Beyond the Binary: towards a truly independent
and development-based foreign policy
and development-based foreign policy
In the contemporary geopolitical landscape, the rivalry between China and the United States dominates discourse, framing these two nations as adversaries in a quest for global dominance. This binary perspective compels nations, particularly in the Global South, to choose sides, often leading to detrimental consequences. Such framing oversimplifies the complex realities faced by these nations, ultimately hindering their growth and sovereignty. Rather than uplifting developing countries (the "third world" or "global south"), both superpowers exploit these nations for their own ends, perpetuating cycles of dependency and underdevelopment.
The Nature of Imperialism
Lenin’s assertion that “Imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism” remains relevant today. Both the United States and China exhibit behaviors that echo the exploitative characteristics of imperialism. Their strategies often prioritize their own geopolitical and economic interests over the genuine development of other nations. For instance, investments from both powers frequently focus on resource extraction rather than sustainable growth, reinforcing patterns of dependency and underdevelopment.
Furthermore, Stalin’s perspective that “the degree of culture of a nation can be measured by the degree of freedom it has” prompts critical questions regarding the autonomy of developing countries caught in the crossfire of U.S.-China rivalry. The “choices” presented to these nations—be it through Chinese Belt and Road Initiative investments or U.S. aid packages—often come with hidden costs that undermine their sovereignty and agency. Such frameworks compel nations to align with powers that may not have their best interests at heart, resulting in compromised autonomy.
The Cycle of Dependency
Contemporary critiques further illuminate the dangers of the current geopolitical environment. Dambisa Moyo, in her influential work Dead Aid, argues that foreign aid often creates cycles of dependency that inhibit authentic development. She poignantly states, “Aid is just another form of imperialism,” highlighting how the financial assistance offered by Western nations frequently serves the interests of the donor rather than the recipient. This critique is particularly relevant in the context of U.S. policies that prioritize strategic interests over genuine development.
Similarly, journalist and filmmaker John Pilger critiques both China and the U.S. for perpetuating exploitative practices, noting that “the competition for control over resources leads to the same exploitative patterns, regardless of the ideological packaging.” This observation emphasizes that whether under capitalism or communism, the outcomes for developing nations often mirror each other—characterized by resource extraction and insufficient investment in local development and empowerment.
The current geopolitical rift can also be seen through the lens of a growing compulsion among developing countries to align with either the U.S. or China. Both superpowers are actively courting these nations through trade agreements and promises of aid, often framing these offers as pathways to development. However, the reality is that these agreements frequently create dependencies reminiscent of feudal relationships, where developing nations become vassals to their more powerful partners.
Take China’s approach, for instance. While it markets its Belt and Road Initiative as a means of fostering development, critics argue that it often serves to entrench a new form of imperialism. This reality challenges the foundational, proletarian rhetoric once associated with Chinese leadership, suggesting a shift toward a bureaucrat-capitalist model that prioritizes state interests over genuine solidarity with developing nations.
So is the United States, whose aid packages and agreements also perpetuates dependency on the side of developing countries. In June 2021, the G7 countries, leveraging the support of the Biden administration, launched the Build Back Better World, or B3W initiative, an attempt by the US and its allies to counterbalance the China-proposed Belt and Road Initiative. B3W aims to promote infrastructure development in low-and middle-income countries with a focus on sustainability, transparency, and shared economic growth.
For developing countries would say that such approaches sounds enticing despite its possible negative consequences. The Philippines exemplifies this complex scenario. Despite a strong leftist presence that also criticizes China’s imperialistic tendencies as that of the United States, many Filipinos still harbor a lingering affinity for the United States, viewing it as a historical ally despite a legacy marred by colonialism and interventionism, while blaming China for simply "communist" even it is becoming less "communist" and more "capitalist". But China's initiatives also changed impressions amongst Filipinos who ought to look for "alternatives" to US-based dependence regardless of controversies past and recent. This ambivalence can obscure the ongoing realities of dependency and exploitation.
The Call for a genuine independent development-based foreign policy
In light of this context, the call for a “third force” in global politics becomes increasingly vital. This movement aims to establish a coalition of nations that assert their agency while exploring alternatives to the hegemonic practices of China and the United States. Such a coalition would not merely reject the dominance of these two powers; it would actively promote a vision of development grounded in cooperation, mutual respect, and genuine progress.
Countries in the Global South can seize the opportunity to forge new alliances that prioritize their unique needs and aspirations. These partnerships could focus on regional cooperation, sustainable development, and equitable trade practices, breaking free from the patterns of dependency established by both Western and Eastern powers. This aligns with Hoxha’s vision of self-determination, which emphasizes the importance of national sovereignty and development based on local contexts.
Charting a New Path
Lessons from historical critiques of imperialism are pertinent in today’s global landscape. As nations consider their paths forward, they must acknowledge that true growth cannot be realized through exploitation and subjugation. A collaborative approach that values the voices and contributions of developing countries is essential. This reimagining of international relations could facilitate partnerships rooted in respect and mutual benefit, empowering developing nations to chart their own destinies.
To transcend the simplistic binary of U.S. versus China, developing countries must work toward a more equitable and just world order. This requires fostering solidarity among nations and recognizing the inherent power of collective action. The third force can serve as a platform for these countries to advocate for policies that align with their aspirations, ensuring they are not merely pawns in a larger geopolitical game.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the struggle for a third force in global politics is not merely theoretical; it is an urgent necessity. As countries grapple with the implications of aligning with either China or the United States, they must also recognize the transformative power of solidarity among themselves. By cultivating alliances based on mutual respect and shared goals, developing nations can redefine what it means to thrive in the global arena. This movement towards self-determination and sustainable development echoes Hoxha’s call for liberation from imperialist pressures, emphasizing the importance of forging a path that values dignity, autonomy, and collective growth. Ultimately, the creation of a third force could reshape the dynamics of global power, paving the way for a more equitable international order that reflects the true interests of the Global South.