Connect with us

East Asia

Xi Jinping in Moscow for the entente between China and Russia

Wang Li

Published

on

Although China and Russia never use the term of ally to describe their current relationship, the entente has been the fait accompli between the two countries since 1996. With the state visit of President Xi Jin-ping to Russia on July 3-4, this is his sixth visit to Russia since his assumption of presidency, and was also the third meeting between the two heads of states in a period of six months of 2017.

Undoubtedly, Xi’s latest visit to Russia is of great significance to deepen the strategic consensus in terms of Sino–Russian comprehensive relationship. In addition to the confidential meetings and co-chairing talks, both heads of the state jointly signed and issued a communiqué of the 2017-2020 implementation outlines for the Treaty of Good-Neighborliness and Friendly Cooperation between China and Russia, and then followed by a joint statement on the North Korea’s missile test in which the two countries’ foreign ministers expressed their grave concern about a sharp military escalation. Here the enquiries occur why strategic partnership between China and Russia are so important to the two great powers, regional stability, and world peace? And what have caused this happened?

To start, some Western observers have placed an excessive emphasis on China-Russia’s tensions in history, by arguing that the relationship between Beijing and Moscow is likely to remain fragile as what have developed since the 1990s, including ultra-nationalism in China and Russia, their asymmetric economic capacities, and volatile changes of the geopolitical contour of the Eurasian continent. Given this, leadership of China and Russia have been consciously highlighting foreign policies that aim to build up a new type of the world order that they envision in which the partnership is common opposition to the present U.S.-dominated “unipolar world”. Yet, scholars in the West and in China as well are still obsessed with that the partnership, no matter how Beijing and Moscow defined it, would be essentially a marriage of convenience that would be trumped by the wide range of their interests, including each other’s eagerness to have good relationship with the West and the United States particularly.

Those scholars have failed to understand that, since the 1990s, officials in both sides have regretted their ideological rows and the border disputes during the Cold War. Since early the 1990s, the policy-makers in Beijing and Moscow are obviously determined not to repeat these problems. Although China is now in a position to act in a more confident way in the relationship, it has been shown restraint. Meanwhile, leaders of the two nuclear powers want to avoid allowing chauvinistic nationalism in either side to trump their shared interest in terms of the common concern with the pressure and “bully” of the United States and its allies. Rather, it is widely believed that the constructive partnership between China and Russia serves a sort of strategic backing to mutual interests, and will make inevitable contributions to regional and world peace, stability, development and prosperity. To that end, Chinese leader has presented “the Belt and Road Initiative” that involves a new geopolitical order in the Eurasia and beyond —with Beijing playing an outsize (but not a dominant) role. Russian leader had likewise clarified that Moscow aims to create a Eurasian Union, in which relations between former Soviet states are determined by Moscow. Meanwhile, both China and Russia have accused the United States of following a Cold War mentality by trying to contain their rightful ambitions in the adjacent regions. As Joseph Nye Jr. warned 17 years ago, it would take very clumsy American policy and behavior to drive China and Russia more fully into each other’s arms.

Accordingly, there are reasons to believe that the partnership between China and Russia is durable. First, in geopolitical term, China and Russia have agreed to consolidate the strategic coordination, facilitate peace talks, properly handle the Korean Peninsula issue, and push all parties to sincerely solve the Korean nuclear issue through peaceful means. Given that North Korea provocatively made missile launch on July 4, a stern warning came from Washington that “missile launch was in defiance of a ban by the UN Security Council, and the United States was prepared to use the full range of our capabilities to defend ourselves, and our allies, if we must.” On that day, China’s representative also said North Korea’s actions were unacceptable, but repeated China and Russia’s call for all involved to stand down. Rarely, in a joint statement signed by both Foreign Ministers, they proposed a “dual track” approach to denuclearizing the peninsula. That means North Korea should halt all its missile and nuclear programs, in exchange for freeze of the US and South Korea’s joint military drills in the region. They also propose reversing plans to deploy a controversial anti-missile system (THAAD) in the Korean Peninsula, as China and Russia share consistent stance that the deployment of the THAAD is to upset the strategic equilibrium in terms of nuclear deterrence doctrine. Given this, a sustained, sound and steady development of China–Russia relations is conducive to maintaining the security of the two countries, the stability of the region and the peace of the world. Here it emphasizes that the geopolitical challenge of China at the present time drives Beijing’s ruling elites more anxious to deepen strategic partnership with Moscow, though the latter has expressed the obvious resentment against the specter of the U.S. hegemony.

