multiple times more than Spain to their territorial possession and the aim was to make French Hispaniola a highly profitable sugar-producing colony. They aggressively spoiled the soil by planting the same crop year after year and created a group of very resentful, over-worked and abused slaves who eventually rebelled in 1791 (Haitian Revolution). As a result, Haiti became the second sovereign nation-state in the Western Hemisphere after the United States of America. This was a defining moment in world history because this was the first time a country was founded by Africans in the Western Hemisphere and not by Europeans.

Today, these two countries are divided over a number of issues. From the two nation-states, Dominican Republic is larger, fertile, politically stable and wealthier than its western neighbour. In contrast, throughout the 20^th century Haiti has suffered (and continues to do so) in the hands of multiple ruthless dictators, corruption and poor economic policies. Therefore, poor quality of living standards has compelled Haitians to find job opportunities overseas. Since Haitian labour was cheaper, policy makers in Dominican Republic welcomed Haitian migrant workers into their territory. The men would be deployed to construction sites while the women were employed as domestic workers or minor staff at various public and private organizations.

Nevertheless, many Haitians are noted to be either directly or indirectly, linked to criminal activities in Dominican Republic. Over the years, this policy of welcoming Haitian migrant workers has resulted in the proliferation of Dominicans of Haitian decent. This situation has therefore given rise to a wave of Dominican nationalism followed by the discrimination against Dominicans of Haitian decent. In 2013 the Constitutional Court of the Dominican Republic issued a retroactive ruling where Dominican citizenship for descendants of Haitian migrant workers since 1929 were stripped off if they failed to provide legal documents. Due to being unable to provide such documents and because of constant hostility from Dominican nationalist, people from this community have decided to move into Haiti. However, the majority of these Dominicans of Haitian decent have never crossed the border before and do not even remotely associate themselves with Haiti.

The most destitute in this community are vulnerable to discrimination than those Dominican Haitians who have moved up the social echelons in Dominican society. During the second half of the 20^th century, Dominican policy makers were seriously considering constructing a wall along the Dominican–Haitian border. Although it was a distant reality back then, the need for it is gaining wide popularity among Dominicans. Despite their rivalry, Dominican Republic was the first country that came to Haiti’s aid soon after the 2010 Haitian Earthquake. Nevertheless, analysts argue that the purpose of the Dominican humanitarian effort was a proactive measure taken by the Fernandez Government at the time to prevent an exodus of Haitian refugees crossing the border into DR’s territory. From an International Relations perspective, the significance of maintaining healthy relations with immediate neighbouring nation-states despite having disagreements on various issues remains vital.

Despite persisting resentment, on a broader sense, the incumbent leaders of both nation-states; President Luis Abinader of DR and President Jovenel Moïse of Haiti have agreed upon a healthy working relationship of not interfering in the domestic affairs of either and maintain cordial diplomatic relations though favourable economic ties. However, Haiti has a trade deficit close to US$ 800 million with DR thus ranking Haiti, among DR’s top 10 export markets. If relations are to improve, DR will have to encourage more imports from Haiti to help stabilize its neighbour’s economy, improve its GDP and increase quality of living standards.

This would lead to a lasting solution of preventing further illegal Haitian migration into DR. Moreover, the Covid-19 pandemic has had a devastating impact on both countries. As a result, DR may not be able to support the Haitian economy as mentioned before. Increasing inequality among Dominicans and wide spread corruption within law enforcement agencies and DR becoming a hub for cocaine trafficking into South America were serious concerns which exacerbated due to Covid-19. Therefore, the immediate future of both countries on the island of Hispaniola remains rather bleak.

 

‘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.