Ranil says Obama’s pivot will not do
Ocean via the more amenable Modi administration in New Delhi with which it reached a mutually helpful agreement.
Sri Lanka located strategically near vital sea lanes that carried much of east-west trade could serve as an important link in US policy and be in a position to safeguard the freedom of navigation. So Sri Lanka did not have to chase after the US as it is doing. Washington was coming to Colombo.
Ranil Wickremesinghe made several interesting observations. Wickremesinghe quoted political scientist Francis Fukuyama’s words to make his point that “Asia is polycentric, multipolar and constantly evolving. There is no uniformity in Asia in terms of geopolitics and culture and each of those countries is a separate world to itself even as it overlaps in trade and commerce with its neighbours and with the US.”
Quite rightly he said that for the US, the Pacific region and not the Indian Ocean has been intrinsic to its security. “Indo Asia-Pacific is destined to remain a mere conceptual rather than a realistic premise. The collapse of the Trans Pacific Partnership has further weakened the argument for it.”
He argued that the Indian Ocean region was acquiring an intrinsic significance of its own and Indian Ocean countries should shape their destiny themselves. He called on the Asian countries in the Indian Ocean especially, to take the lead in determining their own future.
Advocating an Indian Ocean Order he said that “This Order should be built on a consensual agreement and no singular state should dominate the system.”
This reference to a single state reminds me of then Indian Prime Minister’s retort to me at Temple Trees when I asked her about the Indian Ocean Peace Zone proposal and if it was to be realized whether a single regional power would dominate the Ocean.
“I know who you are referring to. You are referring to India. India does not want to dominate anyone” she said sharply raising her voice.
If Wickremesinghe is referring to the Asian states in the region, then one can think of only one state that could dominate the region - India. One reason why SAARC has not prospered the way that ASEAN has developed is because of a genuine fear among the smaller members of SAARC about Indian dominance.
Those who recall the first meeting of South Asian officials held in Colombo to discuss the creation of SAARC will remember that the smaller countries were fearful of India especially when it insisted that political bilateral issues should not be the subject of discussion. I remember this quite well as I covered the meeting for the Daily News and talked to several of the officials from neighbouring countries that attended the meeting who were apprehensive.
Prime Minister Wickremesinghe, like Samaraweera before him in the NHK interview, might not have mentioned a country by name. But if he is referring to countries that have or will have the economic and military power to be dominant in Asia then it could mean only India and China, the two most powerful states in this region.
He shot down the Obama “pivot to Asia” policy because among other reasons the “growing militarization, historical disputes and strategic mistrust pose serious challenges to the emergence of a viable and sustainable strategic security order.”
He emphasized that there will be resistance to any single country attempting to unilaterally shape the strategic order of the region. Since an extra-regional state is one that is pursuing such a policy, Asian nations will be all the more suspicious and careful. If so Sri Lanka herself needs to be careful in positioning herself in this new foreign policy order to ensure that it is not sucked into an emerging big power conflict
After all Asia has experienced colonial wars and the intrusion of super-powers-as in the case of Indo-China- and the disastrous effects it has had on the region.
If the Obama policy has been only partially successful in that it has only been able to woo a few Asian nations, would there be a change in approach with a new incumbent in the Oval office? Hillary Clinton who many expect will succeed Obama, has followed a more aggressive foreign policy as Secretary of State.
It was Clinton who wrote in Foreign Policy magazine on “America’s Pacific Century” and probably made “pivot” a familiar word in foreign policy making. She wrote that pivot strategy will proceed along six courses including strengthening bilateral military alliances and forging a broad-based military presence.
There is no doubt, as Wickremesinghe observes, that dominant issues of this century will be decided in the Asia-Pacific region. Every country in the region wishes for a better relationship with China and the US. This is not just because of geostrategic reasoning. Rather it is because of simple geography. The smaller countries in the region wish to maintain links with both China and the US.
It is this realisation, especially with regard to the economic support we can get from China and the important historical ties Sri Lanka has had with that country under governments headed by different political parties that probably made Wickremesinghe make a second official visit to Beijing.
Thus a resetting of Sri Lanka’s foreign policy cannot and should not be an unnecessarily extended courtship with Washington and the West but a balancing that does not sacrifice or betray the country’s national interests.