Comments 14

El matrimonio entre China y Rusia

Jun 18, 2015 Robert Skidelsky

LONDRES – Los chinos, entre todos los pueblos, son los que tienen la mentalidad más histórica. En su conquista del poder, Mao Zedong usó tácticas militares derivadas de aquellas de Sun Tzu, quien vivió alrededor del año 500 a. de C.; El confucianismo, que data de alrededor de la misma época, se mantiene en el corazón del pensamiento social de China, a pesar de que Mao llevó a cabo implacables intentos por suprimirlo.

Así que cuando el presidente Xi Jinping lanzó su iniciativa llamada la “Nueva Ruta de la Seda” en el año 2013, nadie debería haberse sorprendido por la referencia histórica. La Comisión Estatal de Desarrollo y Reforma de China explica la iniciativa de esta manera: “Hace más de dos milenios, los diligentes y valientes pobladores de Eurasia exploraron y abrieron varias vías de intercambio comercial y cultural que vincularon a las principales civilizaciones de Asia, Europa y África; las generaciones posteriores denominaron colectivamente a dichas vías como la Ruta de la Seda”. En China, a menudo se recurre a antecedentes históricos para que coadyuven a una nueva doctrina.

La nueva doctrina es la “multipolaridad” – la noción de que el mundo está (o debería estar) compuesto por varios polos de atracción que tengan sus propias características. Esta doctrina se contrasta con la de un mundo “unipolar” (es decir, un mundo dominado ya sea por Estados Unidos o el Occidente).

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

To continue reading, please log in or register now. After entering your email, you'll have access to two free articles every month. For unlimited access to Project Syndicate, subscribe now.

Featured

How Not to Fight Income Inequality

Nov 14, 2018 Ricardo Hausmann
Trump’s Diminishing Power and Rising Rage

Nov 12, 2018 Jeffrey D. Sachs
Why Freedom of Assembly Still Matters

Nov 13, 2018 Jan-Werner Mueller
Are You Buying Oil from Saudi Arabia?

Nov 12, 2018 Peter Singer
A Concert of Indo-Pacific Democracies

Nov 12, 2018 Brahma Chellaney

Robert Skidelsky

Writing for PS since 2003
145 Commentaries

Robert Skidelsky, Professor Emeritus of Political Economy at Warwick University and a fellow of the British Academy in history and economics, is a member of the British House of Lords. The author of a three-volume biography of John Maynard Keynes, he began his political career in the Labour party, became the Conservative Party’s spokesman for Treasury affairs in the House of Lords, and was eventually forced out of the Conservative Party for his opposition to NATO’s intervention in Kosovo in 1999.

jonathan leveneur/Flickr

Pang Xinglei/ZumaPress

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 16 in all 16 Comments on this article

Adrian Lucas Jun 27, 2015

The West could have, and probably should have, invited Russia to join Nato, which could then be repurposed and rebranded as Northern Treaty Organisation (Nto). The questions are: "Why did the US not invite Russia into Nato?", "Why did Germany and France not insist that Russia be invited to join Nato?", "What was the UK's role?" Western journalists are failing in their task: it is their business to put these questions before politicians (Clinton, Bush, Obama, Kohl, Schröder, Merkel, Chirac, Sarkozy, Hollande, Blair, Brown, Cameron et al) and provide us with answers.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Fernando Fuster-Fabra Jun 24, 2015

Are we sure we want them conniving together ?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Bing De La Vega Jun 23, 2015

It is but necessary that both China and Russia be circled in. Both countries are bent on forcing their brand of governance devoid of fundamental liberties and values of free men. Never mind histories behind their rise as an excuse for them to forward. They are totalitarian. They rule by force and the use of the barrel of the gun to enforce. So why is that a surprise to you Mr Skidelsky that these two countries should not be circled in. You should write more favorable to free men after all, if they get to rule over the world, you will find yourself banned from writing freely. Or are you now writing for them.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Brian ( yang guang ) Lansdowne Jun 23, 2015

The problem in this world is the USA , both Chins and Russia do not get along with the mighty war machine of the USA
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
David Schuck Jun 22, 2015

In a way, the Chinese are correct to think that this will bring a new level of prosperity not only to themselves, but also any other nation (particularly) that join it. There is a case in history for something like this so it isn't completely unreasonable. However, the question is whether these nations can create a singular, solid, economic and political policy that would allow this to thrive.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
captainjohann Samuhanand Jun 22, 2015

The US wants to have only client states but not states which may be weak economically and militarily to have some self respect. what US has gained by pushing NATO to east in Ukraine and Georgia? The real gainer is China which is getting cutting edge defense technology from Russia against its wishes but due to exigencies of sanctions from west. India seems to look like spoiler as the silk road is passing through its disputed territory.But I think if only India plays its cards well with self reliance, can gain in this rivalry between west and Sino russian axis.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
JANKO SVARC Jun 21, 2015

