China’s ambitious Belt and Road Initiative sets the bar high. It strives to connect Asia, Africa and Europe with the aim of achieving mutual development. Sri Lanka, with its valuable position in the heart of the Indian Ocean, is a crucial participant in Beijing’s newest endeavor.
But China-Sri Lanka ties seemed to reach a low point when in January 2017 violent protests erupted in which people expressed opposition to an industrial zone project funded by Beijing. This turbulent and unpredictable bilateral engagement provides China a valuable lesson for building the Belt and Road.
China tries its best to convince the rest of the world that it is a fundamentally different kind of great power. This idea is partly underpinned by the ‘Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence’ that guided China’s post-1949 foreign policy. One of the core concepts of this engagement is non-interference with other countries’ internal affairs. A further pillar of China’s self-perception of being a benign great power is ‘win-win’ cooperation that is beneficial for all partners.
An archetypical manifestation of this thinking is the Belt and Road. China’s proposal entails deepened financial, political, infrastructural, commercial and cultural ties between Beijing and the more than 60 other participants. The main idea is that China shares the fruit of its development for the sake of mutual progress. According to the official narrative, the project is not a geopolitical tool to extend Beijing’s influence. Everybody is a winner under the novel cooperation framework.
Against this background, it is hard to believe that anything could go wrong. Yet in Sri Lanka — one of China’s flagship participants — public discontent erupted in a violent protest. The case of Sino-Sri Lankan relations proves that if non-interference equates to an ignorance of domestic dynamics, then China’s hands-off foreign policy can cause more harm than good.
In order to make sense of the recent developments in bilateral ties, one has to take a step back and look at the aftermath of the nearly three decades long Eelam War. The bloody conflict left Sri Lanka in ruins, forcing the little island nation to rely on external actors to rebuild itself. Sri Lanka’s post-civil war history has been chiefly shaped by the duality of the Beijing and Washington Consensus. While Washington’s helping hand comes with rigid conditionality, Chinese aid and investments seem to come with no strings attached.
In 2009, the civil war came to a brutal end at the hands of Mahinda Rajapaksa, who subsequently became the subject of allegations of human rights violations, corruption and nepotism. Given its dubious reputation, the Rajapaksa regime quickly ran out of friends and the Beijing Consensus was a convenient and reliable source of funds. China-Sri Lanka relations reached new heights. Chinese signature projects such as the Mattala airport, Hambantota port and Colombo port city were built with billions of dollars of Chinese funds.
This engagement, also known as the Colombo Consensus, was indeed a win-win cooperation. Rajapaksa could rely on the steady flow of Chinese money to solidify his power and Beijing gained access to one of the most valuable geostrategic positions in the Indian Ocean.
All of this led observers to believe that Rajapaksa had cemented his power for a very long time to come. Yet such assumptions proved wrong. In a surprising triumph of democracy, Maithripala Sirisena, a former ally of Rajapaksa, gained power in January 2015. The novel leader’s promises included a revision of ill-famed Chinese projects, including the Colombo Port City, a massive initiative costing more than a billion dollars.
But it is hard to keep such promises once one is bound by legal contracts. Sri Lankan debt exceeds US$60 billion, more than 10% of it owed to the Chinese. Beijing was irked by the new government’s attitude and played hard during negotiations over the Hambantota Port project, squeezing out a deal that would have given China Merchants Port Holdings 80% of the stakes in the project and control over the adjacent industrial zone covering 6,000 hectares of land.
Now Beijing’s strongman approach has backfired. The new conditions of the Hambantota project met strong opposition from the Sri Lankan public. As a result, new negotiations started that decreased China’s stake by approximately 20%.
The case of Sri Lanka leaves Beijing with one key takeaway that is worth pondering as it embarks on an initiative that covers the majority of the planet. While there is nothing wrong with the idea of not meddling with other countries’ internal affairs, it does not mean that Beijing should be insensitive toward the domestic dynamics of its partners. Simply channeling exorbitant amounts of money into other countries is not going to be enough for realizing the New Silk Roads. The implementation of the initiative calls for something more — understanding and adapting to the internal processes of participants.
