Is Sri Lanka China’s Georgia?
Repost This ArticleSeven years after 9/11, we’re in between world orders.
And winds of systemic change grip all nooks of the globe: the overstretch of America, geopolitical quicksand which is the Middle East, the benign growth of Brazil and Japan, rise of China and India, resurgence of Russia, expansion of EU and NATO, petrodiplomacy of Venezuela, nonviolent nuclear politics of Iran and North Korea.
In this changing world order, for whom is the geostrategic asset of Lanka more important: China or U.S.-India? If Eelam IV’s end date pushes well into 2009, is U.S.-India intervention plausible?
World order changes imply a post-Bush II America, in addition to continuing its “War on Terror” in the Middle East, will seek to reinvigorate its engagement policy toward Latin America and South Asia to counterbalance the economic and political expansion of the China-Russia axis in Europe and Central Asia. Projecting American power in South Asia is likely to lead to increased U.S.-India engagement in Lanka. This engagement would test where the economic and political interests of China in Lanka stand in relation to those of U.S.-India. The nature of engagement would pivot on the status and optics of the military solution by year’s end. If Colombo’s “final battle” isn’t won by then, a protracted victory intersecting with U.S.-India engagement will internationally politicize Eelam IV in ways which will not reverse Colombo’s drift into Western isolation on the international stage.
Changes in world order, and great power dynamics in Central Asia, Europe, and U.S.-China, demonstrate a possible emergence of a post-2009 international climate incentivizing American engagement in Latin America and South Asia, and thus Lanka.
The world order is increasingly post-American. The Asias are rising in places and ways the West is not. Multipolarity has arrived, but it is incipient, rudderless. Three dominant features characterize the current world order transition from American hegemony to multipolarity.
First, the rise of new powers is flattening out the hierarchical orders which followed the end of World War II and the Cold War. The contemporary butterfly effects triggered by the overstretch of America on one front and the rise of China on multiple fronts is altering the structures of global power distribution such that the historical grip of the West, its aid, its arms, its human rights/democracy based conditionality underpinning intervention logic has been loosened in the Developing World. This effect is most pronounced in the Afro-Asian region, in part due to its distance from, and ineffective or disinterested engagement by, the main political centers of power in the system: America, China, EU, Russia. (India is a regional political non-player, operating within U.S.-China geostrategic competition). Momentarily liberated from what was a U.S.-led neoliberal order, Afro-Asian states, like Lanka, have been able to seek new economic and political alignment in between the old world order led by America and the new emergent one heralded by the rising Asias.
Second, the space between world orders there is an evident vacuum of global leadership. Global leadership, vision, authority, and power have become diffuse, de-centered. This departs from the ideology-guided orders of American-Soviet bipolarity and post-Cold War American hegemony demarcating the eras flanking the fall of the Berlin Wall. America led globally in the post-Cold War world. Now it is overstretched. In the post-America vacuum, no rising power has stepped up to lead.
The attendant redistribution of political authority in the system has been unable to marshal global consensus on global issues. Recent examples are: EU’s Lisbon Treaty and Ireland, global nuclear non-proliferation policy (India, Iran, North Korea), collapse of the Doha rounds, the defunct Kyoto protocol and post-Kyoto framework talks, Darfur’s genocide, Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, energy and food security, climate change and global warming, humanitarian responses to flooding in Bihar and Haiti and Burma, Russia’s invasion of Georgia. Global leaderlessness contributes to the international community’s non-engagement in Lanka’s war vis-Ã -vis its humanitarian dimension.
Third, the political economic dimension of global power has progressively bifurcated. In the transition to a new order, the world is increasingly defined by political unipolarity and economic multipolarity. Political unipolarity lingers from the shadow of post-Cold War American hegemony. Economic multipolarity has emerged due to globalization, the decline of the West, and rise of the rest.
The trend of economic multipolarity is particularly visible since the American hyperpower’s post-9/11 response and overstretch in Iraq and non-normative war. Since then, the international system has demonstrably multipolarized, with new centers of power emerging in the Developing World, namely: Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Mexico (BRICSAM), and ASEAN.
Underneath the poles of BRICSAM plus America, Japan, and the EU are a subsidiary tier, reaching from Venezuela to Saudi Arabia to Iran to Turkey to Nigeria, and many states in between. This subsidiary tier contributes to China’s rise and the erosion of the American political order, by for example providing arms and aid to states – like Lanka – that have learned that Western isolationism in multipolarity is negated by the “China option.”
