This has been prompted by a book review in today's ATOL

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/KD25Ag01.html

The review seems to concentrate (as presumably does the book) that China and Russia have highly divergent views on nearly all issues, different priorities and more than a little mutual suspicion of each other on account of historical bad blood and that these factors mean that the Sino-Russo relationship will never be anything more than a relationship of convenience and that any organisations it constructs (principally the SCO) will never amount to anything of true substance on account of this.

This is by no means a one off and I am surprised by how often these theme is repeated including on Chinese Forums and Websites. It seems to me the classic example of "if you repeat something often enough, people will start to believe it".

Personally, I believe this is a million miles from the truth and the following is why.

China and Russia are of course very different countries and so that they should have highly divergent views on a great range of subjects should hardly constitute a surprise. There is however an underlying reality that commentators tend to forget. Both countries realise that the other is not going anywhere and so they need to find ways to get along and overcome critical differences, as they are not about to go away either. This is actually gives the SCO strength as both sides realise that they need the organisation as a forum to manage such differences and to find acceptable solutions.



If two very different countries come to an organisation, they will bring greatly different motivations and objectives that is true, but the notion that prepositions will be entrenched and become permanent are risible. Both nations (in conjunction with the other members) come to such forums to find movement, compromise and agreement. The fact that long standing border disputes have been settled relatively quickly is testimony to the organisations abilities. The fact is that policy evolves over time and in response to the input of others and effective solutions to intractable seeming problems will take in you in unforeseen and sometimes very strange directions. Which is precisely what we see happening today as the the Organisation builds its macro infrastructure. The area of territory is vast and number of potential projects daunting, often jostling each other for priority. It can then be wild journey as the members ascribe and implement those priorities, the important thing though is that the list is being worked through and quite speedily. As each piece of the jigsaw falls into place,the greater benefits become apparent and the next stages of policy and development start to unveil themselves.

The world views of China and Russia may be different but both are influencing the other and I think we can see the beginnings of the shaping of a common position in many key policy areas. This will not happen overnight as much of policy is based on the physical realities on the ground and it is the construction of this physical infrastructure that is key in shifting and shaping those policies.

The other reality between the two nations is that the distance between them is also a strength as the Capitals of Moscow and Beijing sit like the two heads of a double headed dragon, each looking out on the opposite far edge of the Asian continent. As a consequence, both nations can enjoy considerable strategic depth and rely on the other to guard its hinterland. This is compounded by the presence in the SCO of the Central Asian Republics. This also means that Russia has a free hand to develop its CSTO interests while China can concentrate on relations with ASEAN and other Far East nations. So is this a divergence of world views or effective and genuine cooperation and genuine Multipolarity?

You can see how such a situation can be spun, I hope you can also see how such a view can be so very wrong!

Let me put it simply.

The problem with envisioning a close Russia-China relationship is that Russia is a racist country. It is the West without liberalism and political correctness. Russia will not allow China to hold significant demographic power in Siberia or the Far East, whereas they would be fine with this happening if it were other Slavs. Russia would also feel uncomfortable with a very powerful China, and if this were to occur, I'd expect Russia to start courting Europe or even the US to help counter China. Consequently, cooperation between China and Russia can only proceed along the lines of trade between partners, rather than brotherhood between allies. I wouldn't count on Russia for much - certainly not to help in a war where it would have to throw in the chips for China.

^ Meta I think what you say has a lot of truth to it. You get some sense of this even from listening to Deng Xiaoping's own statements to Gorbachev back in 1989.

However, I think the mark of a great power is to rise above current realities to create new ones. China's one-sided desire for "closeness" to USA cannot dissolve American desires to counter China. We cannot think of others as we see ourselves. They are different. The Russian idea of a power balance is closer to the reality of relationship dynamics among European civilizations. American expressions of power are subtle but they have tremendous impact on all of China's interactions with the outside. For one thing, you can be sure that if USA chose to cozy up with China, there would be no such fuss over Tibet as today. Whether they cozy to us will not be based on how we feel about them, but it will be based on the power dynamics as *they* perceive it. I think it's very important for chinese to step outside of our own bodies to look into minds different and diverse from ours.

I don't think there is a danger for China to see others as it sees itself. The CCP is shrewd enough to realize that it has no real allies in this world. China's partnerships with Russia, the US, and Europe are all tentative, exploiting the West's own division for its own benefits. The same is true vice versa. This is the nature of the game between China and the West.

I would like to point out there is nothing new about this contrast in attitudes, it's been around for years, and surely Americans are well aware Russians desire deterrence, while China desires friendship.

