Expanding Sino-Russian cooperation

One important by product of the Chinese Winter Olympics was the bilateral meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Chinese counterpart President Xi in Beijing on February 4, 2022. President Putin came to Beijing to express “solidarity” with Beijing while most of the Western leaders chose to stay away from the inaugural event of the Winter Olympics, suggests the importance accorded by Moscow to its relations with China.

Beyond symbolism, the two sides also issued a joint statement on February 4, which marks a new phase in their ongoing comprehensive strategic partnership.

After the breakup of the USSR in August 1991 and its replacement by Common Wealth of Independent States (CIS), bilateral relations between Moscow and Beijing improved significantly as the two sides concluded a number of agreements between them, settling their border disputes that had led to military clashes along the USSURI River in 1969. As a result of these military clashes, western analysts had predicted the advent of the “coldest” war between China and the then USSR.

But this dire and gloomy forecast was contradicted by the emerging reality of new Russia and its disavowal of direct control over Central Asia and other areas that had been forcibly included in the USSR. Chinese leaders had always demanded that the existing borders of USSR were unjust as they were acquired by Moscow through “unequal” treaties with China during the time of the Czars.

Between 1992 and 1996, high-level exchanges took place between China and Russia leading to embryonic stage of strategic partnership that was in full display at the Putin-Xi bilateral meeting in Beijing.

President Putin, under pressure from Washington and its NATO allies over the Ukraine crisis and committed to holding Moscow’s red line over NATO’s eastward expansion, turned to Beijing for much needed diplomatic and security support.

The February 4 joint statement, while referring to the need for evolving a new system of relations based on UN principles, strongly condemned attempts by powerful states to forge “military and political alliances and coalitions seek to obtain, directly or indirectly, unilateral military advantages to the detriment of the security of others, including by employing unfair competition practices, intensify geopolitical rivalry, fuel antagonism and confrontation, and seriously undermine the international security order and global strategic stability.”

The two sides oppose further enlargement of NATO and call on the North Atlantic Alliance to abandon its ideologized cold war approaches, to respect the sovereignty, security and interests of other countries, the diversity of their civilizational, cultural and historical backgrounds, and to exercise a fair and objective attitude towards the peaceful development of other States. (Italics added). The two sides stand against the formation of closed bloc structures and opposing camps in the Asia-Pacific region and remain highly vigilant about the negative impact of the United States’ Indo-Pacific strategy on peace and stability in the region. Russia and China have made consistent efforts to build an equitable, open and inclusive security system in the Asia-Pacific Region (APR) that is not directed against third countries and that promotes peace, stability and prosperity.”

To drive the point home that their joint statement was not a rhetorical flourish, they explicitly stated: “that the new inter-state relations between Russian and China are superior to political and military alliance of the Cold War era. Friendship between the two states has no limits, there are no “forbidden” areas of cooperation, strengthening of bilateral strategic cooperation is neither aimed against third countries nor affected the changing international environment and circumstantial changes in third countries.

Apart from agreeing on a united stand against Washington and its allies’ policies of intervention in the name of protecting freedom, the joint statement lays down certain principles of inter-state conduct which must be followed by states, especially the great powers, to avoid conflict in the post-cold war era.

These principles include: resistance to formation of new cold war blocs such as AUKUS and QUAD; support for NPT; and discouraging of militarization of space. The two sides also agreed to work for a new democratic world order which is not based on the privileged elite of the few, but, “the sides share the understanding that democracy is a universal human value, rather than a privilege of a limited number of States, and that its promotion and protection is a common responsibility of the entire world community. The sides believe that democracy is a means of citizens’ participation in the government of their country with the view to improving the wellbeing of population and implementing the principle of popular government. Democracy is exercised in all spheres of public life as part of a nation-wide process and reflect the interests of all the people, its will, guarantees its rights, meets its needs and protects its interests. There is no one-size-fits-all template to guide countries in establishing democracy. A nation can choose such forms and methods of implementing democracy that would best suit its particular state, based on its social and political system, its historical background, traditions and unique cultural Characteristics. It is only up to the people of the country to decide whether their State is a democratic one.” (Italics added).

What does the future of Sino-Russian partnership entail? In the immediate context of implications for the emerging world order, the promised cooperative security framework outlined by both Russia and China in their joint statement augurs well for creating the new architecture of international politics, free from external interference and meddling. As the joint statement notes: “democratic principles are implemented at the global level, as well as in administration of State.”

Certain States’ attempts to impose their own “democratic standards” on other countries, to monopolise the right to assess the level of compliance with democratic criteria, to draw dividing lines based on the grounds of ideology, including by establishing exclusive blocs and alliances of convenience that prove to be nothing, but flouting of democracy which go against the spirit and true values of democracy. Such attempts at hegemony pose serious threats to global and regional peace and stability and undermine the stability of the world order. (Italics added).

The sides believe that “peace, development and cooperation lie at the core of the modern international system. Development is a key driver in ensuring the prosperity of the nations. The ongoing Covid pandemic poses a serious challenge to the fulfillment of the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. It is vital to enhance partnership relations for the sake of global development and make sure that the new stage of global development is defined by balance, harmony and inclusiveness.” One could not agree more with these sentiments.

It is extraordinary that leaders of China and Russia who have been portrayed by the Western states as presiding over “authoritarian” dispensation, with little regards for human rights impulses, have articulated such noble sentiments.

The writer is a political scientist and defence analyst