A post-Bush II America will try to reestablish American primacy upon the global picture described above, within an international system characterized by global leaderlessness, de-centered political power, and multiple emergent centers of economic power. Developments in three regions, Central Asia, Europe, and the U.S.-China sphere, will pressure America towards consolidating its influence in Latin America and South Asia to counter the dissipation of its power elsewhere.
In Central Asia, over the past several years, U.S.-Russia divergence and China-Russia convergence have increasingly supplanted U.S. influence in the region. China-Russia convergence enjoys bottom-up support from the Central Asian states which have leaned towards the China-Russia politico-security umbrella since the end of the Cold War. It has also been institutionalized. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), comprised of China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Â Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), comprised of Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan, together form a multilateral tier of convergence. The SCO’s economic mandate, the CSTO’s political-military mandate as a post-Soviet security alliance, and the bottom-up support from Central Asian states, secures Central Asia within the China-Russia orbit, where American displacement of power is likely to increase as China-Russia cooperation does.
In Europe, American regional influence diminishes. Russia’s 5-day August invasion of territorial Georgia, though violating international law, was met with tepid international responses from America and the United Nations, ambivalence from Central Asia and China. In retrospect, the invasion and withdrawal conveyed Russia’s re-legitimatized paranoia that modern Europe’s changing Trans-Atlantic security architecture on some level still seeks to re-institutionalize Cold War bloc ideology in a post-9/11 world.
Also, Russian support of Abkhaz/South Ossetian independence could thaw other “frozen” independence struggles in the Caususes – Chechnya, Ingushetia, Dagestan, Kabardino Balkariya, Tartarstan, Nagorno-Karabakh, Transitrei. However, the Russia-Georgia crisis had little to do with self-determination, and much to do with Western encroachment in Russia’s backyard. From post-1991 to present, Russia has witnessed progressive Westernization of the post-Soviet European space. This includes: the post-Cold War democratization of the Baltics (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania), the post-2003 Flower revolutions (Georgia, Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan), the 2005 American supported regime changes in Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan, the Eastward creep of post-Cold War NATO (Albania, Croatia, Georgia, Ukraine), the expansion of the EU (Croatia, Ukraine), international support for Kosovo self-determination despite Belgrade-Moscow opposition, and recent agreements to place American anti-ballistic missile shields in Czech Republic and Poland to protect Europe and American allies from a nuclear Iran.
Russian resurgence and Western impulses to isolate Russia in Europe will in confluence continue to polarize and consolidate exclusionary U.S.-EU and Russia-China alliances from Europe to Central Asia, steadily displacing American influence on the continent.
In the U.S.-China sphere, China is displacing American influence globally. Containing China’s multi-pronged projection of multidimensional power remains enigmatic to the West. And aware of American pretensions of containment, China has been smart in its growth model. It has created a financial architecture outside of the Bretton Woods system, relying predominantly on hub-and-spoke bilateral agreements, instead of being tied down in Western created multilateral frameworks. It has built alliances with Russia, Germany and the EU, Asia, East Asia, Latin America, the Caribbean, Iran, India.
Furthermore, China’s maritime power is encroaching on America’s along sea lanes connecting China to energy resources in the Middle East and Africa. China has built a “string of pearls” through infrastructure projects, provision of military modernization, and diplomacy, extending territorially from mainland China to the South China Sea’s littorals, to the Indian Ocean, to the Arabian Sea and Persian Gulf littorals.
In the Indian Ocean region sensitive to Lankan security, between the straits of Hormuz and the Straits of Malacca, the string of pearls links ports in Pakistan’s Gwadar to Lanka’s Hamabantota to Bangladesh’s Chittagong to Burma’s Sittwe. China’s investments in Africa are also likely to lead to coastal bases on the continent, to further diversify energy supply routes for its growing economy and energy needs.
However, China’s Indian Ocean presence may become problematic. For American maritime interests from Hormuz to Malacca, the “string of pearls” could mature into a noose of energy dependencies held in China’s palm. By 2030, BRIC economies are expected to eclipse the rich economies of Europe and North America, which will stress energy security equations of every status quo and rising power. While the global media fixates on diminishing American credibility and the Iraq/Afghanistan/Iran conundrum, China is economically crowding America out of Africa, the Asias, the trans-Pacific, and Latin America.
