It Wouldn’t Be Wrong for the US To Take the Sino-Russian Statements as a Personal Attack

Published in Huanqiu
(China) on 27 June 2016
by (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Alex Harper. Edited by Shelby Stillwell.
On June 25, Russian President Vladimir Putin displayed the substantial results from the short Chinese state visit. During the visit, Xi Jinping and Putin signed three joint declarations to strengthen global strategic security, showing that on core issues, both China and Russia hold an attitude of mutual support. They spoke bluntly, unanimously criticizing the deployment of the shore-based Aegis missile system in Eastern Europe and the THAAD missile program in Northeast Asia. The joint declarations also advocated that all of the controversy surrounding the South China Sea should be negotiated and solved by the countries actually involved; they are against the internationalization of the South China Sea problem and external interference with the issue. Furthermore, the foreign ministers of both countries also signed another declaration, bilaterally agreeing to a series of economic and trade agreements.

The joint declarations essentially avoided mentioning the United States, but the issues they touched upon were strongly focused on the country and it would be very fitting for the U.S. to take the comments as a personal attack. The wording, “strengthening global strategic security,” is relatively new, and it makes people think the U.S. is the world’s largest current source of strategic risk. This joint declaration is an extremely candid criticism of America; it is a reflection of the weariness both Beijing and Moscow feel toward Washington’s stubborn pursuit of world hegemony.

In the joint declaration, both China and Russia indicated that their bilateral relationship does not have the characteristics of an alliance and is not directed against a specific third country; we ought to say this is the true opinion of Beijing and Moscow. An alliance between China and Russia would bring an epoch-making shock to the current world structure. Both countries do not hope for this, but instead are willing to develop their all-around diplomacy to maintain normal relations with the West.

However, the U.S. has unceasingly squeezed its China-Russia strategy with increasing intensity, making mutual support on core issues by China and Russia more and more of a necessity. In the joint declaration between China and Russia, the word “support” was mentioned 18 times; we must say this element is thanks to the U.S.

The United States has manifested its ambition to create a global empire; its “global real-time combat system plan” is a threat to the safety of all nations of the world, and its strategy to approach China and Russia from two directions – Europe and Asia – so as to squeeze them and force them to take this provocation back to back is an arrogant move.

The Chinese-Russian positions are all highly unanimous; they oppose using human rights as an excuse to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries, oppose setting up a double standard when it comes to fighting terrorism, and oppose carrying out regime change in any nation by external intervention. America and the West should understand that when China and Russia oppose some of the West’s one-sided viewpoints, it means the so-called universality of those viewpoints is fake and phony. China and Russia have the bulk of the developing countries behind them; the “Western World” is actually quite narrow.

Western media loves to magnify the differences between China and Russia, for example, emphasizing how Russia developing relationships with Japan and Southeast Asian countries is making China lose face, or making something up about how China developing relationships with the countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States (former Soviet Union) is making Russia nervous. The Western media is unable to understand the openness of the Chinese-Russian relationship. The importance and vitality of the China-Russia comprehensive cooperative strategy lies in the fact that neither country wants to restrict the other.

The U.S. cannot swallow the Chinese Dragon and the Russian Bear at the same time, of course. These two countries do not have the same offensive spirit as the Soviet Union did back in the day, but the scope of their strategies make it so America still cannot wholly digest either one of them. There is still a lot of room to take Chinese-Russian mutual strategic support a step further, and as the U.S. increases its pressure on both countries, their mutual support will also increase. The best strategic balance for all three countries is not likely to be replaced by absolute American hegemony.

Western public opinion often confuses whether Russia is looking East or looking West, and whether it is China or Russia asking more of the other. Trying to quantify the characteristics of the China-Russia relationship like this shows the West’s failure to grasp the main points. The relationship between these two great powers has a high degree of equality and mutual respect. Both countries also have many strengths, and the new comprehensive and cooperative strategy benefits both of them – it is not a burden. The formula used by the two nations to calculate their interests is very different from that of popular Western international political scientists.

The strategic relationship between China and Russia has already been defined; they have very high aspirations for strengthening cooperation in both the economic and trade domains. For the time being, a few concrete details on some parts of cooperation have not yet been completed or are difficult to implement. However, these issues will not destabilize the overall relationship. Because everything has yet to be completed, the Western media repeatedly chants that the China-Russia relationship is becoming weak and is incapable of coming about in the way the two nations predicted.

Outside of China, there are people who believe the principle reason for the current China-Russia relationship is Vladimir Putin, but this is an erroneous view. The start of the current relationship was during the time of Boris Yeltsin. Despite Yeltsin being one of the most disliked Russian leaders by Chinese political society, the relationship still improved. This was one of the great accomplishments of the time. It is an accurate portrayal of the world’s structure in that the situation is often more influential than the individual people.


