Second honeymoons rarely, if ever, recapture the zest of lost love. Yet ever since the Soviet Union’s collapse in 1991, Russia and China have sought to rekindle the close relations that once supposedly existed between the USSR and Mao’s China before Khrushchev’s denunciation of Stalin in 1956. But that renewed Sino-Russian marriage always smacked more of convenience — aimed as it was at checking US hegemony — than of true romance. Now Russia’s invasion of Georgia has shattered even the illusion of attraction.
In 1969, the Chinese and Soviet armies exchanged fire across their disputed border. Recently, the two countries signed an agreement that seemed to put an end to their long border dispute. The agreement was a sort of follow-up to a visit to Beijing by Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, who made China one of his first official trips abroad after being elected.
During Vladimir Putin’s presidency, Chinese and Russian troops engaged in joint military maneuvers, and the two countries became dominant powers in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which, to some Western observers, looked like an effort to counterbalance NATO. There were also years of “Russia in China” and “China in Russia” cultural exchanges, meant to underscore that the two countries were tied together not just by geopolitical pragmatism, but by genuine cultural/historical ties as well.
But the fact is that 17 years of high-level bilateral cooperation have produced little of substance. Indeed, in the wake of the invasion of Georgia, China may be seriously rethinking its relations with Russia. It may not yet be ready to embark on a full-fledged policy of “containment,” but in the wake of the dismemberment of Georgia — and with Russia claiming a zone of “privileged influence” throughout the former Soviet world — China clearly views Russia as an emerging strategic threat.
For example, China has refused to endorse Russia’s recognition of the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and has encouraged the SCO’s other members to do the same. The reasons are not hard to find. As a general principle of foreign policy, China believes that national borders are sacrosanct. No power, not even the UN, should be allowed to change them without the consent of the country concerned.
More importantly, China views the break-up of the USSR as one of the greatest strategic gifts in its history. Instead of confronting a (usually hostile) Russian/Soviet empire on its border, a vast swath of buffer states appeared after 1991.
Their continued independence is now deemed essential to China’s national security. As a result, any more Russian efforts to establish even informal suzerainty over the Soviet successor states are, following the dismemberment of Georgia, likely to meet Chinese resistance.
The economic components of the Sino-Russian relationship — where real attachments are tested — are also dissatisfactory, at least from China’s point of view. China’s major interest in Russia is oil and gas. But, while Russia is firmly committed to being a major supplier of gas and oil to Europe, it is hesitant to play a similar role with China.
Moreover, Russia’s efforts to gain monopoly control of the gas pipeline networks across Eurasia pose a direct danger for China, because monopolists can not only gouge their consumers, but also shut off supplies for political purposes, as Russia has done repeatedly over the past two decades. So China’s national security interest is to ensure that the gas-supplying nations of Central Asia have outlets to sell their gas that are not under Kremlin control.
Other than oil, gas and other commodities, China has rather limited interests in Russia. Russia has been China’s major supplier of weapons since the late 1990s. But, given the stagnant state of Russian science and technology, even the best Russian equipment nowadays seems out of date.
Indeed, although the war with Georgia demonstrated the revived combat spirit of the Russian army — at least when compared to its ineptness in the two Chechen wars of the 1990s — it also exhibited the grave defects of Russian military technology. Most of the arms used were yesterday’s weapons. As China is now able to harness its own technological might to produce sophisticated weapons, Russia’s usefulness in this area is waning fast.
Nor do the Chinese have much interest in assuming de facto control of Asiatic Russia, despite shrieks from Russian strategic pundits that this is China’s real goal. China might, indeed, have an interest in some border areas with fertile soil and moderate climate. But it hardly wishes to colonize the frozen wastes of Siberia.
In fact, Siberia is not much different from China’s own almost empty mountain/desert borderlands, where even agriculture is a daunting task. As for Russia’s Far East, the Chinese believe it will eventually fall to China anyway, so there is no need to hasten the process.
China is far more interested in focusing on the US, its major trade partner and rival, and on South Asia and Iran, which supplies much of China’s oil and regards it as a more reliable ally than Russia. Thus, the settling of the border dispute with Russia was not aimed so much at building a geopolitical marriage as securing each other’s rear, offering both sides a free hand to explore opportunities elsewhere.
What China wants and what it gets may be different things. With its long borders with Russia, China knows it would have much to regret if a new, oil-fired Russian empire appeared on its doorstep.
Dmitry Shlapentokh is an associate professor of history at Indiana University, South Bend.
COPYRIGHT: PROJECT SYNDICATE
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers