The lost cause of Southern solidarity

It is all too obvious from the recent UN Human Rights Council vote on its latest resolution on Sri Lanka aimed at promoting war crimes accountability, reconciliation and other undertakings in the country, that Sri Lanka cannot expect countries of the South to back it unitedly and without reservations on these questions. This is a principal, thought-provoking message from Geneva.

Countries such as Sri Lanka cannot apparently expect such support merely by virtue of their formal identity as developing countries or on the basis of their belonging to the global South, in terms of geographical location or other hitherto accepted criteria.

A close examination of how Southern countries voted or abstained from doing so on the resolution ought to bear this out. As is clear, only seven out of the 22 countries that voted for the resolution are of the West European group of countries. Many of the rest of the countries represent regions outside the Western hemisphere. More significantly, the majority of countries from the African and Asian groups voted for the resolution or abstained from voting. These are just two examples of the non-existence of an undifferentiated Southern bloc, so to speak.

In a sense Sri Lanka was orphaned at the vote considering its post-independence history of generally championing the cause of the South with marked zeal. After all, Sri Lanka’s rulers never fight shy of claiming that the country’s foreign policy remains anchored in Non-alignment, for example. In fact, Sri Lanka is a founding member of NAM. But collective Southern backing for Sri Lanka over the resolution in question titled, ‘Promoting reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka’ was never to be.

Among other things, this glaring deficit in backing for Sri Lanka ought to engross all sections concerned with the more important issues of the South. While in the sixties and seventies, for instance, a considerable degree of Southern solidarity could have been taken for granted in issue areas of the foregoing kind, such certainty is no longer possible.

It goes without saying that even in the early decades of NAM almost all major Southern countries were anything but Non-aligned, considering their then obvious alignment with either of the super powers. This tendency has lent itself to amused and ironic comment over the years.

However, widespread backing for a small state seemingly victimized by the West, in those early years of NAM, could have been generally expected to be forthcoming from the majority of Southern states, since the then USSR could have been depended upon to side with the country concerned in the latter’s squabbles with the West. If the vote in question was taken in the early decades of NAM, for instance, the majority of African and Asian countries would have been with Sri Lanka.

But, needless to say, the heyday of NAM has come and gone, while it is quite some time since the international political and economic order has changed almost beyond recognition. For example, the USSR is a thing of the past and the Cold War too is no more. The observer would need to focus on current complexities in international politics and economics to sufficiently understand Sri Lanka’s recent near abandonment by a considerable number of Southern states in the UNHRC. There is more than meets the eye here.

The stark reality is that there is no absolutely homogeneous and unchanging collectivity today that could be described as the global South. If at all there is one, it is dynamically changing in respect of the politics engaged in by its member countries internationally and by virtue of their economic policies. This was seen anew when the recent vote on Sri Lanka was taken in Geneva.

Whereas in the decades past, the South was more or less undifferentiated in respect of economic standing, this is not so today. There are wide income disparities among these countries currently, since most of them are tied-up with the global economy and are steeped in market economics. ‘Closed economies’, generally associated with the former socialist bloc, are no more. For example, India and quite a few countries of the Asia-Pacific region are economic power houses in their own right and could stand-up, in economic terms, to any Western country seen as vibrant and strong.

While China could be described as socialist with reservations, many of its neighbours in East Asia, such as, Vietnam, Cambodia and Mongolia, which essentially went the socialist way in former times are today noted for their relatively liberal economic policies and material vibrancy. They too are fast catching-up with the West in terms of economic dynamism. Correspondingly, their populations enjoy better standards of living and are no longer wilting in crippling poverty, although the latter problem has not been completely wiped out from the regions concerned.

The same goes for many of the regions that were described formerly as belonging to the South. Since ‘economic condition determines consciousness’ the majority of Southern countries today, whether they be in Asia, Africa, Latin America or the Caribbean, are likely to shun the idea of belonging to the global South, with all its former negative connotations of being the deprived, run-down and powerless half of the world.

Accordingly, those countries of the South who see themselves as being victimized by the West need to think twice and more before counting on the majority of today’s seeming developing countries for their continued political support in their feuds with the West. This accounts in the main for Sri Lanka’s UNHRC setbacks.

Right now, Sri Lanka could be said to be ‘on the wrong side of history’. Its former support base, the South block, lies disintegrated. It has no firm supporters among the major powers, except for China and Russia. But it is open to question whether the latter could be indefinitely depended upon for their economic and political support.

For instance, it is thought-provoking that China is yet to pledge its support for a recently mooted international treaty pertaining to pandemic preparedness. The latter development is a pointer to China’s continuing adherence to a spirit of economic pragmatism, which could result in it carefully considering the cost-effectiveness of international financial commitments. Countries such as Sri Lanka should increasingly think in terms of relatively independent, self-sustaining development, since major external backers could not be relied on indefinitely. That’s the path taken by the majority of countries of the erstwhile South.