Another day, another report from a Western capital, this time London, dissecting the intricate dance of international relations. The Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China (Ipac), described as an "international grouping of China-sceptic legislators," has released an audit lamenting the UK's "incoherent" approach to Beijing, warning of risks and a lack of expertise. One might be tempted to sigh, to nod along with the familiar refrain of strategic blunders and missed opportunities. But here, from where the sun truly warms the earth, the language of "incoherence" and "expertise" feels tragically detached from the very human consequences of these geopolitical machinations.
When those in power speak of "risks inherent in misjudging a bilateral relationship," what do they really mean for the people whose lives are shaped by these high-stakes decisions? For too long, the Global South has been a silent arena where these grand strategic narratives play out, often with devastating results for local communities. While London, Washington, or Brussels debate the finer points of engagement versus confrontation with China, communities in countries like Zambia, Ecuador, or Laos live with the tangible impacts of large-scale infrastructure projects, resource extraction deals, and shifting allegiances. These aren't abstract risks; they are the loss of ancestral lands, the pollution of vital waterways, the burden of unsustainable debt.
The Ipac report suggests that past engagement with Beijing has exposed the UK to "risks of interference without delivering the opportunities promised." This phrase, "opportunities promised," rings particularly hollow for those who have seen their national resources traded for fleeting investments that leave little lasting benefit for the common citizen. It is a familiar pattern: promises of development, jobs, and prosperity, often underwritten by loans that ultimately indenture entire nations. Who was consulted when these "opportunities" were being negotiated? Were the farmers, the fisherfolk, the small business owners, whose lives would be irrevocably altered, ever at the table? More often than not, their voices are drowned out by the clamour of economic forecasts and geopolitical anxieties.
The "lack of senior expertise" in dealing with China, as the report claims, is a telling indictment. But whose expertise are we talking about? Is it the deep understanding of the historical and cultural nuances of the regions where China’s influence is growing? Or is it the expertise to simply outmaneuver a rival on the global chessboard, without much thought for the pieces being moved – the people of the Global South? True expertise, one might argue, would involve a profound empathy for the human cost of these strategies, an understanding that every loan, every trade deal, every political alignment has a ripple effect on the ground.
Consider the ongoing debt crisis gripping many nations. Much of this debt is owed to Western lenders, but Chinese financing has also become a significant factor. When major powers like the UK and China spar over influence, the countries in the middle often find themselves caught in a vice. They are pressured to align, to choose sides, sometimes at the expense of their own long-term development goals. Their agency is often reduced, their options limited, as they navigate the competing demands of powerful global actors who are, in essence, battling for strategic advantage.
The narrative of "incoherence" often masks a deeper moral failing: a consistent tendency to prioritize strategic advantage and economic gain over the well-being of the most vulnerable. While the UK worries about its own coherence, we in the Global South watch as promises of aid and investment from both sides of the geopolitical divide often fall short, or worse, exacerbate existing inequalities. The communities I speak with aren't concerned with the UK's internal diplomatic strategy; they are concerned with clean water, fair wages, accessible healthcare, and the right to self-determination, free from the heavy hand of external powers.
Perhaps the "incoherence" isn't a lack of a single, unified strategy, but rather a profound incoherence in moral compass. When the concerns of parliamentary alliances overshadow the lived realities of millions, when "national interest" is defined without accounting for its global impact, then any strategy, no matter how 'coherent' it purports to be, will ultimately fail the people it claims to serve. It's time for these conversations to shift from the sterile halls of power to the vibrant, often struggling, communities that bear the true cost of these geopolitical games. The Global South is not a battleground for others' strategic advantage; it is home to people, and their dignity must be paramount.