Improving international relations where no single ideology prevails

Three events of international significance caught my attention recently. The first has to do with a February 21st newspaper report that the European Union, through its ‘Global Gateway Project’ has earmarked €150 billion or US$170Bln. for investment and development in Africa ‘to counter China’s influence and its Belt and Road Initiative in the continent.’ According to reports, the funds will be used to bolster Africa’s manufacturing, transport infrastructure, green energy, sustainable food chains, and health and education sectors. In response, African leaders while not rejecting the EU’s development assistance package have called for a ‘shared vision of partnership rather than aid.’ Between 2000 and 2019, China extended US$153Bln. in the form of loans to African governments as well as funding to state-owned enterprises. China has budgeted US$300Bln. in B&RI over the next three years as assistance to the industrial sector, digital innovation, health, education, culture, peace and security.

Ever since the Russia/Ukraine war, the EU has transformed itself into a functional geo-political entity. The unity and speed with which the EU has responded to Ukraine’s appeals for economic and financial sanctions against Russia as well military support is mind-boggling to say the least. Also, the war has driven the EU to rapidly adjust its foreign policy focus in respect to Africa and other developing nations and regions which they had neglected, notwithstanding they were considered to be Europe’s old stomping ground but where China and Russia made considerable diplomatic, trade, economic and military inroads. In late December 2021 -early January 2022 in what appeared to be a coordinated foreign policy among G7 richest nations, an announcement was made of a ‘Build Back a Better World Initiative’ (B3BWI) aimed at investing in five to ten large infrastructure projects around the world in an effort to counter China’s B&RI. To kick start the G7-sponsored ‘B3BWI’, projects were identified for Ghana and Senegal. Visits were paid by top

US officials to Ecuador, Panama and some unnamed countries in Asia to consult with governments in those countries about prospects for B3BW infrastructure projects.

The B3BWI is aimed at narrowing a US$40 trillion infrastructure investment gap that developing countries will need to fill by 2035 and to provide an alternative to China’s B&RI. In the meantime, while the G7 countries as are aiming to catch up with China’s B&RI, China has already made a 21st century ‘Great Leap Forward’ by entering into B&RI agreements and rolling out projects in over 156 countries in almost every continent of the world. Guyana and China signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the B&RI in 2018. The second matter has to do with the recent diplomatic furore over China’s expanding reach to the Pacific islands including the Solomon Islands, Kiribati, Samoa, Fiji, Tonga, Vanuatu, Papua New Guinea and East Timor. Soon after the new Australian government assumed office, the newly minted Foreign Minister was dispatched to Fiji from where she signaled Australia’s anger with China’s outreach in Australia’s ‘backyard.’ According to newspaper reports, the Pacific Islands visit by the twenty-man Chinese delegation led by Foreign Minister Wang was aimed at ‘consolidating mutual trust, expanding practical cooperation, deepening people-to-people contact building a closer community with a shared future for China and the Pacific Islands.’

While in Fiji, the Australian Foreign Minister declared ‘Australia believe in true partnerships that won’t erode Pacific priorities nor one that doesn’t come with strings attached nor imposes unsustainable financial burdens on countries’. The minister’s comments bore a striking resemblance to those issued two years ago by former US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo during his two-day visit to Guy-ana in September 2020. Pompeo is reported to have said; “China’s investments come with strings attached but the US brings foreign direct investment that is clean.” He went on to state; “We don’t operate the way other regimes do, who might show up with money and then demand political retribution, or worse yet, engage in activity that is corrupt.” The Georgetown- based Chinese Embassy was quick to respond. Firing back on all cylinders the embassy stated; ‘China attaches no political strings in bilateral pragmatic cooperation, including which bring tangible benefits to countries and peoples in the region. This is an objective fact that anyone without prejudice will admit.’ The third matter that drew my attention was President Biden’s remarks last month in South Korea where he was reported as saying; ‘The US would respond militarily if China attacked Taiwan’.

Later, the US Secretary of State in an effort to walk back on his President’s remarks stated; “China is a serious long-term challenge but the US does not want a new Cold War”. Blinken went on to state; “China is the only country with both the intent to reshape the international order and, increasingly, the economic, diplomatic, military, and technological power to do it. Beijing’s vision would move us away from the universal values that have sustained so much of the world’s progress over the past 75 years.” Herein lies the kernel of geopolitical tensions in the world today. In our globalized, multipolar world, no one ideology should prevail. The key question now is how to improve international relations and to pursue policies that recognize different values, cultures and to know more about each other as nations. If there cannot be an acceptable level of convergence on these matters among industrialized and developing countries, then the least we could do is to work towards the prohibition of all weapons of mass destruction; ending the arms race; abolition of foreign military bases; nuclear disarmament; respect for the right of people to sovereignty and independence; respect for the territorial integrity of states; noninterference in the internal affairs of nations and peaceful coexistence between states with different political systems.