Forum: Differences exist between military intervention and economic engagement
Sign up now: Get ST's newsletters delivered to your inbox
Follow topic:
Great powers rarely act out of altruism. They pursue interests, influence and advantage. The means they choose matter greatly to the smaller nations caught in between.
Military force delivers immediate devastation to those on the receiving end. The Russian invasion of Ukraine has left thousands dead, cities shattered, families displaced and generations scarred. Whatever strategic calculations are invoked, the human cost is undeniable and irreversible.
The US justified its recent military operation in Venezuela in the language of security and law enforcement. But its reliance on force has plunged an already fragile country into deeper uncertainty.
China’s Belt and Road Initiative is no charity; it is strategic, self-interested, and at times poorly executed. Debt risks in countries such as Sri Lanka and Laos are real and deserve scrutiny. Yet roads, ports and power plants do not kill civilians. Loans can be renegotiated. Projects can be corrected.
The distinction in methods matters. Economic engagement by big powers can also be a means of pressure on recipient countries, but leaves room for agency; military intervention leaves behind ruin and rubble.
If the world must live with big power rivalry, it should at least reject the lie that war is just another policy tool. Bridges, however imperfect, are still better than bombs.
Keith Wong