But in fact Americans are anti-Chinese while appeasing towards Russia. Russians have committed far more cyber-criminal activity against Americans, and they have stolen much bigger secrets. But in fact to Americans Chinese are the dirty,sneaky bastards, while Russians are some giant, lovable bear. Maybe Hu Jintao needs a wakeup call!

But the author's main points are correct; China and Russia see their relationship very differently. Hu and Wen still subscribe to Deng's philosophy of keeping your head down, and their foreign policy goals are a reflection of their domestic ones; economic growth is awesome, and not pissing off major trade partners is also a good idea. Russia is more willing to take a far more confrontational tone with the US.

On the balance I agree it's probably the correct approach.

While China doesn't want to become anti-western, it's important for Americans to see that China is capable of standing in a strong alliance with Russia. Whenever China desires something with USA, Americans treat us like we're dependent on it. For example China kept repeating we wanted to join the ISS, so when NASA went to China they acted like we were desperate for it. They were quite surprised to find out we weren't, at all, and we told them off for their arrogant attitude. This is a good example of the intercultural miscommunication that can arise if we think of other people in our terms rathern than in theirs.

Are you fu-kin kiddin me?!?! What do you mean there is no danger in seeing others as China see's itself??? Matter of fact, many of China's greatest defeats has been contributed to actions of leaders who saw others as they see themselves for example: Mongol Invasion, Manchu Conquest of Ming, etc... Not to mention how the technologically advanced Song Dynasty was made to pay tributes to the Western-Xia and Northern-Jin Kingdoms before the Mongol invasion of the Song.

I've read many of your posts, and you are defiantely one of the more intelligent posters here. I agree with a lot of the things you stated on your previous posts, but this is one aspect which I fully disagree upon. And yes I think it is dangerous to see others as one see's itself, especially in times like these.

Pretty much all that need to be said have been said.

China dont want SCO to be anti-NATO, because Chinese 2 largest trade partners are EU and US.

Russia want to exert power now, and want China to be more anti-western.

China on the other hand only want to be anti-western in EA and SEA. Russia meanwhile play the central asia great game with the US and East EU with Nato.

SCO will not be anti-NATO at least for another 20-30 years. Thats when China have a strong domestic market and no longer heavily relied on NATO trade. Thats also the time when Chinese military will catch up.

Context. My post was in response to ugrowup, who said: "China's one-sided desire for "closeness" to USA cannot dissolve American desires to counter China. We cannot think of others as we see ourselves. They are different." I interpreted this to mean that China shouldn't expect in others what it sees in itself, which in this case presumably means the desire for close partnership. My protest was that China's current leaders have no such illusions about other countries; if anything, they are paranoid about other countries' intentions and do not trust any of them. I'm not sure this is a good thing.

Ugrowup says:


I think that is good summary of the underlying point I am making. Both countries realise that much of their immediate interests occurs in spheres that do not overlap, and that where they do there is potential for co-operation as much as there is for confrontation and as confrontation benefits no-one other than their mutual competitors, co-operation has much more to offer. It is also a new relationship and all relationships take time to develop.

The original source article on ATOL said the following.



The part only I agree with (in this context so please dont ask if I think China does not care about maintaining economic growth ) is the part in bold.

Question, can anyone think of any instance in the last 10 years where China and Russia have openly opposed each other in the UN Security Council or voted down each others primary resolution proposals? I can't, but what I do see is both countries using very different arguments and voicing different concerns etc, but which ultimately lead in the same final voting direction. Its almost a classic Good Cop/Bad Cop routine which promotes an underlying interest, but seldom in a way that suggests a common position between both countries. The Net result though is that tough resolutions from Washington are often pulled apart and turned from Tigers into Pussycats and even then only after separate concessions have been obtained from America by both Moscow and Beijing.
It seems to me a very effective strategy for China, that blunts US hegemony but without doing it in an obviously belligerent way and one to which it seems that the US is yet to find an effective answer.

There are also matters in the relationship that deal directly with development throughout the territory of SCO states. It is probably early days to start waxing lyrically on this subject, as I can offer little hard proof to support my assertions and predictions. I will say though that the organisation provides the means for the members to obtain the benefits that they seek from each other without bringing matters of sovereignty into question. I also think that the time when I will be able to point at proof is not as far away as many other commentators think.

Probably does work good in diplomatic and business circles, as we can see from China's ability to penetrate into a broad range of economies.

In the public mind of Americans however, China's growth in itself is belligerent. They almost seem frustrated that China DOESN'T express itself more strongly, as if that is evidence of sneaky, evil intentions. lol... they're a tough crowd to please.


They're not paranoid enough. For instance they weren't able to predict the reaction to the ASAT tests, with all the made up excuse of "debris field" and what not. The difference is that Chinese put their paranoia in direct terms, while Americans roll them off smoothly from their tongue.