Beijing has already burnt itself in Myanmar, Thailand and Laos, where the public is becoming hostile to Chinese projects. Like a chain, the Belt and Road is as strong as its weakest link and public perceptions toward China can become an existential issue for Beijing’s ambitious initiative.
Dániel Balázs is a recent graduate of International Relations at Tongji University in Shanghai. The views expressed are his own and do not represent the views of his affiliated institution.
The article first appeared on East Asia Forum. Read it here.
It was not a free money deal. It was a trade deal, which is why Beijing played hard during negotiations over the Hambantota Port project, squeezing out a deal that would have given China Merchants Port Holdings 80% of the stakes in the project and control over the adjacent industrial zone covering 6,000 hectares of land.
That was the only way they could earn back their investment and, incidentally, that’s how they pay for their infrastructure back in China, too. Unlike som the Chinese government is not in the business of wasting its people’s money.
No matter how good a project is in any developing country, US government agencies like VOA, RFA, and many more of their so called NGO will pay people to sabotage it if it involve Chinese money and leadership. This is not going to change. Both side are hardened to carry on to the end. History book will tell our children the truth. By the way, just looked at 3 to 4 years old RFA and VOA and their NGOs comments on all the projects in Myanmar, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Thailand, laos, Cambodia, Pakistan Sri Lanka, even in Africa will reveal how upset and mischievous those reports are. But what do we expect? Even their commander in chief at that time Hillary Clinton and Obama spent lots of effort warning Africa to avoid Chinese investment to avoid being colonized by Chinese in this 21st century.
Er, this article is by a graduate in International Relations from a Chinese university. Perhaps you could address it?
This shows that most of the countries are still not believing in China. They can do anything within China but they should know that it is a different ball game with other countries that are democratic. USA thinks only about money and power but others are different, and have to convince their people.
Do you know the number of "ghost cities: they have built ?? Do you know the trillions of US$ spent on internal security in the last 25 years ??China, I dare say, allocates capital very inefficiently.
It is the Sri Lankan government that signed and is responsible in providing the conditions for the projects completion. Beijing should not have to deal with domestic affairs of Sri Lanka.
Why don’t you stick to the issue raised in the article and not muddy the water for once?
Carlos De Souza Do you understand economy of scale? When you build a bridge, airport, etc you design it for 25 years life ie the capacity suit the demand 25 years later!
China applies this principle to urbanization and the people benefit from the reduced construction costs. Do not be naive and swallow the propaganda of western media brats and lies. Most of the people in China have decent housing now with services including internet.
CHINA;S SILK AND BELT ROAD HAS NO DIFFEENCE TO THEIR MARITIME SILK ROAD THAT CREATE DISPUTES OVER THEIR SMALL NEIGHBORING CONTRIES IN SCS AND ECS WHEREIN LOT’S OF THEM ECPERIENCED BULLYING FROM CHINA’S TYRANT PLA.THEY STEALING THE FONOP AND CLAIMING ALL PART OF THE SEA UP TO THE SHORELINE OF EVERY CLAIMANTS COUNTRIES OF THEIR SOVERIEGN TERRITORIAL RIGHTS.ONE THING MORE THE SO CALLED CREATION OF THE SILK AND BELT ROAD IS A VIOLATION OF EVERY COUNTRIES SOVERIEGN TERRITORIES PLAYING CHINA’S AMBITIOUS AS A TROJAN HORSE.IT IS BENIFICIAL TO CHINA AND A BURDEN AND LIABILITIES TO OTHERS IN THE REGION.DON’T GET DECEIVE BY CHINA’S GENEROSITY AND PLAYING LIKE A GOOD SAMARITAN.THEY ARE ALL TRAITORS AND ECONOMY MANIPULATOR.A TRANS–TRANSGRESSOR!