Second, in a personal level, Chinese President Xi has been keen on his mutually trusted ties with President Putin who is seen to provide undisputable impetus for a continuous development of the comprehensive strategic partnership of coordination between the two great powers. He reiterated that China—Russia relations are at its best in history, since both sides have fully supported each other on issues concerning respective core interests, smoothly advanced the docking of the “Belt and Road” construction and the Eurasian Economic Union. Xi publicly stressed that Russia is China’s important partner in the advancement of the “Belt and Road” construction. China-Russia practical cooperation enjoys great potential and broad prospects. At the end of the meeting on July 4, Putin was reported to say that he and President Xi have forged a very sound working relationship and profound friendship. In addition, vigorous cooperation has been carried out in the fields such as investment, energy, people-to-people and cultural engagement. They agreed to expand the bilateral cooperation to the new projects of Moscow-Kazan high-speed railway, cross-border infrastructure construction, and a joint development in Arctic channel called the “Ice Silk Road”. To that end, the Russians stand ready with China to expand closer high-level cooperation in a wide range of businesses. As a matter of fact, by 2016 Russia has become the largest oil-supplier to China while it has been the largest cereal goods-importing country from Russia. It is not a coincidence evidently. Rather, it is a feature of a new, post-Cold War strategic partnership between China and Russia. As long as the current political elites in Beijing and Moscow hold on to power, there is no reason to expect a major shift in the Sino-Russian relationship. Countries hoping to drive a wedge between the two powers—such as Japanese leader Shinzo Abe—are bound to be disappointed. It is equally no accident for the United States unsuccessfully to win China’s support against Russia’s takeover of Crimea by coercion.

Given the analysis presented above, the conclusion goes that China as a rising power is still concerned with the alliance between Japan and the United States which takes it as the key to its security in Asia, but sees China-U.S. relations as a zero-sum game. Russia alone is still the most powerful challenge to the U.S. although the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 left a Russia significantly shrunken in territory, population, economy and military clouts. To be sure, China and Russia asserted the common interest in safeguarding their own security and world peace. Yet, that the United States has pursued unilateralism or “unipolar world order” has helped unwisely China and Russia overcome their differences. Due to this, whether the issue is North Korea, Iran or some other challenge to the West, the United States and its allies in the West should be well-prepared for more Sino-Russian cooperation, not less. Twenty years ago, Kissinger warned that only the unlikely prospect of relentless American bullying of both China and Russia could drive them to deepen partnership. Nowadays, for good or bad result, his concern has come true.

Wang Li is Professor of International Relations and Diplomacy at the School of International and Public Affairs, Jilin University China.

Continue Reading
Comments

East Asia

How China is helping Iran skirt US sanctions

Published

on

Shortly after the Trump administration reimposed sweeping sanctions on Iran, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said eight countries, most notable China, would be exempted from the draconian sanctions on buying Iranian crude oil.

Shortly after the Trump administration reimposed sweeping sanctions on the Islamic Republic of Iran, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo made an important announcement. It was a calculated move to avoid a major embarrassment. The hawks in the power corridors of Washington had anticipated the backlash of sanctions on US foreign policy with many global powers rebuffing Trump’s foolhardy move.

Pompeo said eight countries would be exempted from the draconian sanctions on buying Iranian crude oil due to special circumstances. The countries included China, India, Italy, Greece, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Turkey.

Many of these countries had quite clearly indicated that they would not be cutting oil imports from Iran under the US pressure, most importantly China, Turkey, and India – three of Iran’s largest oil customers.

While India has its own strategic interests in maintaining good relations with Tehran, for instance, the Chabahar port project in Sistan-Baluchistan, Turkey’s relations with Washington have hit a new low following sanctions and trade tariffs imposed by the US.

China, which has emerged as a viable counterweight to US hegemony in the world and a protagonist of new international economic policy, has unambiguously reaffirmed its commitment to keep alive the Iran nuclear deal and stand by the Islamic Republic of Iran.

On November 5, when the petroleum-related sanctions came into effect, Chinese foreign ministry said it will continue to “hold a fair, objective and responsible attitude” and “resolutely safeguard its legitimate rights”, while reiterating its opposition to the unilateral US sanctions.

“China feels sorry for the US’ decision and we noticed that the international world as a whole opposes the practice of such unilateral sanctions,” foreign ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying said at a press briefing.

