Connect with us

East Asia

Behind China’s perception on Catalonia’s move: it’s the concern

Published

on

On October 27, the Catalonian autonomous region’s parliament voted to pass the motion for “independence” and then declared the “establishment of an independent state”. Beijing quickly stated that China’s stance on this issue has been consistent and unequivocal.

Since it falls within Spain’s internal affairs, China understands and supports the Spanish government’s effort to uphold national unity, ethnic solidarity and territorial integrity, oppose the act of splitting the country and undermining the rule of law. As China and Spain have been friendly countries from the 1970s, both sides will continue to develop cooperation in terms of mutual respect for each other’s sovereignty, territorial integrity and non-interference into each other’s internal business.

Similarly, the United States announced that “Catalonia is an integral part of Spain—a NATO Ally, and it supports the Spanish government’s constitutional measures to keep Spain strong and united.” It was swiftly followed by all major countries of NATO, and EU also extended their supports to the government in Madrid. What a concerted move against the separatism in a sovereign state!

However, to the people in their later 20s-30s across China, it is unforgettable that NATO powers had once used force to bomb former Yugoslavia to give in on the issue of Kosovo and also to topple the regimes in Libya and Iraq by force. Their armed actions were in general unauthorized by the United Nation. As a result, more and more people come to accept what President Putin had argued “it was regrettably a geopolitical disaster for the Soviet Union to be disintegrated.” True, the United States as the lonely superpower has since pursued hegemonic order by unilateralism and the coercive diplomacy. The query arises what Washington and its allies would do if separatism or radical ethnic groups move towards independence within a fully sovereign country which is a non-NATO ally or “democratic” state? Due to this, when China expressed its stance on Catalonia’s claim for independence, it is equally necessary to discern the concerns of the political elites in Beijing who might one day face the similar dilemma occurred to them?

During the modern history, the Chinese Empire was humiliated to the end: it not only lost the millennium-ruled “tribute system”, but also resulted in the several ethnics’ claim for “independence” in the border regions within. Nowadays, China is the only great power that has been challenged in terms of national unity and territorial integrity. The issues cover local terrorism, political separatism and fundamental extremism from various radical ethnic groups. Although the population of the “radical groups” is insignificant in view of China’s total population, but the territorial space of the ethnic minorities across the country is extensively huge and rich in natural resources. Moreover, the regions are strategically important. In foreign affairs—the reality of states interacting closely, Western states and the U.S. in particular have always used the issues of the ethnics in China as the leverage to criticize and even sanction against China in the name of human rights, ethnic discrimination, social injustice and natural resources exploitation. Consequently, local radical ethnics have from time to time resisted the Beijing’s authorities over them in violent or nonviolent way. Their resistance threatened national security on strategic borders of China, at many times becoming an international issue. In brief, they would be the roots of the clashes between China and the United States and its allies if the Beijing’s authorities were weakened due to any uncertain reasons.

Modern society requires sharper definitions of identity. Considering several of ethnic minorities in China, such as the Tibetans, the Mongolians and Muslim-related Uighur, Kazak and Kyrgyz, who are sizable groups with the developed cultures, occupying strategically important regions and even maintaining connections with the same ethnic groups in anywhere of the world, Chinese government should work hard to improve the ability to impose tight control over these regions, at the same time intensifying the Han majority influx that would balance the growth of the native population. Yet, it is not enough evidently to curb the ethnics’ issues. The Chinese authorities in effect need to build up a sound legal framework to provide all ethnics’ rights and a consensus among them to accommodate their differences and find common goals. It is imperative for China first to apply the constitutional measures to keep China united. In so doing, while the ruling elite in Beijing takes the necessary measures to build up its capacity in dealing with the “threat”, they have also taken effective steps to assure the legality in all domestic affairs.

