| |
Sino-Russian summit: The missing
link
By Francesco Sisci
BEIJING - It was the post-Soviet summit, because
both countries have opted out of the rigid communist
system. It was the summit of the grand neighbors, as
both hold many keys to the stability of the whole
Eurasian continent. But perhaps it was mostly the summit
of the loveless lovers, as they met but kept thinking of
the one who was absent: the United States.
The
Sino-Russian summit in fact was a grand opportunity for
Russian President Vladimir Putin to meet the new Chinese
leadership. Russia was honored by being the first
country to have a first-hand account of the just-ended
16th Party Congress. However, this honor pales in
comparison with the fact that the US was informally
briefed on the congress just days before it started (see
Jiang in Crawford: The interregnum
summit, October 29).
More than a year after
the Treaty of Good-Neighborliness and Friendly
Cooperation signed by the two countries in July 2001,
and the September 11 attack, Russia and China have
separately hurried to the woo the US. This year in Rome
Russia inked a political agreement with the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization and last month China
followed suit, starting a dialogue with NATO with the
same aim.
It is no small sign that the joint
Sino-Russian statement omitted any reference to
hegemonism, a code-word that in the past decade has
hinted at US foreign policy. In contrast, terrorism,
America's present nightmare, had a high profile in the
statement, mentioning the attacks in New York, in Bali
as well as in Moscow. It is clear that the fight against
terrorism will dominate global politics for a long time
and while this will distract the Americans' attention
away from any confrontation with Moscow or Beijing, it
is helping the US redraw the world map.
The
forthcoming war against Iraq should eliminate the most
dangerous member of the so-called "axis of evil", but it
should also give the United States definite control over
Persian Gulf oil. This plus the new enhanced US presence
in gas-rich Central Asia, thanks to the recent war in
Afghanistan, provides the United States with
unprecedented and unchallenged control over energy and
its global prices. This new situation draws China and
Russia together, as the former is hungry for energy
because of its fast-growing economy, and the latter
wants long-term sale contracts for its oil and gas
reserves, whose value and importance could drop after
the war. The US hold on energy in fact could have a
stabilizing effect on global energy prices by
annihilating decades of threats of price hikes
manipulated by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting
Countries (OPEC). But it could well put China under
American check for many years with Beijing's growing
dependency on energy imports.
This plight is
speeding the deal of a 2,400-kilometer oil pipeline from
Angarsk in Siberia to Daqing in northeastern China,
which may involve an investment of about US$2.5 billion
over 25 years, and possibly also that of gas pipeline
from in Irkutsk, Siberia. However, the new fast
development of car sales in China could give priority to
oil over gas.
The war in Iraq and against
terrorism in general is not simply about energy, however
important that might be; it is about a new world order
where economic growth will give an effective voice to
each country. China and Russia must therefore boost
bilateral trade, which hasn't grown as fast as they
hoped. For the first time the joint statement stresses
the importance of cooperation in "banking resolution,
credit and insurance". These are new areas added to the
old cooperation in technology and raw materials, and
these are the weak points of bilateral trade. The
banking, insurance and credit system between the two
countries has been dominated by northern Europeans and
the two governments have given little concrete support
to such exchanges, which have been plagued by a wave of
small controversies. Standardization of business
practices and full government support to banking and
insurance should help bilateral trade, although a big
question mark remains over the management abilities of
the Chinese and Russian banking systems.
This
small but concrete weakness enhances the two countries'
bigger weaknesses in the new world order, which the US
could redraw without needing to bargain with anyone.
Even if, as it appears at present, the United States
will want to discuss the future world with China or
Russia, these two countries need effective and stable
economies to help manage the future world. Here Russia
fares poorly, whereas China does better. But there is
more. Washington believes that a common management of
the world needs similar political standards, to
guarantee a similar degree of transparency in each
other's decision making. Bluntly put, Washington would
like to see into Chinese politicking as clearly as
Beijing can see into American politicking. Here Moscow
looks better than Beijing.
Can China and Russia
help each other improving their respective shortcomings
in view of a future participation in the new world
order? In theory they are better positioned than any
other for the purpose, as none else can better
understand their predicament as both come out of decades
of communism. Yet while the ideological legacy draws
them together, the old geopolitical suspicion sets them
apart. The Russians ask: Will the new Chinese economic
might squeeze Russia out of Asia? The Chinese wonder:
Will Russian oil sales dominate Chinese markets?
Centuries of suspicion and confrontation weigh
on Sino-Russian relations, and for this China and Russia
are now trying to appease each other, pledging to
strengthen the Shanghai cooperation agreement and even
possibly to favor Russia's accession into what is now
ASEAN+3. Yet it is an uphill walk, while both, though
smiling at each other, turn their heads to see the
reaction of their true love - the United States.
(©2002 Asia Times Online Co, Ltd. All rights
reserved. Please contact content@atimes.com
for information on our sales and syndication policies.)
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