She said Iran has been seriously fulfilling its obligations under the JCPOA and its efforts have been recognized by the International Atomic Energy Agency dozen times. She also affirmed that China will firmly safeguard its lawful rights while continuing to adhere to JCPOA and urged relevant parties to stand on the “right side of history”.

China has maintained that implementing the Iranian nuclear deal is akin to safeguarding the authority of UN Security Council, basic norms of international law, international non-proliferation treaty and peace and stability in the Middle East.

As one of the remaining signatories of the JCPOA, along with European Union countries who are exploring options to circumvent the US sanctions, Beijing wants to keep the deal alive. China, believe experts, is in a better position compared to other Asian countries as it is not subservient to US interests and is already embroiled in a bitter trade war with Washington.

For all parties of the JCPOA, Iranian crude oil is the main commodity of interest, particularly for Beijing. In 2017, one-third of Iran’s oil was supplied to China, which underlines the significance of oil trade between the two countries. China’s commitment to continue importing oil from Iran is very likely to deal a body blow to US ploy of reducing Iranian oil imports to zero and ‘starving’ the Iranian nation.

Hu Xijin, chief editor of the influential Chinese daily Global Times, told Tehran Times that there was no possibility of Washington reducing the Iranian oil exports to zero, “because Washington lacks righteousness to do so, therefore it can’t have the full support of the international community”.

To continue oil trade in different currencies other than dollar, Iran has been in talks with key allies, including China. On September 29, Foreign Minister Javad Zarif said Tehran would circumvent sanctions by conducting trade in all currencies to avoid using the US dollar. “You can use your own currency. Sell stuff in your own currency, buy stuff in the other country’s currency, and at the end of a specific period, balance it out in a non-dollar currency. It’s quite possible and may even be profitable,”

China, which is the largest oil importer in the world with around nine million barrels imports every day, has been making concerted efforts to reshape the global oil market with increased usage of its currency in oil trading. If Chinese currency manages to replace the US dollar, it will be a masterstroke.

US has been rendered friendless and isolated in its quest to tear up the Iran deal and force countries to cut oil imports from Iran. European Union has already refused to back down on the Iran deal, exploring ways to develop payment channels to facilitate payments related to Iran’s exports. The goal, according to a statement issued by EU, “is to protect the freedom of other economic operators to pursue legitimate business with Iran”.

Beijing has expressed its full support to the EU’s proposal to set up a “special payments system” to facilitate trade with Iran and safeguard the Iranian nuclear deal, which experts believe will significantly reduce reliance on the US dollar in the global oil trade. That will be a game-changer.

First published in our partner MNA

Continue Reading

East Asia

The Implication of China’s Diplomacy in APEC and ASEAN

Published

on

It is truly unusual that the Chinese President Xi Jinping and its Premier Li Keqiang are visiting the same area during nearly the same time: Xi’s visit to APEC from15th to 21st November and Li’s visit to ASEAN on 15th November. Yet, if we look into China’s foreign policy towards this area over the past years since President Xi took power, it is not difficult to understand both Xi’s and Li’s official visits to the “larger Pacific” and the meaning beyond.

As we know, President Xi has reiterated that the Pacific is large enough for the countries involved to share the prosperity with each other. In order to achieve the inclusive rather than exclusive benefits for all, China’s diplomacy aims to reject any kind of unilateralism, trade protectionism and anti-globalization. Given this, Xi’s at APEC and Li’s at AEASN is defined as a signal of China’s diplomacy to further reform and bold openness.

As a rising great country, China is surely eager to expand its investment and trade with the south Pacific area, and Papua New Guinea (PNG) is the first country visited by Chinese president. What is more, PNG joined the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) early 2018 and then became the first state of Pacific islands to sign the MoU on “The Belt and Road Initiative” construction. As the theme “Harnessing Inclusive Opportunities, Embracing the Digital Future,” the APEC summit will focus on Regional economic integration, digital economy, connectivity, sustainable and inclusive growth and so forth.

Also during Premier Li’s visit to the ASEAN, he highlighted the necessity of the collaboration and mutual benefit among the countries involved on the 21st China-ASEAN leaders meeting. This is also the 21st ASEAN Plus Three Summit (10+3) and the 13th East Asia Summit (EAS).

