Features
Issues of South likely to be sidelined as East-West polarity widens
Of the deepest concern for the QUAD is the Indo-pacific region in consideration of the fact that it remains the economic power house of the world. Accordingly, it is here that East-West tensions would likely be at their most intense going forward. For both camps the Indo-Pacific is a special sphere of influence which would come to be jealously guarded. Keeping probably China in mind the QUAD grouping went on to declare that it would ‘strongly oppose any unilateral actions that seek to change the status quo by force or coercion.’
At the time almost of the QUAD meeting, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio was on record as having pledged to the Philippines, a prominent ally of the US in Southeast Asia, an ‘ironclad’ commitment to defend its security. He had also referred to China’s ‘dangerous and destabilizing actions in the South China Sea.’ It would be relevant to recollect that the US and the Philippines are bound to uphold each other’s security in the region on the basis of a Mutual Defense Treaty dating back to 1951.
It is also of relevance to factor in that over the decades China has had a history of strained relations with a number of Southeast Asian countries over territories in the South and East China seas that have been seen as possessing vital strategic resources. One such piece of territory are the Spratly Islands which are claimed by scores of states including the Philippines.
Thus, during President Donald Trump’s second tenure Southeast Asia will likely figure prominently once again as a flashpoint region in the East-West standoff. And this stand-off could aggravate given the Trump administration’s abrasive style in its handling of foreign relations in particular.
The Trump administration’s tendency to prefer a policy of relative international isolation and its no-holds-barred approach to pursuing its self- interests could render what are seen as flashpoint regions in the East-West confrontation some of ‘the most dangerous places to live in.’
Likewise the Taiwan peninsula. Here too the US has made it clear that it intends to leave its footprint as it were in consideration of the US’ decades-long policy of defending Taiwan’s independence. But given China’s hardline on the Taiwan question and its stepped-up naval presence in the region, the Taiwan Sea would come to be characterized by stepped-up big power rivalry. Southeast Asia’s economic vibrancy would lend to Taiwan the importance of a sphere where China and the US would be seeking to consolidate their influence.
While it is clear that the US would be seeking to strengthen its security and military ties in particular with its strongest allies from both hemispheres, and the stepped-up diplomatic activity centering on QUAD is one evidence of this, the indications are that the South would suffer some neglect as it were at the hands of the US.
For example, there is a reported halt by the Trump administration to ‘all existing foreign assistance’ and a ‘pausing’ of new aid. Apparently, these restrictions are applicable to everything from development assistance to military aid. It ought to be clear that the least developed countries of the South would be the most affected by these measures.
Ideally, countries, whether they be of the North or South, should not be dependent on the US for whatever assistance, considering the ‘price’ such dependence carries, but given that ideal conditions are far from reachable for most states of the South in particular, US assistance could not be easily done away with. For those conflict-ridden, impoverished countries in particular such assistance is ‘a matter of life and death’.
Accordingly, the worst-off countries of the South, from an economic stand point, could face the harshest of times from now on from President Trump’s diktats. Given Sri Lanka’s bankrupt status, it too should see itself as being among these unfortunates. Any tilting by the latter towards the US’ adversaries in global politics could bring for them stepped-up adversity. Therefore, Sri Lanka, like many other poverty-hit states, would be compelled to walk a tight rope in foreign policy thinking and implementation.
However, these drastic measures in the area of overseas assistance should be seen as evidence that the US is currently drifting in the direction of a policy of relative international isolation. The US seems to be indicating that from now on it would be virtually ‘washing its hands of’ the worst off of Southern countries in particular. The latter would be more or less left to their own devices.
The question needs to be answered by US political leaders and policy planners as to whether they would be serving the US’ long term interests through the adoption of a policy of international isolation. That is, from the viewpoint of a super power is such a course advisable?
The more reflective sections could be inclined to the view that such a policy direction would be self-defeating for a super power, considering that a policy of isolation facilitates a loss of influence globally for the power concerned. This situation would clear the decks, so to speak, for big powers which are not democracy-friendly to fill the power vacuum created by the vacating super power and there is no alternative to the democratic way of governance to date.
However, the factual situation is that the worst off of the global South cannot be left to their devices by those major states that profess and practise democracy. Be it the Middle East or the chronically conflict-ridden states of Asia and Africa, humanitarian crises of the most disquieting kind are currently unfolding. Tens of thousands of people are being killed or rendered homeless in not only the Gaza but also in Congo and Sudan, to name just two countries torn apart by internal lawlessness and civil wars in Africa.
Such chronically weakened states need a measure of material and financial succor to remain in one piece and get back on their feet. Equally importantly, they need to be aided to tread the democratic path. The UN is doing its best on this score but it needs to be helped in this major undertaking by all the democratic states that matter.
A policy of international isolation was found to be self-defeating for the US in the early decades of the 20th century. Such a policy led to major fascist and repressive states coming to the pinnacle of power globally. Right now, the Trump administration seems to be risking taking the world in the same direction.