Second, today, as a rising power in the global affairs, China has paid increasing attention to public diplomacy, which has been defined as one of the most salient political communication issues in the 21st century. In reality, public diplomacy is inevitably linked to power, or exactly soft power, therefore it is more based on intangible or indirect influence such as culture, values and ideology. In light of the successful stories and the lessons of the United States over the past decades, China must invest in measures that lead to better ties that bound: much more fundamental is the efforts to promote Beijing’s public image, cultivated in part by its soft power, because the final attraction is to make others want to accept rather than reject China’s domestic governance and international influence.

In summary, China needs to reflect on its own condition in the wake of watching the Catalonia issue. As the division of powers between the central government and local ruling body is politically inevitable in any country, China is no exception. But, given that it is marching towards Chinese perception of global leader, the rising China with the second largest economy in the world could afford both better domestic control and the global governance that comes from an effective aid and information program abroad. Just few days ago, the new core leaders of China headed by President Xi admitted frankly that they are facing complex challenges, but also have much to be proud of. Unprecedentedly, the CPC has demonstrated strength and confidence, and China has the leadership who are determined to take the ancient Chinese nation forward to face the challenges of the future—even if its approach does not always comport with a Western worldview. Sure, the real message was clearly conveyed by Xi Jinping at the recent congress that China stands firm in safeguarding its sovereignty and territorial integrity. The Chinese, both the ruling elites and social mass of the country, will never allow any one, no matter what ethnics they are, at any time or in any form and reason, to separate any part of Chinese territory from China.

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

Importance of peace in Afghanistan is vital for China

Published

on

image source: chinamission.be

There are multiple passages from Afghanistan to China, like Wakhan Corridor that is 92 km long, stretching to Xinjiang in China. It was formed in 1893 as a result of an agreement between the British Empire and Afghanistan. Another is Chalachigu valley that shares the border with Tajikistan to the north, Pakistan to the south, and Afghanistan to the west. It is referred to as the Chinese part of the Wakhan Corridor. However, the Chinese side of the valley is closed to the public and only local shepherds are allowed. Then there is Wakhjir Pass on the eastern side of the Wakhan corridor but is not accessible to the general public. The terrain is rough on the Afghan side. There are no roads along the Wakhjir Pass, most of the terrain is a dirt track. Like other passages, it can only be accessed via either animals or SUVs, and also due to extreme weather it is open for only seven months throughout the year. North Wakhjir Pass, also called Tegermansu Pass, is mountainous on the border of China and Afghanistan. It stretches from Tegermansu valley on the east and Chalachigu Valley in Xinjiang. All of these passages are extremely uncertain and rough which makes them too risky to be used for trade purposes. For example, the Chalagigu valley and Wakhjir Pass are an engineering nightmare to develop, let alone make them viable.

Similarly, the Pamir mountain range is also unstable and prone to landslides. Both of these routes also experience extreme weather conditions. Alternatives: Since most of the passages are risky for travel, alternatively, trade activities can be routed via Pakistan. For example, there is an access road at the North Wakhjir that connects to Karakoram Highway.

By expanding the road network from Taxkorgan in Xinjiang to Gilgit, using the Karakoram Highway is a probable option. Land routes in Pakistan are already being developed for better connectivity between Islamabad and Beijing as part of CPEC. These routes stretch from Gwadar up to the North.

The Motorway M-1, which runs from Islamabad to Peshawar can be used to link Afghanistan via Landi Kotal. Although the Karakoram highway also suffers from extreme weather and landslides, it is easier for engineers to handle as compared to those in Afghanistan.

China is the first door neighbor of Afghanistan having a common border. If anything happens in Afghanistan will have a direct impact on China. China has a declared policy of peaceful developments and has abandoned all disputes and adversaries for the time being and focused only on economic developments. For economic developments, social stability and security is a pre-requisite. So China emphasizes peace and stability in Afghanistan. It is China’s requirement that its border with Afghanistan should be secured, and restrict movements of any unwanted individuals or groups. China is compelled by any government in Afghanistan to ensure the safety of its borders in the region.