Quite understandable, since the 1960s, the center of world economy has shifted from North Atlantic to Asia-Pacific, its dynamic growth in the region create countless jobs and push the development of world economy. This is the reason that Asia-Pacific region has the most trade agreements and the most complicated economic architecture around world. APEC and ASEAN, as two institutions that possess most member states, are the very pillars of the tumbledown regional economic architecture. APEC was launched by Australia and later included 21 member states in the region, amongst are United States, China, Japan, the economic giant three of the world economy. ASEAN is an institution that consist of ten small and middle states. Though they are not strong enough to meet the challenges from the power politics alone, ASEAN is a core force that firmly facilitate the economic integration of the whole region of East Asia and the Pacific. No matter what the way they embrace, they are the de facto basic regionalism of Asia-Pacific. The withdrawing of United States from Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and hard-achieved Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) once brought the regional economic architecture a fig leave and strengthened the impact of APEC and ASEAN.

As a result, the two visits of Chinese top leaders to the same region at the same time definitely attract worldwide attention, because they not only represent China’s recent diplomatic focus but also mark the fact that Asia-Pacific region has become one of the vital fields where China’s diplomacy will be actively conducting in terms of the Belt and Road Initiative, and carry on the good-neighbor policy. Since China has argued for creating a peaceful development milieu, to enhance economic transformation and upgrading oversea markets and partners in Asia-Pacific region.

Consider these facets, China, as the second largest economy, aims to promote its well-articulated stance on multilateralism and inclusiveness and globalization. As both President Xi and Premier Li have strongly said that China is ready to work with Pacific island countries to endeavor together and sail for a better future for bilateral relations. For the sake of that goal, China always believes that as long as all the countries involved have firm confidence in each other’s development, cooperation and the future of East Asia, and work closely together and forge ahead, all sides would achieve more and reach a higher level in the next 15 years.

For sure, China belongs to the part of a larger Asia-Pacific family, and the Chinese government defines its goal as the shared prosperity of this region. Therefore, China will continue to work hard and constructively to promote the overall development of impoverished but promising Pacific island countries under the Belt and Road Initiative.

Continue Reading

East Asia

An uncertain step in moving China-Japan relations

Published

on

Authors: Meshach Ampwera  & Luo Xinghuan

On October 26, Chinese President Xi Jinping met Japanese PM Shinzo Abe and praised that both China and Japan have pledged to strengthen bilateral ties amid continuous efforts made by the two nations. Xi said, “Bilateral relations have returned to the right track and gained positive momentum, which is something the two sides should cherish.” As the two largest economies in Asia, China and Japan are also the vital players in Asian security and the global development.

In addition, since this is the first official visit to China by a Japanese PM in a seven-year “Cold Peace” period, it is widely assumed that Abe’s visit symbolizes the resumption of high-level visits and will be followed by an increasing rapprochement between China and Japan. True, the leaders of the two economic giants witnessed a wide range of agreements, including a 30 billion US dollar worth of currency swap pact, the establishment of a maritime and air liaison mechanism, and enhancing people-to-people exchanges.

Yet, three factors have to be considered seriously in looking into Japanese foreign policy given the current changing geopolitical landscape regionally and globally. First, Japan has still regarded itself as a “defeated” state during the WWII. Since then, Japan’s postwar posture has frequently described as a new pacifism; yet in fact it is considerably more complex. As Henry Kissinger put it: “Japan had acquiesced in the U.S. predominance and followed the strategic landscape and the imperatives of Japan’s survival and long-term success.” This means that the governing elites in Tokyo used to hold the constitution drafted by U.S. occupying authorities with its stringent prohibition on military action, and adapted to their long-term strategic purposes. As a result, Japan was transformed from the pacific aspects of the postwar order (that prohibited military action) into a nation that has focused on other key elements of national strategy, particularly using economic leverage regionally and globally, though not uncontroversial.

Second, in a recently-released paper written by the former US Secretary of Defense Ash Carter, he maintained that “Japan is a close ally of the U.S. and a rising military power, too, because of legal and constitutional changes of great significance championed by Prime Minister Abe.” In practice, the Japanese administration has engineered an expansion to enable its military to operate regionally and even globally in response to the rise of China, violent extremist activity in Asia, and the alleged North Korean belligerence.

