The Quad-China rivalry and the ‘scramble’ for the Indo-Pacific region have made the region, especially South Asia, geopolitically significant in a matter of a few years. For the last two decades, the region had the least priority in US foreign policy as it was busy with its costly Middle East policy. But after the rise of China, the region has become important to US foreign policy in order to ‘contain’ China.
While the region is drawing US attention, South Asian politics is traditionally characterized by the Sino-Indian and Indo-Pak rivalries. Other small states, including Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Bhutan rely on peaceful and balanced policies to navigate their foreign relations. These small states used Sino-Indian rivalry to create their space and refrained from picking any sides by following a strategy of hedging and balancing. But as geopolitics is intensifying in the context of the Quad-China stalemate, great powers are now expecting them to clear their stance, undermining the foreign policy autonomy of these states. Apart from the foreign policy aspect, the impacts of the Great power rivalry also largely affect these states in many various areas, including economic, trade, and development.
Impact of the Superpower Rivalry in Regional Politics
As mentioned previously, South Asian states use hedging and balancing between India and China without picking sides. But the growing US interest in creating a new dimension where states find it difficult to align their strategy and national interest accordingly exists. While many take the Quad as a binary opposite of China, they seem to not consider regional politics.
The Chinese stake in South Asian politics allows the states to balance India’s regional hegemony. The US Indo-Pacific Strategy (IPS) also includes empowering India- the powerhouse in this region. So, alliance building with the Quad and supporting an ‘empowered’ India, which also means rejecting China- shrinks the space for regional politics for these states. The same also goes for joining the Chinese side. These countries maintain excellent bilateral relations with China and most of the Quad members, especially with Japan- one of this region’s largest development partners.
Moreover, these states are no match in terms of military strength compared to the USA, India, Pakistan, and China. According to the Military Strength Ranking 2022, the USA, China, India, and Pakistan are ranked consecutively at 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 9th, while Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, and Bhutan are ranked consecutively at 46th, 79th, 119th, and 140th. These states also do not have aggressive militaristic ambitions and have no intentions of joining the superpower rivalries.
For maritime security, they rely on multilateral forums. The revival of the Colombo Security Conclave (CSC) and active participation in the Indian Ocean Rim Association (IORA) bear such testimony. But in the current reality, great powers are pursuing them for their interests. While China is using its ‘Charm Offensive‘, the US and its allies are flexing their structural and soft power to pursue these states. And between these choices, the states are finding themselves in a dilemmatic position where the autonomy and ambition of the foreign powers are at stake due to their complex interdependence upon the great powers and the logic of the regional politics.
Economic Impact
Apart from political impact, the rivalries are also bringing economic effects on these least developed and transitioning states. In the age of globalization, every action has a ripple effect on the global economy. The rivalries and wars are resulting in soaring commodity prices. As the Ukraine crisis is deepening, the cost of energy is skyrocketing. The sanctions on Russia have also created new issues for small states who have bilateral trade and development projects. Again, as Russia and Ukraine are major exporters of Sunflower, Wheat, and Barley, the price of these essential commodities is likely to increase in the coming days. Both Russia and Ukraine have a large export market in South Asia.
However, The China-US trade war has already increased commodity prices, including the price of soybean. The trade war has already disrupted the supply chain and adversely impacted global trade and investment. In a ripple effect, these developments are adversely affecting the everyday lives of ordinary people and are posing a severe threat to food security and global hunger.
The current context reminds us of the famous account of the Melian Debate written by Thucydides. In the history of the Peloponnesian War, the Melian debate revealed how Athenians, owing to their self-interest, trust issues and insecurities, coerced Melos- a small neutral island to join their quest against the Spartans. And later, through the writing of Thucydides, we know the fateful end of the Melos- who wished to remain neutral, at the hands of the Athenians. It seems that currently, a ‘New Melian Debate’ is going on, where like the olden times, great powers are trying to ensure small powers allegiance towards them by using their coercive power while undermining their foreign policy autonomy, national interest and self-determination.
In conclusion, it seems that amid this heated geopolitics, small South Asian states are finding it challenging to navigate their neutral foreign policy in the absence of a Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) and effective multilateralism. To mitigate the pressure, countries that wish to maintain neutrality should come together and promote a multilateral approach to ensure their security and development. A forum like NAM might also help these states. And lastly, in the era of unprecedented interconnectedness and complex interdependence, great powers should accommodate these states’ imperatives and peoples. They should have a benign perspective while dealing with small powers.
*The writer is an aspiring author and analyst focusing on Political Economy. He has completed his B.S.S in International Relations from University of Dhaka. He has also completed his M.S.S from same department.
March 15, 2022
The viewpoints expressed by the authors do not necessarily reflect the opinions, viewpoints and editorial policies of Aequitas Review.
