Sun, Jan 07, 2001 - Page 8 News List

US driving China-Russia together

By Evan A. Feigenbaum 方艾文

A new poll released in the last week of 2000 by the Russian subsidiary of the American polling organization Gallup revealed that a majority of Russian politicians, business leaders and journalists view China as a more reliable partner than the US.

These poll results are noteworthy. Just four months ago, General Leonid Ivashov, head of the Russian Defense Ministry's international cooperation department, called China Russia's "ideological ally," citing common goals in rejecting "military diktat in international relations," as well as US missile defense plans. The growing partnership is, of course, in many ways a marriage of convenience. China and Russia so far remain "strategic partners" in name alone.

Perhaps the most important strategic underpinning of the increasingly close Chinese-Russian view of international affairs is that both countries share a deepening conviction that a principled stand against certain core American strategic concepts will give them the high ground.

It is telling that as US foreign policy has discarded the notion that state sovereignty is inviolable, with interventions in Panama, Haiti, and Kosovo, both Chinese and Russian diplomacy has responded in similar terms, opposing NATO efforts to formulate a strategy that is not exclusively defensive, among other creeping US challenges to the inviolability of state sovereignty.

China continues to cling to long and often repeated principles of nonintervention and territorial self-defense, even as the post-Cold War Pax Americana has rewritten these rules by promoting new rationales for the use of force. Taiwan, however, remains China's great exception. Indeed, an unprovoked Chinese use of force against Taiwan, that many Americans, Asians, Europeans and even some Russians would view as aggressive, would be justified by Beijing as a strictly defensive action involving territorial integrity -- the one interest that Chinese diplomacy claims as "vital."

The more encompassing US definition of vital interests, by contrast, ranges beyond the mere defense of homeland. Many Chinese argue that US statements of its national interest tend to enshrine a law of the jungle in international politics that violates norms of law and is conceptually distinct from peacekeeping.

In this, China and Russia have some important common goals, rejecting the use of military measures as a principled response in some key external contingencies. Such trends are hardly new, and strands of US strategic analysis have wrestled in recent years with the prospect of a renewed China-Russia "alliance" relationship.

Such a notion is ironic indeed, not least because both countries have increasingly rejected the very notion of alliances on grounds of principle. Four months ago, General Ivashov said that "military alliances have no future." His view jibes neatly with a Chinese view of the world that increasingly sees alliance structures as a threat to peace and intrinsically aggressive in nature.

NATO strategy in Kosovo reinforced Chinese and Russian perceptions that US alliances in Europe and Asia have evolved away from original concepts of cooperative defense toward more expansive definitions of alliance roles and missions. Above all, it was Kosovo that demonstrated to Chinese, Russian, and other strategists that the US and its allies were prepared to circumvent the UN and the norms of international law that China, in particular, views in inflexible terms. All of this supplements the shared concern about US missile defense plans.

This story has been viewed 3549 times.

Comments will be moderated. Keep comments relevant to the article. Remarks containing abusive and obscene language, personal attacks of any kind or promotion will be removed and the user banned. Final decision will be at the discretion of the Taipei Times.

TOP top