US-China rivalry and the problem of ‘neutrality’ in foreign policy

By Ramindu Perera

The recent Sri Lankan visit of the former United States Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and events surrounding the tour have raised some important issues regarding the foreign policy orientation of Sri Lanka. Pompeo’s visit followed the much-publicized Sri Lankan tour of a high-ranking Chinese delegation led by the Director of foreign affairs of the Chinese Communist Party. During his visit, Pompeo criticized the role of China and declared their intention to see Sri Lanka subscribing to the vision of ‘free and open Indo-Pacific’ – the catchphrase to the American geopolitical strategy in the region. Prior to his visit, the US foreign service bureaucracy also issued a warning; urging Sri Lanka to make ‘difficult but necessary’ choices in choosing allies.

In the context of Sri Lanka becoming a focus of attention in the increasing rivalry between the US and China, the official stance of the government has been declaring ‘neutrality’. For instance, addressing the United Nations General Assembly in September, President Gotabaya Rajapaksa introduced our foreign policy as a neutral foreign policy. The term ‘neutral’ is somewhat new to our foreign relations vocabulary. Historically, Sri Lanka’s foreign policy was referred to as a nonaligned – not neutral. Further, joining a television interview, Foreign Secretary Jayanath Colambage recently opined that Sri Lanka should shift from international political diplomacy to economic diplomacy and must redefine its criterion and policies.

Whether this reference to neutrality indicates a shift in the way Sri Lanka handles foreign relations, or whether it is only a diplomatic ruse to avoid controversy is yet to be seen. However, if one considers the literal meaning of neutrality – it has to be highlighted that there is a conceptual difference between been neutral and the historic meaning of ‘nonaligned’. This difference has important implications especially in the context where the US has unleashed an offensive in the region to contain the rise of China. To understand these implications, first it is imperative to understand the nature of the China-US conflict.

The imperial order and the rise of China

Modern world history domination where powerful western nations subordinated the rest of the world – or ‘non-civilized people’ as they were known during the colonial times. This domination – first exercised in the form of direct foreign rule – brought immense economic fortunes to the west. However, old colonial domination was challenged in the mid-20th century due to two factors. On the one hand, the western hegemony was undermined by the rise of the socialist bloc. On the other, the wave of national liberation struggles spread throughout colonial empires following the second world war threatened the very existence of the old colonial system.

Most imperialist countries responded to this challenge by granting formal political independence to their colonies – but retaining control over the world economic order and denying economic independence to the newly independent countries. This condition was known as neo-colonialism. However, the presence of the Soviet bloc at the time offered decolonized states an alternative path to develop their economies without totally depending on the west. Many countries including Sri Lanka collaborated with the Eastern bloc in order to strengthen industrialization which was seen as vital to achieve economic self-determination.

However, the fall of the Soviet bloc in late 1980s reversed this situation and established a unipolar world order. Under the new conditions, there was no other option available for third world countries other than to submit to the globalization process administered by international financial institutions backed by western superpowers. It is within this historic context that China starts advancing – which is a peculiar example in our times. The Chinese advent can be explained as an exceptional event in which the rules of globalization established by western powers on behalf of their advantage was manipulated by a developing country for its own benefit under conditions of strict state intervention. In the recent few decades, China has well established its position as a regional economic power. It has strengthened economic relations with other countries. The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) commenced in 2013 is a significant step forward in this trajectory.

The idea of Chinese ‘imperialism’

One of the questions that has been raised in relation to the Chinese advent is whether China should be treated as an imperialist power – similar to western superpowers. There are many ‘theories’, claiming that China is on its way of taking over the world by luring the developing world countries into a debt trap. This is a complex issue that cannot be dealt within the limits of a short article. But two points are worth mentioning. First, whether the Chinese economic expansion will result in the making of an international politico-military superpower in the future is an open question. The outcome is contingent; there is no definite answer. The important point in the present conjuncture is the absence of such political domination. Imperialism is the process of defending ones economic and commercial interests through making political interventions in other countries. Considering the nature of relations China is having with African, Asian and Latin American countries – academic-activist Walden Bello in his book ‘China: an imperial power in the image of the west?’ (2019) argues that the absence of political intervention is a significant factor that must be accounted in defining China’s role.

