This year marks the 70th anniversary of the end of World War II. The parade in Moscow’s Red Square on May 9 to commemorate the victory in what Russia calls the Great Patriotic War against Nazi Germany was described as “the largest military parade in history” by Russian media outlets.
However, this grandeur was reflected only in the images of 16,500 troops, 200 armored vehicles and 150 aircraft. Ten years ago, a similar ceremony was attended by 54 national leaders from Western nations, including those from the US, France, Germany, Italy and Japan. This year, with the US’ and EU’s boycott, there were just about 20 nations remaining, and a majority of them were former Soviet republics and socialist countries, recreating a scenario reminiscent of the Cold War era’s East-West divide.
The Western leaders were replaced by the high-profile attendance of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), whose presence was the harbinger of a new Cold War order consisting of Russia and China versus Europe, the US and Japan.
Needless to say, the US, the EU and Japan unanimously boycotted the parade in Red Square, as Russia annexed Crimea and has supported Russian nationalist rebels in Ukraine, despite opposition from the international community.
In the face of the Western boycott, Russian President Vladimir Putin criticized the US, saying it is attempting to create a unipolar world, challenging the US-led world order.
Putin’s remarks are not without reason. In recent years, changing international circumstances have put pressure on Putin, who is determined to rebuild Russia into a formidable power. Soon after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the US, the newly elected Putin took the initiative and vowed cooperation with the US in combating terrorism. However, not only did NATO not dissolve following the breakup of the Warsaw Pact, it also consistently expanded its membership in Russia’s direction. In 2003, three Baltic states — Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania — neighboring Russia joined NATO in succession.
On the other hand, over the past decade, the “color revolutions” in Russia’s neighboring countries have not been to Putin’s liking, and last year, Putin’s forceful actions in Crimea and Ukraine were meant as a fearless display aimed at countering the West.
Nevertheless, the waves of democratization that swept the world after the Cold War have left Russia with few allies and it has found it difficult to single-handedly resist Western pressure. Thus, knocking on the door of China, now the world’s second-largest economy, has become Putin’s only remaining option.
For Beijing, which also fears being affected by pro-democracy protests such as China’s Jasmine Revolution in 2011 and is currently trying to stop an invasion of Western values, deepening its close strategic relationship with Russia is both natural and necessary. For the first time, Beijing dispatched a Chinese People’s Liberation Army honor guard to participate in the military parade in Moscow and two Chinese warships participated in a victory celebration at the Russian naval base of Novorossiysk on the Black Sea, highlighting how China and Russia are cooperating in the face of the Western isolation.
However, for China, the hostility between Moscow and Beijing that has lingered since the late 1950s has not fully dissipated. The notion of self-determination created by Mao Zedong (毛澤東) as part of China’s national founding philosophy and foreign policy continues to have an effect.
In other words, despite the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and increasingly close cooperation with Russia on military and energy concerns, there will be no Chinese-Russian alliance. Furthermore, the rise of China and its “one belt, one road” strategy have put China in direct competition with Russia in Central Asia and the Middle East. These inherent contradictions in Sino-Russian relations will not disappear, despite US and EU pressures.
After the parade in Moscow, the focus of the international media is expected to shift to Beijing’s Sept. 3 parade to celebrate the victory in the war of resistance against Japan.
The Cold War in Europe ended more than 20 years ago, but the Korean Peninsula and the Taiwan Strait still remain a living legacy of the Cold War. Confrontation between China and Japan has persisted in recent years, and there is constant talk of the danger of a new Cold War in East Asia.
This year, the 70th anniversary of World War II, offers a good opportunity to see how the new situation with China and Russia on one side and Europe, the US and Japan on the other will play out.
Within the unpredictable unfolding of a “new Cold War,” the way Taiwan recognizes its own position, avoids miscalculations and highlights its role in its foreign relations with the US, Japan and China will be a giant test.
John Lim is an associate research fellow at Academia Sinica’s Institute of Modern History and an adjunct associate professor at National Taiwan University.
Translated by Zane Kheir
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
RSS