俄罗斯总统普京25日对中国的短暂国事访问取得丰硕成果,习近平与普京签署了关于“加强全球战略稳定”等3项联合声明,表达了中俄在核心问题上相互支持的态度,直言不讳地一致批评了东欧的“岸基宙斯盾系统”部署和东北亚“萨德”导弹计划。联合声明还主张南海的所有相关争议应由当事方谈判解决,反对南海问题国际化和外部干涉。此外两国外长还签署了另一项声明,双方另外签署了一系列经贸协议。

联合声明基本回避了提到美国,但它们所涉及的问题针对性很强,非常适合美国“对号入座”。“加强全球战略稳定”的提法也比较新,让人联想到美国是当今全球性战略风险的最大源头。这次中俄联合声明对美国发出的批评最为直率,这反映出北京和莫斯科都对华盛顿所追求的世界霸权感到厌倦。

中俄在声明中表示,两国关系不具有结盟性质,也不针对第三国,应当说这是北京和莫斯科的真实想法。中俄结盟将对世界格局带来划时代的冲击,两国都不希望那样,而愿意各自发展全面外交,保持同西方的正常关系。

然而美国对中俄的战略挤压不断变本加厉,越来越多地塑造了中俄在核心问题上相互支持的必要性。中俄联合声明中18次提到“支持”这个词,不能不说这当中有美国因素的“贡献”。

美国表现出要做“全球帝国”的野心,它的“全球即时打击系统计划”威胁到世界所有国家的安全,其同时从欧亚两个方向对俄罗斯及中国战略挤压是近乎狂妄的行动,迫使俄中背靠背地对它战略接招。

反对以人权为借口干涉他国内政,反对在反恐问题上搞双重标准,反对通过非法的外部干预对任何国家实施政权更迭,中俄的立场都高度一致。美国和西方都应明白,当中俄反对它们的某些片面主张时,那些主张所谓的“普世性”就是虚假、伪造的。中俄身后还有大量发展中国家,西方世界其实相当局促。

西方媒体总爱放大中俄之间的分歧,比如强调俄罗斯与日本、东南亚国家发展关系是在给中国“使脸色”,并且诌中国发展与独联体国家关系让俄紧张等等。它们理解不了中俄关系的开放性,两国谁也没想束缚对方,这是中俄全面战略协作生命力的重要所在。

美国不可能同时吞掉“中国龙”和“俄国熊”,这两个国家没有一个像当年苏联那样富有进攻性,但它们的任何一个都有美国消化不了的战略规模。中俄进一步相互支持的战略空间还有很大,美国对两国的施压多一分,这种相互支持就会多激活一分。中俄美的顶级战略平衡不太可能被美国的绝对霸权取代。

西方舆论经常纠结于俄罗斯在“向西看”还是“向东看”,以及中国和俄罗斯谁更有求于谁,这些量化对比是对中俄关系性质的不得要领。中俄是高度平等、相互尊重的大国关系,两国也都很有力量,全面战略合作给两国带来的都是获得感,而非负担,两国有着不同于西方国际政治学流行的利益计算公式。

中俄战略关系已经确定,对加强彼此经贸领域的合作都有很高意愿,但是具体某项合作一时谈不成,或者落实有难度也动摇不了两国整体关系。正因为这样,西方一次又一次唱衰中俄关系都无法应验。

中外都有人认为中俄关系有今天主要是因为普京,这也是谬见。中俄关系的起跑是在叶利钦时代开始的,而叶利钦曾是中国社会在政治上“最不喜欢的”俄罗斯领导人之一,中俄走近是时代的大手笔,是“势比人强”的世界格局写照。
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Canada: Tell Me Again Which North American Leader Is Acting like a Dictator?

Australia: Another White House Ambush Sends a Message to World Leaders Entering Donald Trump’s Den

Austria: Maybe Trump’s Tariff Bludgeon Was Good for Something after All

Austria: The Harvard President’s Voluntary Pay Cut Is a Strong Signal

Spain: Spain’s Defense against Trump’s Tariffs

Topics

Germany: Trump-Putin Call: Nothing but Empty Talk

Austria: The Harvard President’s Voluntary Pay Cut Is a Strong Signal

Canada: No, Joly, We Don’t Want America’s Far-Left Academic Refugees

Germany: Trump’s Selfishness

Austria: Trump Ignores Israel’s Interests during Gulf Visit

Germany: Trump’s Offer and Trump’s Sword

Canada: A Guide To Surviving the Trump Era

Related Articles

Mexico: Trump and His Pyrrhic Victories

Germany: Trump’s Selfishness

Germany: Trump’s Offer and Trump’s Sword

Canada: Trump Prioritizes Commerce Over Shared Values in Foreign Policy Gamble