Taliban has ensured china that, its territory will not use against China and will never support any insurgency in China. Based on this confidence, China is cooperating with the Taliban in all possible manners. On the other hand, China is a responsible nation and obliged to extend humanitarian assistance to starving Afghans. While, the US is coercing and exerting pressures on the Taliban Government to collapse, by freezing their assets, and cutting all economic assistance, and lobbying with its Western allies, for exerting economic pressures on the Taliban, irrespective of human catastrophe in Afghanistan. China is generously assisting in saving human lives in Afghanistan. Whereas, the US is preferring politics over human lives in Afghanistan.

The US has destroyed Afghanistan during the last two decades, infrastructure was damaged completely, Agriculture was destroyed, Industry was destroyed, and the economy was a total disaster. While, China is assisting Afghanistan to rebuild its infrastructure, revive agriculture, industrialization is on its way. Chinese mega initiative, Belt and Road (BRI) is hope for Afghanistan.

A peaceful Afghanistan is a guarantee for peace and stability in China, especially in the bordering areas. The importance of Afghan peace is well conceived by China and practically, China is supporting peace and stability in Afghanistan. In fact, all the neighboring countries, and regional countries, are agreed upon by consensus that peace and stability in Afghanistan is a must and prerequisite for whole regions’ development and prosperity.

Continue Reading

East Asia

Shared Territorial Concern, Opposition to US Intervention Prompt Russia’s Support to China on Taiwan Question

Published

on

image credit: kremlin.ru

The situation around the island of Taiwan is raising concerns not only in Chinese mainland, Taiwan island or in the US, but also in the whole world. Nobody would like to see a large-scale military clash between China and the US in the East Pacific. Potential repercussions of such a clash, even if it does not escalate to the nuclear level, might be catastrophic for the global economy and strategic stability, not to mention huge losses in blood and treasure for both sides in this conflict.

Earlier this week, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated that Moscow continued to firmly support Beijing’s position on Taiwan as an integral part of China. Moreover, he also underlined that Moscow would support Beijing in its legitimate efforts to reunite the breakaway province with the rest of the country. A number of foreign media outlets paid particular attention not to what Lavrov actually said, but omitted his other remarks: the Russian official did not add that Moscow expects reunification to be peaceful and gradual in a way that is similar to China’s repossession of Hong Kong. Many observers of the new Taiwan Straits crisis unfolding concluded that Lavrov’s statement was a clear signal to all parties of the crisis: Russia would likely back even Beijing’s military takeover of the island.

Of course, diplomacy is an art of ambiguity. Lavrov clearly did not call for a military solution to the Taiwan problem. Still, his remarks were more blunt and more supportive of Beijing than the standard Russia’s rhetoric on the issue. Why? One possible explanation is that the Russian official simply wanted to sound nice to China as Russia’s major strategic partner. As they say, “a friend in need is a friend indeed.” Another explanation is that Lavrov recalled the Russian experience with Chechnya some time ago, when Moscow had to fight two bloody wars to suppress secessionism in the North Caucasus. Territorial integrity means a lot for the Russian leadership. This is something that is worth spilling blood for.

However, one can also imagine that in Russia they simply do not believe that if things go really bad for Taiwan island, the US would dare to come to its rescue and that in the end of the day Taipei would have to yield to Beijing without a single shot fired. Therefore, the risks of a large-scale military conflict in the East Pacific are perceived as relatively low, no matter what apocalyptic scenarios various military experts might come up with.

Indeed, over last 10 or 15 years the US has developed a pretty nasty habit of inciting its friends and partners to take risky and even reckless decisions and of letting these friends and partners down, when the latter had to foot the bill for these decisions. In 2008, the Bush administration explicitly or implicitly encouraged Georgian leader Mikheil Saakashvili to launch a military operation against South Ossetia including killing some Russian peacekeepers stationed there. But when Russia interfered to stop and to roll back the Georgian offensive, unfortunate Saakashvili was de-facto abandoned by Washington.

