Role of history and ideology in shaping China’s geopolitical strategies and influence on Sri Lanka

Dr. Patrick Mendis and Dr. Antonina Łuszczykiewicz-Mendis offer an in-depth analysis of China’s ‘Dragon and Phoenix’ strategy, highlighting how Beijing blends assertive geopolitical moves with culturally-driven diplomacy to expand its global influence. They discuss how this dual approach is shaping the ongoing US-China rivalry, particularly in the strategic Indian Ocean region, and its potential implications for Sri Lanka.

By Michelle Therese Alles

Q:  In your article on China’s ‘Dragon and Phoenix’ strategy, you describe the ‘Dragon’ as representing China’s more assertive, forceful actions, while the ‘Phoenix’ symbolises its softer, culturally-focused diplomacy. Could you elaborate on how these two aspects work together to enhance China’s global influence?

Dr. Mendis: In our article, we aimed to capture how China perceives itself and projects its strategy to the world in a very subtle, often secretive manner. To effectively explain this, we chose to use a Chinese metaphor—the Dragon and Phoenix.

China’s strategy can be understood as twofold. The ‘Dragon’ represents the maritime power, rooted in the historical Ming Dynasty and Admiral Cheng Ho’s expeditions. The Blue Dragon symbolises China’s naval presence, tracing routes from the South China Sea through the Indian Ocean to the eastern coast of Africa. This reflects China’s strategic influence over these waters, which they historically referred to as the ‘Western Ocean’ rather than the Indian Ocean.

The ‘Phoenix’, on the other hand, represents China’s advances in technology and space, akin to the American Eagle in symbolism. This metaphor embodies China’s power in cyberspace, space exploration, and cutting-edge technologies like supersonic capabilities and lunar exploration. The Phoenix signifies China’s aspirations to dominate in these high-tech arenas, complementing the Dragon’s dominance over the seas.

By using these metaphors, we hoped to make it easier for a non-Chinese audience to grasp the complexities of China’s strategy and mindset, particularly within the larger context of President Xi Jinping’s vision for the rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. Dr. Antonina can further elaborate on these aspects and offer additional perspectives.

Dr. Łuszczykiewicz-Mendis: In our analysis, we used the metaphors of the Dragon and Phoenix to capture the essence of China’s strategic approach. Historically, these mythological symbols were reserved for the Chinese elite and were deeply intertwined with imperial power. While European dragons are often depicted as fire-breathing and menacing, Chinese dragons are associated with water and are generally seen as benevolent. We chose the Dragon to represent China’s maritime expansion due to its association with water in Chinese mythology, though it’s worth noting that the nature of this ‘Dragon’—peaceful or otherwise—is open to interpretation.

Our strategy also includes China’s control over rivers and lakes. China has invested heavily in dam construction along rivers that originate in Tibet and flow through countries such as India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Southeast Asia. These dams not only provide crucial energy but also allow China to exert significant influence over downstream countries. For instance, in 2020 and 2021, China’s decision to alter water flow from dams on the Mekong River caused severe agricultural and transportation disruptions in neighbouring countries.

This control over water resources is becoming increasingly critical, especially given the rising impacts of climate change, including more frequent and severe droughts and floods. We argue that China’s strategy extends beyond its border conflicts with India, particularly in the Himalayas. The ‘String of Pearls’ theory, while not officially acknowledged by China, suggests a network of strategic economic alliances around the Indian Ocean, with India being a notable exception.

Looking forward, water may become a more pivotal geopolitical tool than oil or other resources, shaping the political and economic landscape of South and Southeast Asia in the coming decades.

Q:  Dr. Mendis, in your analysis, you refer to Taiwan and Sri Lanka as two ‘unsinkable aircraft carriers’. Could you elaborate on what you mean by this comparison?

A: We used the metaphor of ‘unsinkable aircraft carriers’ to describe Taiwan and Sri Lanka, drawing from General Douglas MacArthur’s post-World War II concept. MacArthur referred to Taiwan as an ‘unsinkable aircraft carrier’ due to its strategic importance in countering the spread of Communism in Southeast Asia. The idea was that Taiwan, as a land-based fortress, was crucial for American military strategy and regional stability.

Similarly, we argue that Sri Lanka is now an ‘unsinkable aircraft carrier’ for China. Just as Taiwan’s strategic position was vital for the United States, Sri Lanka’s geographic location and its infrastructure investments, like Hambantota Port and Colombo Port City, are pivotal for China’s maritime strategy. These developments grant China significant control over key trade routes and military logistics in the Indian Ocean.

China’s investments in Sri Lanka are designed to enhance its influence, similar to how the U.S. viewed Taiwan’s role in the Pacific. By securing long-term leases and building strategic assets, China has effectively positioned Sri Lanka as a critical point in its broader Indo-Pacific strategy.

In essence, Taiwan and Sri Lanka serve as strategic anchors for their respective powers—Taiwan for the US and Sri Lanka for China—illustrating how each superpower leverages these ‘unsinkable aircraft carriers’ to advance its geopolitical objectives. This comparison highlights the ongoing rivalry in the Indo-Pacific region, where control over maritime and strategic locations remains a key element of global power dynamics.

Q: You’ve thoroughly addressed the financial and strategic aspects of this situation. Can we deep dive into how historical, cultural, and ideological factors influence China’s geopolitical strategies, particularly in its relationships with India and the United States?