Overall, the overstretch of America, rise of China, and broad-based multipolarization of the global economic system has created a global leadership vacuum within the international system. The political economic developments in Central Asia, Europe, and within the U.S-China sphere, have in aggregate, weakened America’s influence globally. Since America will likely seek to re-establish its primacy and leadership role in the system, this trend makes Latin America and South Asia viable candidates for the re-projection of American power in the early months of a new Obama/McCain Presidency in 2009 to counter diminishing U.S. dominance in China-Russia spheres of influence.
America can project power elsewhere, but these regions have fewer impediments. Latin America is attractive because it’s in America’s hemispheric reach, with only Venezuela to isolate, and an eager ally in Brazil, the world’s 5th largest economy. South Asia is attractive because U.S.-India convergence would feed off China-India regional competition, making the projection of American power, directly, or via India, sustainable and in American and Indian self-interest. The recent U.S.-India nuclear deal and smaller developments like the Hindu-Muslim riots in Orissa, flooding in Bihar, if a pattern, are harbingers of a future bilateral climate conducive to cooperative efforts in global issues such as counter-terrorism and climate change.
Consequently, increased U.S.-India cooperation in South Asia will increase the probability of U.S.-India engagement in Lanka. If the Tiger’s defensive war and Colombo’s scant regard for human rights persist to 2009, a U.S.-India axis impelled to consolidate influence in South Asia via Lanka to balance the China-Russia factor in Europe and Central Asia becomes more probable. Because U.S.-India engagement would arise from great power competition more than political considerations towards Eelam IV or human rights, issues of Colombo’s acquiescence and Lankan sovereignty would be rendered peripheral.
U.S.-India would likely engage upon an anti-GoSL anti-LTTE platform promoting human rights and counter-terrorism, while endorsing that the protection of international humanitarian norms trumps sovereignty in certain cases. This plausible future is inherently dubitable. But a post-Bush II America will search for ways to re-establish itself as global leader. In this regard, the Lankan case is evocative for U.S.-Indian intervention which would also send a global message apropos Chinese expansion in South Asia.
Whether China will protect Colombo in this scenario remains unclear. The direction of Lanka’s human rights record, from the UNCHR rejection to the Defense Secretary’s recent request for removal of NGOs, INGOs, and the UN from the Northern theatre, is less so. Whether or not U.S.-India will engage, Eelam IV and its human rights albatross will likely qualify Lanka by 2009 as a place for U.S.-India engagement on humanitarian grounds, even in violation of Lankan sovereignty. U.S.-India engagement policy with Lanka would also test whether states like China, Iran, and Pakistan, will support Lanka not only in aid and arms, but also politically, in standing up against powers like the U.S., India.
America abandoned Georgia when Russia invaded.
What will Beijing do if U.S.-India engage on the island in 2009?
Is Lanka China’s Georgia?
Or is the China-Lanka alliance more than just an economic, military, and geostrategic marriage of convenience?
This superficially sophisticated analysis and scenario has an important piece missing, namely the internal conditions in which external intervention is successful. the writer still has to deal with the massve fact of contemporary sri lankan history: we’ve been there, had that done to us and have got the T shirt. we experienced a huge ( 70,000 troop strong) “humanitarian” intervention in 1987. three years later a battered interventionist went home, suffering a trauma that has still not left it decades later. sri lankan sovereignty was restored and the lankan state is still standing. the simple fact is that the combination of the lankan state formation, a historical idenmtity of long duration, an established and functioning democracy, public opinion, a fairly large population, a large motivated army, a militant youth movement, give Sri Lanka a very different profile from those weak states –failed or failing or newly emergent democracies — that are prone to successful intervention. none of this is to say that there will not be a US-India engagement on Sri Lanka in the foreseeable future, and that it will not be consequential, but that it will not take the apocalyptic form of intervention. does the writer know how old — or young– georgia is as a state, and how episodic its history has been as an independent entity? and how on earth can the georgian case be abstracted from the historical experience that forms its backdrop, i.e. the collapse of the USSR? A-historical analysis is as unhelpful as antiquarian historicism.
I fully agree with the writer.
Weather US-India intervention is possible or not, their intentions are already becoming clear in their open courtship with the puppet regime in the east. In fact the case for early US-India’s intervention is stronger now, as with the passing of time, it will become impossible for such action as china’s support and involvement in Srilanka increases .
The comments by Dayan Jeyatilleka above is reflective of the ignorance of the Srilankan polity which uses emotions and myths to motivate the Sinhala citizens and will not stand up to reality. Unfortunately it is us, the ordinary people(mainly Tamils), who stand to lose everything, not the politicians and their cronies who pretend to be journalists.
