Independence: Its meaning and a direction for the future
By Neville Ladduwahetty-February 14, 2019, 9:26 pm
The seventy first anniversary of Sri Lanka’s independence was celebrated on the fourth of February. Independence should mean that the Sri Lankan nation is free to self-determine who and what they want to be as a nation and charter their destiny. The question is whether Sri Lanka is free enough to make such a determination. Thus independence day becomes a day of retrospect for us to look back to consider whether we have used our independence wisely or not, and to reflect whether the direction we are taking as a nation is being defined by us or for us by others.
No country is free enough to charter its own destiny independently. Those who have attempted to do so have paid a price. The fact that all countries are connected in varying degrees to each other is what causes the interests of each to impact on the other causing each nation to compromise its national interests for reasons of survival. Apart from these external compulsions that are beyond one’s control the lack of internal political stability arising from contrasting ideologies also is a serious fetter to defining a sustained direction. It is in such a context that Sri Lanka as a small and developing nation has to determine how best to charter a self-determined course in the highly competitive global commons
EXTERNAL COMPULSIONS
In the background that Sri Lanka is in a debt trap there are reports that it is negotiating a one billion-dollar loan with China and a further one-billion dollar loan also with China to construct a highway. Also in the background are reports that there are unsolicited attempts to set up a Floating Storage Regasification Unit to cater to our energy needs. There are reports that while the United States is using the International Airport at Katunayake to ferry "cargo", describing the exercise euphemistically as a "commercial transaction", countries such as India, Japan and Singapore are exploring opportunities to get involved in infrastructure projects in pursuit of their global interests by taking advantage of Sri Lanka’s unique location in the Indian Ocean.
This location, situated between the two choke points - the Straits of Malaca in the East and the Straits of Hormuz in the West, is a vital nodal point for China’s Belt and Road grand plan. To counter the latter the United States has organized a coalition of democracies that have capabilities to exercise both hard and soft power by way of infrastructure projects and/or finance for the purpose of establishing a footprint in Sri Lanka to offset the footprint of China.
Debt through Infrastructure projects is the new tool in the armory of the major powers to establish their footprint in countries whose geographic locations further the geopolitical interest of these powers. Since their convergence in and around Sri Lanka is driven solely in the pursuit of what is best for them individually and collectively, how Sri Lanka handles great power relations is a matter of deep concern because the games the great powers play leave in their wake unintended consequences, evidence of which is scattered throughout the globe and in which Sri Lanka is already paying and would have to do so dearly in the near future. If Sri Lanka hopes to emerge unscathed by the interplay of global powers in and around Sri Lanka it is not only being delusional but it also reflects a failure to acknowledge its own limitations.
The pursuit of such interests cannot be undertaken in isolation. They require political patronage, which means governments that are pliant enough to comply with global power expectations. This requires these powers to develop relationships with patrons within the host country, giving rise to the formation of internal rivalries among the local patrons. For instance, the perception in Sri Lanka is that while one political formation is favourable to China the rival group is openly partial to the coalition of democracies, while engaging with China. The need to install political regimes that favour the respective interest of rivals is either through direct involvement including regime change or in the form of infrastructure projects financed by them and when the debt becomes overbearing end up "selling" the project as occurred with Hambantota. Thus, great power rivalry and domestic politics are inextricably linked.
OPTIONS for SRI LANKA
The challenges that Sri Lanka is currently undergoing is a direct result of Sino-American tensions that traditionally arise when an emerging power such as China becomes a threat to a globally recognized super power such as the United States as warned by Thucydides of Greece. Sri Lanka has become a victim of these tensions both by its own actions and the consequences of the fallout from these tensions. How Sri Lanka handles them will impact significantly on the direction of its destiny.
Traditional thinking as to how small States could cope with external pressures are supposed to be: (1) Non-alignment with any of the major centers of power; (2) Alignment with one of the major powers thus making a choice and facing the consequences of which power block prevails; (3) Bandwagoning which involves unequal exchange where the small State makes asymmetric concessions to the dominant power and accepts a subordinate role of a vassal State; (4) Hedging, which attempts to secure economic and security benefits of engagement with each power center: (5) Balancing pressures individually, or by forming alliances with other small States; (6) Neutrality.
Each of these six strategies has its share of advantages and entrapments. Since the concept of non-alignment has lost its relevance in today’s context it appears that successive Sri Lankan governments have opted to adopt a policy of hedging by engaging with China and the coalition of democracies to secure economic and security benefits in the hope of using their rivalry as an opportunity. If such an approach is perceived by the power blocs as exploiting great power rivalry to Sri Lanka’s advantage, their responses could be of such a nature that they are beyond the capabilities of Sri Lanka to handle. In short, this strategy is too risky. Furthermore, the fact that such a strategy is not based on consensus between the two major political parties in Sri Lanka, each has engaged and are continuing to engage to different degrees with China and the coalition of democracies headed by the United States. Therefore, since there is no planned balance in how rivalry between the two power blocs is handled Sri Lanka could well end up paying a heavy price.