Dr. Mendis: When we examine China’s geopolitical strategies, it’s essential to understand them through the lens of their historical, cultural, and ideological evolution. China has a long history of dynasties—each rising and falling roughly every 200-300 years. Two of these dynasties, the Yuan (Mongolian) and the Qing (Manchurian), were not ethnically Han Chinese, which has instilled in China a deep-seated fear of foreign invasion and control. This fear is further amplified by the collective memory of the ‘century of humiliation’ at the hands of Western powers and Japan. Today, China sees itself as a resurgent power, determined not to be subjugated again, and this ambition is deeply rooted in its cultural and historical consciousness.

Culturally, China’s approach is influenced by its dynastic history, but it is now embodied in what they call the ‘civilisational state.’ This concept combines the legacy of these dynasties with the autocratic rule of the Communist Party. Unlike the Soviet model, China’s version of communism is uniquely Chinese, blending Marxism with Chinese characteristics. This civilisational state continues to act like an ancient dynasty but within a modern context.

In contrast, countries like India and Sri Lanka have different civilisational backgrounds, and the United States represents an entirely different ideology. The US was founded on the principles of individual liberty and democracy, created by enlightened founding fathers as a new nation where freedom is paramount. In America, the focus is on individual freedom—the idea that every person has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, independent of government control. This is fundamentally different from China, where the ‘Chinese Dream’ is about the collective happiness of the Communist Party, not the people.

This ideological divide—between the autocracy of China’s civilisational state and the democracy of the United States—represents the core of the geopolitical rivalry. China, through its Communist Party, dictates the lives of its people, while in the US, the government cannot infringe on individual freedoms. This ideological clash is evident in their foreign policies and international relations, particularly in how they approach global issues like human rights and governance.

Dr. Łuszczykiewicz-Mendis: From my perspective, the concept of a civilisational state might seem appealing at first, but it often results in a selective vision of what constitutes a civilisation. In China, for example, the official narrative emphasises Confucianism and communism, while excluding the contributions of millions of Muslims, Christians, and foreigners who have lived in the country. This exclusion isn’t just a historical issue; it’s ongoing. I’ve seen this firsthand in places like Harbin, where the contributions of foreigners to the city’s history are being erased.

Moreover, China’s interpretation of human rights aligns with its civilisational thinking, which diverges significantly from the universal standards promoted by Western democracies and the United Nations. What’s concerning is that China isn’t just defending its approach; it’s actively trying to impose its vision on the international stage, particularly through institutions like the UN.

This clash of ideologies—between China’s civilisational state and the democratic ideals of countries like the US—is a central element of the ongoing global rivalry.

Q: What guidance would you offer Sri Lankan policymakers navigating the complexities of the Sino-American rivalry?

Dr. Mendis: The root of Sri Lanka’s challenges lies in the prioritisation of private interests over national ones. Many families have become millionaires and billionaires, stashing their wealth abroad while the average Sri Lankan bears the burden of national debt. This situation could improve if national interests were put before personal enrichment.

Sri Lanka is not an isolated island—it has always been connected, whether to China, Europe, or the broader world, through trade and diplomacy. The country’s rich history of engagement, from the visits of Chinese monks like Faxian to the arrival of European traders, shows that trade has always been central to Sri Lanka’s prosperity. Even today, the country’s economy is deeply tied to Western markets, with exports, tourism, and remittances from the Middle East being major income sources.

My advice to Sri Lankan policymakers is simple: don’t blame other countries for your problems. Instead, tap into the resources and talents available within your own land. Embrace the spirit of trade, which has historically brought prosperity to the island. Let Sri Lanka be Sri Lanka—there’s no need to emulate Singapore or Dubai. The country has its own strengths, and by focusing on these, it can chart a path to success.

Moreover, Sri Lanka’s best and brightest are not just within its borders but scattered across the globe, eager to contribute. Leaders should reach out and leverage this talent. As I recently discussed with Sri Lankan diplomats, including Ambassador Mahinda Samarasinghe, there are brilliant minds in Sri Lanka and abroad who can help the country navigate its challenges. The key is to stop blaming external factors and start harnessing the internal and global resources that are readily available.

Dr. Łuszczykiewicz-Mendis: Drawing from the Polish experience and my time in Taiwan, it’s evident that there are no shortcuts to achieving prosperity. No nation—be it China, India, or the United States—will transform your economic landscape overnight through investments. Both Poland and Taiwan serve as examples that the path to stability and welfare is a long one, necessitating a series of comprehensive reforms and adjustments. However, with perseverance, success is attainable.

Taiwan, for instance, started as an autocratic country and has transformed into one of the Asian Tigers. Today, it’s not only a very prosperous nation but also, according to various surveys, the 10th most stable and strongest democracy in the world, and the number one democracy in Asia. Poland, on the other hand, transitioned from communism in 1989 to democracy. It has taken over 30 years to begin catching up with the rest of Western Europe, and while there’s still a long way to go, we have democracy, rule of law, respect for human rights, and, importantly, optimism.

Stability, freedom, and democracy offer a promise of a better, safer, and more stable future for individuals and their families. In contrast, totalitarian regimes may provide rapid economic growth or significant investments but often lack the essential protections of democratic systems. In such regimes, if personal issues arise, individuals may face a lack of access to justice, an absence of independent courts, and a diminished ability to voice their concerns, leaving them with little recourse or protection.

Democracies give you a voice, a chance to seek justice if needed. While it might sound trivial, especially when basic needs like food are the priority, it’s crucial not to be swayed by populist or autocratic visions. Let’s cherish democracy. It’s not a perfect system, but it’s the best one humanity has ever devised.