This fact becomes more evident when drawing a comparison with the United States. The US is well known for its political and military interventions; how it interferes in internal affairs of other nations through its embassies and intelligence agencies, how it sustains military bases throughout the globe – even in regions that has no proximity in a territorial sense and how it engages in changing regimes in the third world that it does not approve. As Walden Bello points out, the rationale behind initiatives such as the BRI is economic rather than political. The motivation behind the BRI is finding markets to export surpluses in order to overcome the overcapacity problem China is facing that has occurred due to the decentralization of economic decision making. Will China develop an international politico-military complex in the future to secure this economic expansion? We are yet to see. Whether China is capable of doing so will be another question.

Secondly, the rise of China has seriously challenged the unipolar orientation of international relations. Thus, transforming the world order in to a multipolar one defined by pluralist engagement has become a real possibility due to China’s success. The end of unipolarity opens up a new space for smaller countries seeking an independent economic trajectory and refusing to be dependent on the west. The manner how left wing and Centre-left governments elected in South America in the recent past handled their relations with China is illustrative of this new possibility. Countries like Bolivia, Venezuela and Brazil under Lula De Silva successfully struck deals with China in order to finance their industrial and welfare schemes. These resources were of immense importance especially for countries like Venezuela and Bolivia that were under the sanctions of the United States.

This does not mean Chinese investments in foreign countries are flawless and perfect. Activists have raised issues regarding the impact Chinese investments on local environmental and labour conditions. However, instead of becoming Sino-phobic and siding with the west uncritically, what is preferable for third world countries is to use the space created by the collapse of unipolarity to their benefit – and to engage and bargain with China in a collective fashion regarding issues and lapses associated with Chinese overseas economic activities.

Imperialist aggression and neutrality

Prevailing tensions between the US and China should be correctly understood as the outcome of US aggression in the region. The aggression aims to encircle China in order to defend the decaying unipolar order that has benefited the west for decades. Therefore, this intervention is reactionary and imperialist to its core. In 2009, declaring the ‘Pivot to Asia’ initiative, the former US president Barack Obama identified Indo-Pacific as the Centre of its international security strategy. Since then, there has been a concerted offensive approach in economic, political and military fronts to contain China and to sustain US hegemony in the region. The so called ‘trade war’ launched by the Trump administration aims to damage Chinese economic activities. Meanwhile, the US has initiated discussions with Japan, India and Australia to establish a military bloc (QUAD) in the region against China. India, once a long-standing supporter of anti-imperialism has changed its allegiances by striking an alliance with the US.

In this context where western superpowers are encircling China under the guise of making Indo-Pacific a ‘free and open’ zone – what does ‘neutrality’ in foreign policy actually indicate? Historically, the term ‘nonaligned’ never implied remaining idle in the face of colonialism and imperialist aggression. Though the Nonaligned movement established in 1961 identified itself as independent of cold-war era rivalries – it always adopted a principled stance against imperialist interventions, wars and racism. Sri Lanka itself has a rich history of this tradition. For instance, when the Suez crisis erupted in 1956, the Bandaranaike government took a principled stance defending Egypt’s right to nationalize the canal. It refused to let Sri Lanka’s ports to be used by British forces invading Egypt. Sri Lanka actively participated in the formulation of the New International Economic Order (NIEO) initiative launched in 1960s that aimed to challenge neo colonial economic domination. Further, it condemned western intervention in countries like Cuba and Vietnam.

Thus, ‘nonaligned’ is never a synonym for been indolent. The problem is whether the term ‘neutral’ introduced to our foreign relations vocabulary by the new government entails the same anti-imperialist dimension that was inherent to the idea of nonalignment. What is the stance of Sri Lanka regarding the aggressive role the US is playing in the Indo-pacific region at the moment? What does it mean by shifting from international political diplomacy to economic diplomacy? Does it indicate the subordination of political principles such as anti-imperialism in exchange for economic benefits? Mr. Jayanath Colambage had further stated that in terms of security Sri Lanka follows a ‘India first’ policy. In the context India has militarily aligned with the US, what does ‘India first’ mean? Does that imply Sri Lanka – at the end of the day – would position itself in the western axis in case of a possible conflict? Though answers to these questions are not clear yet – these are issues that has to be raised by everyone who are interested in defending the historic nonaligned legacy of our foreign policy.

(The writer is an academic attached to the Department of Legal Studies, The Open University of Sri Lanka. He can be reached at raminduezln@gmail.com)