A fairly deep analysis with the author displaying an ability to relate current political and economic movements with other expert observations.
Well I agree some what to what the writer says. However I feel that he has left out the influence of Iran. What will the US think of Iran playing an active role in Sri Lanka? However one other point is the writer thinks that America will only intervene on humanitarian grounds. The democrats have already signalled they won’t look at all terrorists the same way. The bush paradigm of the war on terror has actually left them with a disadvantage. Will they not support some terrorists to achieve there objectives? I think they will. What’s to say they wont help the LTTE? When the Sri Lankan state gravitates towards China Iran what better way than directly interveing in small island with little economic resources (read oil) than to help the insurgents to topple the government? What’s does the writer think of this angle?
An extremely well written thesis. Chitiral has meticulously researched all aspects and the conclusions are derived well.
Unfortunately, for the 3 millions Tamils in Srilanka, time is not on their side. If a Sinhalese like Dayan Jayatileke, who is considered moderate Sinhala, take offense to Chitiral’s paper, then there is no rational to expect the Sinhalese to provide maximum devolution within a “unitary” (sic) Srilankan state.
The only portion that Chitiral has not covered adequately well is the global impact of the onslaught and abuse against the minority Tamils.
Tamil Nadu’s leadership is senile and as such lacks voice and action. Were this to change, then the dynamics will shift and there will be turbulance both in Tamil Nadu and in Delhi.
As Chitiral points out, in 6 months or in 12 months, there will be fresh initiatives, and Indian foreign policy may take an about turn for the better in Srilanka.
Is Lanka China’s Georgia?
I believe that “Hitler’s Germany” then is similar to “Mahinda’s Sri Lanka” today!
Cellular services were suspended sometime back in Jaffna by the SLA.
Today Tamil telephone users at all Communication Centers in Jaffna have to complete a form issued by SLA before they take foreign calls.
Hitler forced the Jews to wear the ‘Star of David’ on their arms to identify them as Jews!
Now the GOSL has forced Tamil residents in Jaffna to carry a special document of identification issued by security forces, in addition to the national identity card provided by the Emigration and Immigration Department.
A few days back, Tamils in Colombo had to line up to register – a policy with extremely nasty Hitlerian overtones. What next? Concentration camps?
The chauvinist grand-standing of this Sri Lankan government, like others in the past, only manages to hoodwink the majority (aka ‘Buddhimath Janathaawa).
If power is not divided amongst the minorities, the divisions will continue and the enmity will also continue for another generation or more!
I think it was Voltaire who said, “As long as people believe in absurdities, they will continue to commit atrocities.” And this just what has been happening during the past 60 odd years in Sri Lanka!
Well presented. Three line approach becomes two now. If mahinda leans towards china , then there will be a dramatic change in the SL . Until then,there is no direct intervention from us-india at all. . Until mahinda regime capture the north, they will keep on playing with US-INDIA and CHINA. Once they achieve their goal , then they will join hand with China. Because China never advice SL govn. on human rights issue or devolution proposals.
I would have titled the article ‘ Is Sri Lanka India’s Georgia?, the difference being that Russia took decisive action to safeguard it’s interests.
do you know, Srilanka,China, Iran,Pakistan,Burma,Afthgan never respect human but respects politicians who can kill the minorities. China is playing a dirty game
against india with help of srilanka this will be the on of srilankan dirty ploitics.
one day UN should send their Troops to protect the Tamils.
Does SL have delusions of granduer or what? The US has zero interests in intervening our SL affairs. The question SL shld ask, is do we want to associate with countries like China and Iran? All around the world people see the iron-fisted way they deal with THEIR OWN PEOPLE. Sure, in the short term we get some benefits but are we selling out our souls in the long term? Shldn’t we strive for dignity and integrity over a material benefit of an infrastructure project, etc? As for me, I’d rather eat bread crumbs falling to the ground then dine on steak at the table with these rogue nations. Think, listen, and discern- for the long term…
A lot of geopolitics in this article, but little relevance to SL. If you take a closer look at this article, ***there is only one paragraph in this entire piece that discusses Sri Lanka.*** It would’ve been nice if the author at least had even a little bit to say about those Indian technicians who were wounded by the recent TAF attack.