I think the "SINO-RUSSIAN MARRIAGE" is first and foremost strategic, geopolitical in nature. They see themselves surrounded militarily in the west by NATO, ammassing at Russis'a borders, and in the Pacifc, by the US Navy. I think they both find this threatening, so they've agreed to stand back to back against these perceived threats. On the other hand, the Russians can provide the Chinese market with theit huge gas resrerves and weaponry to be simple about it, and China has a milion products to sell to Russia. Invite India to the party and well, this "marriage" can become the social event of the Century.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Yoshimichi Moriyama Jun 21, 2015

The Chinese concept of history is not anything like what we understand as history.
Confucius lived before the first Chinese empire, qin, was built. I understand, though I do not know very well that Confucianism was greatly transfomed in the Han dynasty and became the political tool of the ruling elite. "...the reality of empire was that of a hard core of wei, or force, surrounded by a soft pulp of de, virtue,...they (emperors) in fact behaved like Legalists (June Teufel Dreyer, China's Tianxia: Do All Under Heaven Need One Arbiter?/www.yaleglobal.yale.edu/.)
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j. von Hettlingen Jun 20, 2015

Robert Skidelsky is taking a look at the "Sino-Russian marriage". Putin and Xi Jinping signed in May an agreement that may turn Central Asia into a “steady developing safe common neighborhood of Russia and China.” It is the merger of two leaders' project: Putin's Eurasian Economic Union (EEU) and Xi Jinping's New Silk Road Initiative, which would "serve a vast free-trade area linking China with Europe, the Middle East, and Africa".
The initially China-led New Silk Road project aims to develop its restive province of Xinjiang, which shares borders with Mongolia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India. Xinjiang’s mountains and deserts hide huge deposits of oil, natural gas, coal, gold and other minerals, but the vast province has just 22 million people - mainly Uighurs. Beijing has taken Moscow on board of its Silk Road Ecnomic Belt, because the Kremlin has always seen Eurasia as its backyard. China needs to allay Russia's concerns that its goals are to create jobs and boost growth. The Belt will stretch from the Indian Ocean across "Greater Eurasia" to China.
Skidelsky says "China’s motive for reviving Pax Mongolica is clear", saying the "Chinese are the most historically minded of peoples". Pax Mongolica was a period of time marked by peace, stability, economic growth and cultural development in territories occupied by Mongols in Asia and Europe. They had conquered many lands and created an enormous empire. In the 13th century, led by the great warrior Prince Hulagu, grandson of Genghis Khan, they sacked Baghdad and killed an estimated 800,000 people. This brought the Abbasid caliphate - a model that has inspired ISIS - to a bloody end. China may be eager to revive the spirit of the ancient Silk Road, without actually having the desire to re-impose Pax Mongolica. It's doubtful if Russia and the Eurasian countries would embrace it.
The question is how long will this "Sino-Russian marriage" last? It's true that "Russia and China both feel 'encircled' by the United States and its allies". Their leaders, Putin and Xi Jinping harbour anti-Western sentiments for various reasons. Being treated like a pariah, Putin feels snubbed by world leaders, as a result of the conflict in Ukraine. Xi wants to change the current world order, which he thinks, does not reflect the political reality on the ground. China demands an equal role to the US on the global stage. Both leaders are pragmatic. For the time being, they are enjoying their honeymoon. Indeed "squabbles over the New Silk Road seem less painful to the two powers than enduring lectures from the West". Yet history shows that China and Russia had not always had an easy relationship. It wouldn't come as a surprise, that Putin turned the tables on China one day, if he felt the energy deal signed last year were unfair.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Mirek Fatyga Jun 20, 2015

Is this the best that such exalted British credentials have to offer? This insight?
Why did Russia and Germany enter into a non-aggression treaty that blew up Europe first and much of the world next? They did so, because they were both fascist powers hell bent on subjugating everything that moved around them. Concentrating, shooting in the back of the head, starving to death. That's why.
Why a tentative Sino-Russian alliance? Because both are authoritarian powers that, more than anything else, are afraid of social explosion in their midst. So they indeed do not want to be lectured about the law, human rights, religious freedom, you name it. The West has about as much power to influence these desires as it had 100 years ago over Hitler, Mussolini, or Tojo.
And the unfortunate analogy does not end there. Russia, had she reformed, could actually be a prosperous country. She has ~5% of Eurasian population and ~30% of landmass, full of riches, guarded by thousands of nukes. China can only be a deeply divided country in a foreseeable future because China has ~30% of Eurasian population and about 15% of landmass, much of it desert. The population explosion worldwide guarantees that western civilization, as we know it today, cannot be simply cut and pasted on China. No matter what the party, or anyone else for that matter does. The civilization has to be technologically upgraded, assuming it can be,which takes time and money. So, the real question is what will the Chinese people do, particularly those living in toxic dumps for the benefit of coastal cities.
In summary, Russia has the land that China desperately needs. Sounds familiar? Will it end the same way? Who knows. It depends on the success of maintaining internal cohesion. Historically, war always seemed like an attractive option to despots struggling to maintain control. Contemporary exhibit 1: Ukraine.
The idea that "if only the West made timely concession" is, at the very least, contrary to all historical experience. The West needs to mind it's own cohesion, stick to values that made it the West and in fact created the very civilization that everyone else now aspires to, seek like minded friends, create defensive alliances that protect areas where such values prevail, and offer moral support to those who still live under tyrant's boot.
We have just concluded three decades of trade over values. Results are on display in China and Russia, and in the West. The West undermined it's own industrial base in favor of the Chinese labor camp, ending up in a debt crisis reminiscent of the 1930-ies. This crisis does indeed need to be fixed in a way other than war. Longer it drags on, more likely it is that the West weakens to a point of inviting aggression which deteriorates to the point of war, which can then slide into nukes.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
hari naidu Jun 19, 2015