STRATEGY for SRI LANKA
Of the six strategies cited above, the only strategy that permits a sovereign independent nation to charter its own destiny is neutrality, as it is with Switzerland and some Nordic countries, not only because domestic rivalries prevent the development of consistent policies for engagement with great powers but also because Sri Lanka does not have the skills or the level of sophistication to emerge unscathed from "grey zone coercion" of the great powers.
Neutrality has relevance at this particular point in time because regional cooperation arrangements among countries in the Indian Ocean Rim and South and South East Asia have lost its appeal due to each country attempting to engage in arrangements that suit them best. Under the circumstances, how could neutrality translate itself in real terms?
Instead of making a public declaration that henceforth Sri Lanka would be neutral in its relations with the great powers, it would be more prudent to express neutrality via the manner in which Sri Lanka engages with the great powers. To start with, Sri Lanka should cease taking outright loans or loans to finance infrastructure projects however attractive the terms from either of the power blocks. Equally important is for Sri Lanka to cease participating in security related land or sea operations with either of the power blocs because they are clearly conducted to further their own security preparedness.
Since Sri Lanka possesses skills, technical knowhow and materials locally, except for a small component of imported items to design and build infrastructure projects relating to water supply, highways and high-rise structures, and the only shortcoming is finance, the government should facilitate financing arrangements through local banks or through Treasury Bills instead of taking loans from either of the power blocks. If Sri Lanka is compelled to take loans to implement infrastructure projects to further its economy, at least Sri Lanka should insist whenever possible that the design and construction of such projects should be undertaken by Sri Lanka. However, there are projects beyond the capability of local talent in fields such as power generation and value addition of raw materials that are currently being exported. One way of attracting Foreign Direct Investment is for the government to encourage and facilitate the emerging class of astute entrepreneurs to engage with the private sector in countries that have the knowhow to implement those projects that are beyond the capabilities of local talent.
In the meantime, the government should focus on food security by giving every possible incentive locally, not only because tried and tested skills and knowhow are available locally through centuries of experience but also because it is the fastest and most effective way to improve the livelihood and wellbeing of the bulk of the nation. Such traditional agricultural practices should be coupled with up to date technologies relating to transport, packaging and processing of agricultural products together with marketing the end products for local consumption as well as export.
Since water is the most vital input for agriculture the government should undertake a program to restore the ancient tanks that dot the landscape of Sri Lanka as part of food security, because the consequence of climate change is the certainty that it is not possible to predict when and where it would rain. As a key feature of such a program, the upper elevations that form the catchment area of the major rivers in Sri Lanka should be declared a natural reserve under the control of the central government and reforested to harvest precipitation from either of the monsoons.
A development strategy that should run parallel with food security should be the development of a whole range of organic agricultural products including spices outside the range related to food security e.g. horticulture, flowers, ornamental plants and foliage along with spices and herbal medicinal plants not only for local consumption but also specifically targeted for export. A few pioneering entrepreneurs have already embarked on this field of activity but it is only a serious and concerted thrust undertaken by the government as an integral part of a National Economic Policy to develop agriculture and agriculture-based products that could take this field of economic activity far beyond than what it is today. Such a strategy would contribute directly to the human development of a hitherto neglected section of the rural population with the minimum of external input.
CONCLUSION
The independence celebrated on the fourth of February and the forthcoming elections would be a timely opportunity for Sri Lanka to determine whether the direction that is being pursued would define who and what we are as a nation and if not what course direction is needed to get us where we want to go. If Sri Lanka does not make hard choices and it drifts in the direction defined for them there is a strong possibility that Sri Lanka would be a victim of great power rivalry because Sri Lanka does not have what it takes to interact in this rivalry to its advantage in the background of its own particular domestic rivalries. The latter prevents the development of a unified strategy with which to address great power rivalries that are manifesting itself in and around Sri Lanka
Under the circumstances, the safer bet is to be neutral in its relations with the great powers either collectively or individually by ensuring that engagements with any of them in respect of participation in security related exercises, securing financial support to meet debt commitments and the financing of infrastructure projects are kept to an absolute minimum. It does not mean isolation from the community of nations. Instead, what it means is for Sri Lanka to free itself from engaging with major powers so that she is free to define her own direction. Such a direction should focus on human development because at the end of the day what counts is tangible human development and not statistical distortions represented by numbers such as GDP.
Focusing on human development means dramatically improving the livelihood of the bulk of the nation through agricultural activities with food security as a priority and related agricultural activities for export as well using tried and tested indigenous technologies coupled with modern technologies relating to transport, processing, packaging and marketing. Such a direction would enable Sri Lanka to free itself of the external dependence that Sri Lanka is currently trapped in.
Today the Sri Lankan nation is adrift in a complex sea influenced by a way of life that is driven by consumerism and where the emphasizes is on Rights and not on Responsibilities. Whatever government is returned to power at the forthcoming elections, the demand of the public should be for a serious course correction from the direction currently being taken. The People want to take charge of a destiny that they can identify with, and not one that is fashioned by external interests and supported by their local agents. Sri Lanka was able to fashion its own destiny based on self-reliance, hard work and livelihoods based on cherished civilizational values during the early years of independence because the leaders of the time recognized what was best for the nation and its People. It is only a leadership that can reconnect with them that could restore their confidence in a future that has hope for them, their children and the generations to come.
Neville Ladduwahetty
February 13, 2019.