It is evident that US and India are moving together due to 1) war on Islamist terrorism and 2) China. But it is quite a separate thing to argue that either country will want to heavily engage in SL. Lover of Serendipity is quite correct about “delusions of grandeur” in this article. The author makes an extremely vague reference to a joint platform based on human rights and counter-terrorism, apparently not grasping the vast contradictions/conflicts of interests between the two. After the IPKF experience, the Indians will not get involved in a situation where its interests are not clearly defined.
The Indians know that despite their loathing of the LTTE, they don’t have the resources or political will to militarily support SL as China can, and therefore Chinese influence will only increase as this war continues. Barring some senile ex-RAW fossils who want to reconciliate with the killers of their Prime Minister, most Indians understand that their interests thus lie in a quicker defeat of the LTTE. With the LTTE gone, the Indians can engage with alternative Tamil leaders who will eventually emerge to fill the void.
My advice to the author is to take some time away from Geostrategy 101 towards specifically examining current Indo-Lanka relations and where they’re going.
While the writer provides an enlightening analysis of the changing world order, and poses the likelihood of US-India nexus intervening in Sri Lanka should the war extends into 2009 (objectively analysed the war will extend), he has not contrasted the differences between internal conditions that led to failure in the 1987 IPKF intervention, and the conditions likely to prevail in the future that will prompt another intervention. DJ’s contention of Sri Lanka successfully withstood the earlier intervention, however, does not hold water in analysing future prospects of similar intervention, as the IPKF failure was mainly due to strange coincidence of circumstances where arch-enemies joined hands to make the Indian intervention unviable. Sri Lanka, measured in any metric, is taking a trajectory downhill, in HR aspects, governance, break-down of democratic institutions etc., lawlessness, suppression of press freedom etc., so that a future intervention is entirely plausible, provided the interventionists do not provide a space for the GoSL-LTTE nexus again.
Ok first of all, US does not give a damn about Sri Lanka – unless we discover vast amounts of oil resources which I highly doubt. Even then believe me India will jump before US can mobilise troops. Don’t you remember how excited India got when they heard about potential oil sites off the coast of Sri Lanka? They were salivating..
Lover of Serendipity, if you think we should side our selves with US as opposed to China or Iran then think twice. Not with the current administration anyway or with MacCain/Paulin (what a joke!). Don’t even get me started on US dignity. Bush lost it all and MacCain can only run around naked!
I can only think of a world war situation where Sri Lanka will be occupied or leased for bases like during the last world wars when allies set camp. Other than that World super powers got other things to worry about.
Sri Lanka must have free hand to sort its own problems out. When it comes to LTTE, it must have the power and rights to destroy LTTE without any concer of human rights. LTTE does not protect human rights, then SL should not care about it, even if the theory says. All those theories come form west, not form asia. In a trouble time, SL must take bold step to eliminate LTTE. If it does not it would be fail state. This is what west expecting for.
Sri Lanka lost the seat in the human right council. It should be a shame. Even US, England, the breachers of human rights in way of iraq war may be still there. If they are there you can understand which kind of countries and the people are behind the curtain those control the system.
china is our neighbour. Why should not we happy if our neighbour prosper. Sri Lankan can trust more thana than indian.
SL should not worry about western isolation. We have now powerful neighbours. They mean by isolation the fact that SL does not get foreign technology .. But china and other friends are very much advanced in technology. We can get it. We must also build our own technology base.
I see people are dreaming on a US-india intervention. If you really believe these guys can do things together, the decades old civil war would have ended long time ago. In the mean time, thousands people have died, but may I ask the people here that who cares. OK, if nobody cares, let’s play a game. Now, with China’s help, the tamil is quashed. If this is a playoff game, China won game 1, got the home court advangtage. Let’s see if the US-India can regroup and actually do something, at least make it a close one. Keep all your fingers crossed, it may stay that way for a long long time.
Srilanka needs to patch up with the tamils.China will not help India is a better bet
If USA or UK help any country there is a ugly condition in there mind.But china,Russia and Iran never get there hands into other countries internal matters .So there is no matter if Sri Lanka seek their help.India always watching Sri Lankas actions closely but they have right to do that as their neighbor.Sri Lanka always respects their friends but not for imperialists like USA and UK.
India should really careful about USA.They can do anything to ensure their power.Remember they used atomic bombs to win world war two what is most cruel crime in human history(and they still proud about it).If there will be a world war three USA will be the first to use nuclear weapons.Sri Lanka should continue their non-aligned policy.