During the Ukrainian conflicts of 2013-14, the Obama administration enthusiastically supported the overthrow of the legitimate president in Kiev. However, it later preferred to delegate the management of the crisis to Berlin and to Paris, abstaining from taking part in the Normandy process and from signing the Minsk Agreements. In 2019, President Donald Trump promised his full support to Juan Guaidó, Head of the National Assembly in Venezuela, in his crusade against President Nicolas when the government of Maduro demonstrated its spectacular resilience. Juan Guaido very soon almost completely disappeared from Washington’s political radar screens.

Earlier this year the Biden administration stated its firm commitment to shouldering President Ashraf Ghani in Afghanistan in his resistance to Taliban advancements. But when push came to shove, the US easily abandoned its local allies, evacuated its military personal in a rush and left President Ghani to seek political asylum in the United Arab Emirates.

Again and again, Washington gives reasons to conclude that its partners, clients and even allies can no longer consider it as a credible security provider. Would the US make an exception for the Taiwan island? Of course, one can argue that the Taiwan island is more important for the US than Afghanistan, Venezuela, Ukraine and Georgia taken together. But the price for supporting the Taiwan island could also be much higher for the US than the price it would have paid in many other crisis situations. The chances of the US losing to China over Taiwan island, even if Washington mobilizes all of its available military power against Beijing, are also very high. Still, we do not see such a mobilization taking place now. It appears that the Biden administration is not ready for a real showdown with Beijing over the Taiwan question.

If the US does not put its whole weight behind the Taiwan island, the latter will have to seek some kind of accommodation with the mainland on terms abandoning its pipe-dreams of self-determination and independence. This is clear to politicians not only in East Asia, but all over the place, including Moscow. Therefore, Sergey Lavrov has reasons to firmly align himself with the Chinese position. The assumption in the Kremlin is that Uncle Sam will not dare to challenge militarily the Middle Kingdom. Not this time.

From our partner RIAC

Continue Reading

East Asia

Russia-Japan Relations: Were Abe’s Efforts In Vain?

Published

on

Expanding the modest elements of trust in the Japan-Russia relationship, talking through reciprocal concerns before they lead to conflict, avoiding bilateral incidents, and engaging in mutually beneficial economic cooperation is the way forward.

One year after the end of Shinzo Abe’s long period of leadership, Japan has a new prime minister once again. The greatest foreign policy challenge the new Japanese government led by Fumio Kishida is facing is the intensifying confrontation between its large neighbor China and its main ally America. In addition to moves to energize the Quad group to which Japan belongs alongside Australia, India, and the United States, U.S. President Joe Biden’s administration has concluded a deal with Canberra and London to provide Australia with nuclear-powered submarines which in future could patrol the Western Pacific close to Chinese shores. The geopolitical fault lines in the Indo-Pacific region are fast turning into frontlines.

In this context, does anything remain of the eight-year-long effort by former prime minister Abe to improve relations with Russia on the basis of greater economic engagement tailored to Moscow’s needs? Russia’s relations with China continue to develop, including in the military domain; Russia’s constitutional amendments passed last year prohibit the handover of Russian territory, which doesn’t bode well for the long-running territorial dispute with Japan over the South Kuril Islands; and Russian officials and state-run media have been remembering and condemning the Japanese military’s conduct during World War II, something they chose to play down in the past. True, Moscow has invited Tokyo to participate in economic projects on the South Kuril Islands, but on Russian terms and without an exclusive status.

