Page 3 of
3 US shadow over China-Russia
ties By M K Bhadrakumar
more to offer. China has succeeded
in developing levers at the bilateral level to
influence US policy, whereas Russia lacks any such
trump card in real terms.
Russia is still
negotiating the terms of engagement with the US. A
Chinese scholar recently likened the US-China
relationship to a coin with cooperation on one
side and competition on the other. He claimed, "It
is up to Washington to decide which side of the
coin it
wants up." Also, unlike Russia, China has largely
succeeded in creating a friendly external
environment in its immediate neighborhood that
preempts any US design to build an arc of
containment.
Besides, the core issue with
regard to Russia is the latter's integration with
the Western world and the conditions under which
that might be possible. An added complication is
that the United States' own leadership of the
Euro-Atlantic community happens to be in a state
of transition. The European project itself faces
an uncertain future. Naturally, China's "threat
perceptions" of North Atlantic Treaty Organization
expansion or US missile-defense deployments are
nowhere near as acute as Russia's. For Beijing,
they sound like distant drums, whereas for Moscow
they are palpably near-term issues of concern
directly impacting on its core concerns and vital
interests.
On balance, China draws
satisfaction that the "shock-absorbing capacity"
of Sino-US relations has steadily increased, and
is very substantial already. China is intensely
conscious that it holds more than $200 billion
worth of US Treasury bonds. As a top researcher in
the China Institute of Contemporary International
Relations recently put it, "China helps balance
the United States' budget deficit in an
astronomical way. A conclusion can, therefore, be
drawn that the United States very much needs China
economically."
The researcher audaciously
went on to speculate on the efficacy of a Group of
Two to replace the largely ineffectual Group of
Eight. "Indeed, the Chinese and US economies, as
the twin engines powering the world economy, are
supposed to shoulder more responsibilities for
setting the 'roadmap' and 'traffic rules' for the
development of the global economy and trade," he
argued.
US-China relations forge ahead
Commenting on the first session of the
Sino-US strategic economic dialogue in Beijing
last December, Yuan Peng, a leading Chinese
scholar specializing in US-China relations, wrote
that Bush's dispatch of a dozen or so officials of
cabinet rank to the summit implied that "Sino-US
relations have stabilized and have moved forward",
and that the two countries have equally become
"responsible stakeholders" in the relationship.
Again, a senior researcher with the
Institute of American Studies at the Chinese
Academy of Sciences captured the new mood in
Beijing when he wrote in early January, "The
Sino-US relationship is moving beyond the
bilateral scope to cover regional and global
security and economic matters. Exchanges at
various levels and between diverse sectors, trade
and economic cooperation in particular, are going
ahead in a big way. By all accounts, the two
countries share more interests and are becoming
increasingly dependent on one another
strategically and economically."
Beijing
and Washington are on the same page over the North
Korea nuclear issue, in pressuring Iran to give up
its uranium-enrichment program, on the imperative
need of stabilizing Iraq, and in shoring up the
stability of the pro-Western Arab regimes in the
Middle East. Ironically, even as Putin was
berating the US for its hegemonistic ambitions in
global politics at the Munich security conference
in February, Chinese commentators were discerning
"subtle changes" in US foreign policy moving away
from the doctrine of neo-conservatism, and were
welcoming the "pragmatism [that is] beginning to
prevail in the White House".
Interestingly, a senior Chinese diplomat,
Wang Yusheng, writing in the official China Daily,
adopted a patronizing attitude toward Putin's
speech. Wang noted that US officials shrugged off
Putin's "stinging broadside ... indicating that
the US had no Cold War intentions and neither
should Russia".
Wang commented with icy
objectivity that "it is very hard to reconcile the
two countries' [US and Russia] core interests and
orientation" but all the same they need to
cooperate on international security issues. To be
sure, China would like to keep a safe distance
from what the China Daily recently called
"unpredictable US-Russia relations, manic and
illusive". Hu's visit to Moscow exposed that the
Sino-Russian strategic partnership has a Teflon
coating. And the best they can do is to seek a
positive interaction or a new type of relationship
characterized by mutual benefit, which allows each
side to secure its national interests while
respecting those of the other.
A recent
article in the China Daily dwelt at length on the
nature of big-power politics in the post-Cold War
era. It said bilateral ties are "healthy" when no
third country is targeted and when the
"imperative" is kept in view that a country
primarily secures its own national interests while
respecting those of others. Thus, "There will be
competition alongside cooperation and conflicts
alongside compromises. Cooperation must be based
on sincerity and trust while compromise should be
appropriate and disputes should never be allowed
to grow into confrontation." From this
perspective, the newspaper described China-Russia
relations as "a harmonious relationship with
unique characteristics".
"The two
countries [China and Russia] are close without
having to rely on each other. They protect their
own dignity with no intention to subvert the
other; they manage to resolve conflicts of
interest through negotiations on an equal footing
... and they are both keen on developing bilateral
ties with the US, the only superpower in the world
today, while opposing unilateralism," it added.
The wrangling that lies ahead in
Russia-China relations can be kept to a minimum if
the two countries get used to their divergent
foreign-policy priorities. Fortunately for them,
as the China Daily assessed recently, their
relationship has "more positive than negative
factors".
M K Bhadrakumar served
as a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service
for more than 29 years, with postings including
ambassador to Uzbekistan (1995-98) and to Turkey
(1998-2001).
(Copyright 2007 Asia
Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please
contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