Invariably RS is not fully invested in Sino-Soviet conflict from 1960s when Mao's CPC was designated a revisionist communist party (eg. Tito's Yugoslavia)....CPC has a long memory when it comes to state relations with its neighbors.

In the long term, Russia will have, first, to forego its claims on territories right across China's frontiers. If not, it's possible new gas/oil pipelines through the two respective frontiers might intensify mutual cooperation.

However Chinese suspicion of Putin's Russia will inevitably keep the current links based solely on economic - arms length - transactions.

Time of course changes historical perspective of Sino-Russian relations - but history is not going to allow a marriage of convenience. Not only because of asymmetry in historical developments of the two nations. But also demands of globalization and rise of mainland China.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Manu Oquendo Jun 19, 2015

Skidelsky is getting better as he ages. Like the noble wines.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Zsolt Hermann Jun 19, 2015

"...The new doctrine is “multipolarity” – the idea that the world is (or should be) made up of several distinctive poles of attraction. The contrast is with a “unipolar” (that is, an American- or Western-dominated) world.

Well this "doctrine" is much more developed and forward thinking than the usual Western viewpoint stating that only our "liberal Western democracy" is a viable way of life in a modern world. Especially as we see today how this Western way of life - purely based on markets, financial institutions, constant quantitative growth and never ending profit - is now collapsing in the form of multi-faceted global crisis with impending economic, financial and geopolitical disasters all over the globe.

The ruthlessly competitive, single focused Western model completely ignores a global, interconnected world assembled from very diverse, contradicting pieces, that each have to find their rightful and most effective piece in the puzzle.

Of course the "Eurasian doctrine" is also doomed to failure as long as their protagonists want to exploit the whole, global system, or even just their corresponding regions for their own sake. In a globally interconnected and interdependent system a completely new thinking, way of life is necessary. Simply acknowledging our inherent differences, our interconnections is not enough.

We also have to learn how to build a globally, mutually complementing collaborative system which works as a multi-cellular organism. And for that we need to find completely new blueprints since our present global conditions are unprecedented. And it is not going to be easy as such mutually complementing collaboration, above self-interest, primarily for the well being of the whole collective is against our instinctive nature.

But we have no choice, since the need for such a system is not ideological, moral. It is an evolutionary necessity. Just as from single cell organism multi-cellular organisms evolved in order to become more enduring, adaptive to environmental circumstances, now the global human society comprising of billions of cancer-like singular cells have to evolve into a truly united, mutually cooperating multi-cellular humanity in order to survive.

And since such a change is in line with the direction of evolution as soon as we make efforts to change in that direction we will be assisted by the evolutionary forces forming, driving reality around us, helping us rising above our inherent, instinctive behavior.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Petey Bee Jun 18, 2015

A singular success indeed. Perhaps Russia and China are asking why they can't have the kind of quality of life that Norway and Sweden have, but on a larger scale. Surely western policymakers would prefer if the character of R's and C's foreign relations personas went that way, rather than if R and C tried to emulate the foreign policy persona of the US, and if they were successful in applying their collective resources in that format, trying to duplicate the US's more assertive, some might say, benevolently aggressive, style.
- Petey Bee Jun 21, 2015
  
  @j.lam,
  Well tongue was ever so slightly in cheek, but why not? Norway the happy oil state + Sweden with... I dunno, stuff? Didn't a couple of Swedish guys write like half the songs in American pop music, and everyone else in the country just gets to chill? What's not to like?
  
  I am very fond of the good cop - bad cop analogy btw. It would work with R and C, maybe a little too well.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Jonathan Lam Jun 19, 2015
  
  Gamesmith94134: The Sino-Russian Marriage
  Why can’t they have the kind of quality of life that Norway and Sweden? It is why Russia warned of consequence if Sweden joins the NATO. They ponder if the PIIGS will feed them too well.
  They see G7 will lose their competitive edge over currency, one on high and one at low to its extremity; they realized the foundation of the PIIGS swifts if money is not the matter anymore after Britex, and Grexit; even though they may work hard to keep Greeks in.
  R’s and C’s are the detectives as in a bad cop and a good cop to investigate who else can climb over the wall of BRICS. Can they turn on the PIIGS to eat dollar and euro alive by 2050 or sooner? My prediction is sooner. Why duplicate?
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.