Actually in 2013, Japanese Government White Paper revealed a desire to become a “normal country” with an active alliance policy. In a searching for a new role in the Asia-pacific region, Japan aims to act as an “anchor” of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) concluded in 2018 after the withdrawal of the United States. Now it involves 11 countries and representing 13.4% of global GDP ($ 13.5tri.). As the largest economy of the CPTPP, Japan has been active in moving it forward. Early this year when the British government stated it is exploring becoming a member of the CPTPP to stimulate exports after Brexit in 2019, Abe stated that the United Kingdom would be welcomed to join the partnership. It is said that even the U.S. reconsiders possibly rejoining the CPTPP if it were a “substantially new deal” for the United States.

Japan’s ardent involvement into the US-led strategy in Asia has also been endorsed to expand steadily as a normal power regionally and globally. For example, the Asia-Africa Growth Corridor (AAGC) is the result of the joint declaration issued by the India and Japan in 2016. Although it is premised on four pillars of development and cooperation, it is self-evident that the AAGC reflects a growing special “strategic and global partnership between India and Japan” in which both sides have viewed China’s growing, pragmatic and successful presence in Africa as a menace. There is no question that AAGC is a well-crafted vision and agenda of both India and Japan, linking with their own development priorities. But with increasing pressure from Washington and Brussels, Japan and India are in effect driven by the option for the AAGC to rebalance China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

From the inception of the BRI, they have more than ever before been concerned with being isolated in Africa by Beijing’s initiative. But, as Ampwera Meshach, a researcher at Jilin University put it, “Africa is on the growth trend and offers potential markets and raw materials. For this reason, Africa largely needs pragmatic and scientific, technological and development- oriented initiatives and these are clearly reflected in China’s BRI.” In light of this, the AAGC does neither reflect a novel nor pragmatic approach on how it fits within the African agenda. Instead, AAGC’s foundational pillars seem more inclined to the Western cooperation approaches that have for decades not been translated into development.

Controversially, two days before Abe’s visit to Beijing, Japan had decided to scrap official development assistance (ODA) to China, which is a program where Japan provides aids to developing countries starting back in 1954. Even though some people argue that Japan’s ODA is reasonably cancelled because China’s GDP is even 2.5 times larger than that of Japan, yet, it is necessary for Chinese to be aware of the reality that Japan is a longstanding ally of the United States. As Japan has long been an economic power, its impressive military capabilities would not be confined to a strict policy of territorial defense—no projection of Japanese power or the U.S.-Japan alliance to the region as a whole.

It is during the Abe’s administration which has recognized an environment of growing Chinese assertiveness, violent extremist activity in Asia, and North Korean hostility, and therefore, Japan has eagerly participated in Asian security, including training and exercising with other nations, beyond a purely passive, home-island defense role. This makes it an increasingly important player serving the US strategy in Asia but challenging the rise of China globally.

It is true that Abe tweeted about the trip — while recognizing the challenges in moving bilateral relations forward, he said that he would still work to “push Sino-Japan relations to the next level”. Given the two countries’ economic links, it is only understandable that there is a need for the two sides to come closer. Moreover, Japanese businesses has been an extremely active force behind the government’s shift of attitude on the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

Yet, all in all, we should never ignore that Japan’s ambitious foreign policy has gone beyond the economic goal.

Continue Reading

Latest

New Social Compact5 hours ago

Africa Loses Billions of Dollars Due to Child Marriage

Child marriage will cost African countries tens of billions of dollars in lost earnings and human capital, says a new...

Energy6 hours ago

Renewables offer G20 countries the best opportunity to achieve climate goals

The IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C, released in October 2018, was unequivocal: urgent global action...

International Law7 hours ago

The difference between Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing

The distinction between genocide and ethnic cleansing is a “grey area” that befuddles scholars, policy makers, and students alike. The...

Newsdesk8 hours ago

UNIDO helps enhance the quality of industrial policy in Vietnam

The United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) and the Vietnam Industrial Agency of the Vietnamese Ministry of Industry and Trade...

Urban Development9 hours ago

Making space for pedestrians and cyclists in Zambian cities

Zambia, a landlocked country in southern Africa, is home to over 16 million people. It is one of the most...

Diplomacy10 hours ago

World Youth Forum: A Reflection of Egypt’s Strong Diplomacy

It was my pleasure to join and met with  more than five thousand youth leaders from around the globe, thousands...

Defense11 hours ago

SIPRI Report: Transparency in military spending in sub-Saharan Africa higher than expected

The level of transparency in military spending in sub-Saharan Africa is greater than previously thought, according to a new report...

Trending

Copyright © 2018 Modern Diplomacy