To many, the answer to the above question is clear, and it is negative. Yet that attitude amounts to de facto resignation, a questionable approach. Despite the oft-cited but erroneous Cold War analogy, the present Sino-American confrontation has created two poles in the global system, but not—at least, not yet—two blocs. Again, despite the popular and equally incorrect interpretation, Moscow is not Beijing’s follower or vassal. As a power that is particularly sensitive about its own sovereignty, Russia seeks to maintain an equilibrium—which is not the same as equidistance—between its prime partner and its main adversary. Tokyo would do well to understand that and take it into account as it structures its foreign relations.

The territorial dispute with Russia is considered to be very important for the Japanese people, but it is more symbolic than substantive. In practical terms, the biggest achievement of the Abe era in Japan-Russia relations was the founding of a format for high-level security and foreign policy consultations between the two countries. With security issues topping the agenda in the Indo-Pacific, maintaining the channel for private direct exchanges with a neighboring great power that the “2+2” formula offers is of high value. Such a format is a trademark of Abe’s foreign policy which, while being loyal to Japan’s American ally, prided itself on pursuing Japanese national interests rather than solely relying on others to take them into account.

Kishida, who for five years served as Abe’s foreign minister, will now have a chance to put his own stamp on the country’s foreign policy. Yet it makes sense for him to build on the accomplishments of his predecessor, such as using the unique consultation mechanism mentioned above to address geopolitical and security issues in the Indo-Pacific region, from North Korea to Afghanistan. Even under Abe, Japan’s economic engagement with Russia was by no means charity. The Russian leadership’s recent initiatives to shift more resources to eastern Siberia offer new opportunities to Japanese companies, just like Russia’s early plans for energy transition in response to climate change, and the ongoing development projects in the Arctic. In September 2021, the annual Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok did not feature top-level Japanese participation, but that should be an exception, not the rule.

Japan will remain a trusted ally of the United States for the foreseeable future. It is also safe to predict that at least in the medium term, and possibly longer, the Russo-Chinese partnership will continue to grow. That is no reason for Moscow and Tokyo to regard each other as adversaries, however. Moreover, since an armed conflict between America and China would spell a global calamity and have a high chance of turning nuclear, other major powers, including Russia and Japan, have a vital interest in preventing such a collision. Expanding the still very modest elements of trust in the Japan-Russia relationship, talking through reciprocal concerns before they lead to conflict, avoiding bilateral incidents, and engaging in mutually beneficial economic cooperation is the way forward. The absence of a peace treaty between the two countries more than seventy-five years after the end of the war is abnormal, yet that same unfinished business should serve as a stimulus to persevere. Giving up is an option, but not a good one.

From our partner RIAC

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Tech News2 hours ago

Millions of Moscow residents manage their everyday lives through their smartphones

The creators of My Moscow, a mobile application of the Russian capital’s urban services, have analysed how and why Muscovites...

Africa Today3 hours ago

Nigeria becomes the first country in Africa to roll out Digital Currency

The Central Bank of Nigeria joined a growing list of emerging markets betting on digital money to cut transaction costs...

Defense7 hours ago

US Targets Militants in Turkish-Held Area in Syria

Central Command spokesman Army Major John Rigsbee announced on Friday, October 23, the killing of senior al-Qaeda leader Abdul Hamid...

Development9 hours ago

Multilateralism ‘struggling’ to solve world challenges

While multilateralism remains “committed to solving global challenges”, the deputy UN chief said on Sunday, United Nations Day, it is...

Tech News10 hours ago

Do You Really Need Name-Brand Cartridges?

Cartridges from printer manufacturers like Hewlett-Packard are notoriously expensive.  Considering the price of their basic equipment, ink may cost almost...

Americas11 hours ago

General Colin Powell: A Decent Man in Indecent Society

Theologian Reinhold Niebuhr’s (1892-1932) famous treatise Moral Man and Immoral Society (1932) needs significant revisitation through a personal case: former...

International Law13 hours ago

Support the UN’s leadership position and multilateralism

Despite its inability to fully satisfy people’s expectations on some issues, the United Nations and its agencies, as well as...

Trending