Opinion | The US says other countries can choose their paths, except when it's against them

By Tom Fowdy

Last week President of Honduras Xiomara Castro publicly announced on twitter that her country would begin the process of seeking diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China. Honduras, a central American country, has been a longstanding diplomatic ally of Taiwan, with the region having been one of the last bastions of support for Taipei owing to the political dominance of the United States over the western hemisphere. The potential switch of Honduras has hardly been a secret, with Castro having pledged to do so on her election campaign a year or so ago, but ultimately hesitated until the right political moment.

Unsurprisingly, the mainstream media and US politicians reacted negatively to the announcement, and soon enough articles were reappearing in Reuters expressing a hope that Honduras would "reconsider" the move, while the government in Taipei warned it "not to fall into China's trap". The arrogance of such a reaction is of course profound, not least since the United States on paper has full diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China and as such, does not claim to officially recognize Taipei. Therefore, why must Honduras be made to stick to its current course?

This coercion by the US against countries which choose to switch allegiance to China is nothing new, and is a feature of the age of strategic competition. The previous Trump administration likewise downgraded its diplomatic relations with a number of regional countries which made such a decision, including El Salvador and Panama. In addition, it also cancelled aid to those countries. While the Biden Administration has not been so overtly aggressive, it has nonetheless targeted Nicaragua, another central American country and the last to recently switch sides, with sanctions.

According to the logic of the United States, all countries are entitled by right of self determination to choose who they should be able to enter diplomatic relations and alliances with. This of course has been the fundamental justification for the refusal of Washington to compromise over Ukraine's future prospective path towards NATO, and its subsequent backing following Russia's invasion of the country. It is after all, the norm of self determination by which the US utilizes to gain geopolitical and military clout throughout regions, claiming its supposed commitment to allies which therefore allows it to project power through relationships of convenience. Such as for example, backing South Korea against North Korea, Taiwan against China, or the Baltic States against Russia. This allows the US to coat its hegemonic objectives in the name of liberty and democracy.

However, that logic clearly does not seem to work the other way, that is when countries choose to align or partner with a country which is against the United States or its objectives. In these scenarios, the supposed respect the US has for the sovereign choices of these nations does not exist, nor are such countries ever allowed to invite the military presence in of this competitor nation. Hence to name some examples, countries who choose to recognize China over Taiwan are met with threats, coercion, condemnation and a hope they will change course.

Honduras is one example, but the outrage over the Solomon Islands switching sides in 2019 was another. The US even responded to this development by interfering in its internal politics and attempting to back opposition and separatist politicians in the bid to flip the relationship back. When the islands likewise announced a policing deal with Taiwan, the chorus of mainstream media condemnation and overt threats by the US was huge, including a tidal wave of mass hysteria promulgated by the mainstream media that China was set to build a base there. Senior US officials even visited the country to try and dissuade them.

Thus, the United States ultimately reserves privileges for itself, citing the norms of self determination, of which it does not grant to others. Nothing must ever be said about the choice of a country to align themselves with America, which is always in the name of liberty and democracy, but there is hell to pay if a country ought to voluntarily choose the other way. This creates a stunning arrogance that a small country like Honduras should never be allowed to open diplomatic relations with one of the world's largest countries, and unlock immense economic benefits through its market, and must stick instead with a small island which most of the world, including the US on paper, does not even recognize anyway.

This isn't double standards, it's triple standards, and it is little wonder that Latin and Central America at large have had enough living under the thumb of the US with the Monroe Doctrine. Honduras would be absolutely crazy to allow the US to bully them off course, when the cost benefit ratio of such a move ultimately speaks for itself.

The author is a well-seasoned writer and analyst with a large portfolio related to China topics, especially in the field of politics, international relations and more. He graduated with an Msc. in Chinese Studies from Oxford University in 2018.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of DotDotNews.

Read more articles by Tom Fowdy:

Opinion | Britain's path against China is the wrong path

Opinion | China's Era as a great power in the Middle East begins