By Shivanthi Ranasinghe Courtesy Ceylon Today

We have a difficult question before us. On either side of us are two emerging superpowers, already in the top five of the strongest economies in the world. The problem is that these two nations do not see eye to eye on a number of issues. It is helpful to note though, their differences have not stopped them from engaging with each other with the most important aspect of a bilateral relationship – trade. 

China is India’s biggest trading partner. This has remained consistent despite the skirmishes over boarders, war of words or India banding with other nations in an open bid to thwart China’s emergence. In fact, China is the biggest trading partner of all these nations that are opposed to China’s rise. 

This brings forth an important criteria in successful bilateral relations. That is, regardless of every other issue, strong countries do not allow other concerns to affect trade ties. A strong country’s decision to remain friends with another depends on a number of factors, as to whom that country maintains friendly relations with and if those relations are mutual. However, these egotistic differences are independent of the trade engaged. 

Even in instances, when trade sanctions or similar barriers against another country is contemplated, it is done with a sharp eye on the impact such a move would have on own economic interests. The US’ repeated failed attempts to dilute its dependency from China’s manufacturing industry is a case in point. 

Why Neutral Policy Fails? 

This fixation on trade is unfortunately missing from our foreign policy. Our concerns lie in a different dimension. We are more focused on staying friends with all without antagonising any. We fear that antagonising any power could lead to destabilisation in the country politically, economically and/or in terms of security. 

However, as our own experiences also would attest, bilateral relations do not work in this order. As noted above, countries want to have relations with nations that maintain bilateral relations with mutual partners with shared goals. 

This insistence that friendship is only possible if relations are only with other countries with mutually agreeable partnerships divides the world into distinct camps. This has been the reality since the early 1900s. 

For instance, the US and China mended fences in the late 1960s after Chinese relations with Russia soured over differences in security, ideology and development. Likewise, India’s and China’s disagreements over shared boarders are historic. Nevertheless, India’s main issue in contemporary history with China is not so much the boarder issues but China’s close partnership with India’s nemesis – Pakistan. 

India’s issue with Sri Lanka too is with the partners Sri Lanka chooses to keep. In the 1980s, India used their influence over Sri Lankan Tamil youth in the North and East as leverage to put pressure on Sri Lanka’s friendship. The present issue India has with Sri Lanka is our partnership with China. However, if China falls out with Pakistan, would India make peace with the friendship between Sri Lanka and China? If only foreign relations were that simple. 

Relations between the US and China began to slide long before China and Russia began to see eye-to-eye again in 2022. Until the 2008 global recession, the US was very comfortable with China. In 2005, the US recognised China as a responsible stakeholder” and applauded China’s influence over countries the US did not as North Korea, Sudan and Iran. China used her clout to bring these countries to the table of global recognition. 

However, the US felt the first pangs of anxiety when China increased her defence budget by 18 per cent in 2007. Matters did not improve when China surpassed Japan to become the US’ largest debt holder in 2008. This economic imbalance is the US’ real contention with China. Everything else, from China’s alleged human rights violations, espionage, piracy of intellectual property and concern for Hong Kong’s and Taiwan’s autonomy stems from this concern. 

This brief snapshot of history challenges our misconception that the US’ foreign policy vis-à-vis Sri Lanka is dictated by Sri Lanka’s partnership with China. The US had been using the carrot and stick tactics with Sri Lanka as far back as 2002. 

With the world growing smaller as technology advances, the demand to choose a camp becomes increasingly aggressive. As such, Sri Lanka too has been under tremendous pressure to choose a side. 

Sri Lanka’s attempt by (then) President Mahinda Rajapaksa to engage with whichever country most willing to make direct investments for the sole purpose of strengthening Sri Lanka’s economy failed during his second term. The response Sri Lanka got from major global players was a regime change, during which the country’s political setup was totally perverted. 

Can Sri Lanka Afford to Choose a Camp? 

However, these camps are virtual and not built in concrete. This is the hardcore fact that Sri Lanka should not overlook. As China’s experience with US relations showcases, joining a camp alone is insufficient to keep good relations. If the ‘pecking order’ is disturbed, the days in the camp can get numbered very fast. 

This is a valuable lesson for those who believe that Sri Lanka need to be in India’s orbit. India will only tolerate Sri Lanka if Sri Lanka stays subservient to India in terms of military and economic strength. 

In that sense, we have much to learn from India’s foreign policy. India is determined not to return to the days of British forced occupancy and allow another nation to decide for India the nature of foreign relations India may entertain. Therefore, employing clever manoeuvres, India has become an important but unpredictable partner in global affairs. 

While allowing the US to woo India, our neighbour has stayed faithful to Russia. India today holds the deciding vote as to who would win the race to supremacy – the US or China. Hence the reason for the US to build two security partnerships – QUAD and AUKUS to reinforce the geopolitical position in the Asia-Pacific region. 

The former partnership works closely with India and allows other smaller nations to piggyback on it. The latter however is an exclusive partnership the US has with the UK and Australia. The US has categorically denied any other nation, including France, into this partnership. 

Reviving Sri Lanka’s Most Successful Foreign Policy 

Many believe Sirima Bandaranaike’s 1970s government had the best foreign policy. It did not. It was a policy that in the name of nationalism-stoked foolishness. We alienated the West and damaged our economy. 

The best foreign policy we had was during 2006-9. We worked with all nations towards a common goal, which was to eradicate terrorism. Instead of confining ourselves to our traditional bilateral partners, we expanded our world to include the Middle East as well. 

In this endeavour, we did not envelop ourselves with blanket policies as nonaligned or neutral. We worked with individual nations, one on one. This gave us the space to address unique concerns of each party and for a proper dialogue without interruptions from others. 

It is unfortunate that once the common goal, eradicating terrorism, was accomplished, this foreign policy was not maintained. Given the numerous variables that dictate how countries view each other and the speed with which these parameters change, foreign policy must also be flexible. Foreign relations are very much akin to moving tectonic plates. If not managed astutely, earthquakes and tsunamis are to be expected. 

ranasingheshivanthi@gmail.com

By Shivanthi Ranasinghe