The Post-Cold War Political Symmetry of Russo-Chinese Bilateralism
| Date | 01 December 1994 |
| DOI | 10.1177/002070209404900403 |
| Published date | 01 December 1994 |
| Author | Ronald C. Keith |
| Subject Matter | Article |
RONALD
C.
KEITH
The
post-Cold
War
political
symmetry
of
Russo-Chinese
bilateralism
Contemporary
Western
literature
on
international
relations
has
focussed
on
the
importance
of
economics
in
the explanation
of
post-Cold
War
world
order.
While
some scholars
who
study
international
political
economy
have
argued
that
the
interna-
tional
system
constitutes
a
'web
of
interdependencies'
which
is
substantively
defined
in
the
political
linkages
among
actors,'
others
go
so
far
as
to
suggest
that
in
the
post-nuclear
world
of
economic
interdependence,
'geoeconomics
will
replace
geo-
politics.
'2
Analysis
of
economic
co-operation
in
internationalized pro-
duction, the related
vulnerability
of
state
economies
to
inter-
national
pressures,
and
the
realities
of
capital
flows
have
substantive relevance
to
the
understanding
of current
Russo-
Chinese
relations,
but
the
importance
of
economic
interde-
pendence
has
been
qualified
in
the
response
to
the
political
Professor
of
Political
Science,
University
of
Calgary,
Calgary,
Alberta;
author
of
The Diplomacy
of
Zhou
Enlai
(1984)
and
of
China's
Struggle
for
the
Rule
of
Law (1994).
I
am
indebted
to
the
Social
Science
and
Humanities
Research
Council
of
Canada
and
the
Strategic
Studies
Programme
of
the
Department
of
National
Defence
for
correlated
research
funding
for
this
project.
I
would
like
to
acknowledge
my
gratitude
to
my
colleague,
Donald
J.
Barry, for
his
com-
ments
on
this
article.
1
See
Helen
Milner,
'The
assumption
of
anarchy
in
international
relations
the-
ory:
a
critique,'
Review
of
International
Studies
17
(January
1991),
67-85.
2
James Hsiung's
defining
characteristics
of
world
order
include
multipolarity,
transition
from
nuclear
to
conventional
deterrence,
and the
rise
of
geoecon-
omics:
Asia
Pacific
in
the
New
World
Order
(Boulder
co:
Lynne
Rienner
1993),
3-6.
International
Journal
XLIX
AUTUMN
1994
752
INTERNATIONAL
JOURNAL
consequences
of
Soviet
disintegration
and
the
related
policy
changes accompanying the transition from
Mikhail
Gorbachev
to
Boris
Yeltsin.
Since
December
1991,
a
new
and
constructive
partnership
has
emerged
between
Russia
and
the
People's
Republic
of
China
(PRC).3
This
relationship
is,
however,
largely
predicated
on
a
revitalized,
if
not
old-fashioned,
mutual
political
understanding
of
the
underlying
importance
of
state
sover-
eignty,
national
self-determination,
and
domestic
economic
development
and
independence.
The disintegration
of the
Soviet
Union
which
brought
a
sud-
den
end
to
East-West
tensions
could
well
have
plunged
Russia
and China
into
unprecedented
crisis.
Yet
now,
when
there
is
an
extraordinary
formal
difference
between
'democratic'
Russia
and
'socialist'
China,
there
is
unprecedented
political co-oper-
ation
between
them.
After
many
years
of
acrimony,
significant
headway
has
been
made
in
border
negotiations.
There
is
new
agreement
on
the
importance
of
promoting
domestic
economic
development
within
a
stable
regional
political
framework
fea-
turing
a
'belt
of
good neighbourliness'
along the
borders
and
space
of
the
former
Soviet
Union.
Despite
the
Russian
Federation's
vulnerability
to
further
political
disintegration,
Russian
policy insists
that
China
is
not
a
security
threat.
Arms
sales have
become
the
main
items
of
Russia's
government-sponsored
trade
with
the
PRC.
Recent
bit-
ter tensions
notwithstanding,
Russia
is
willing
to
facilitate
Chi-
nese
military
modernization.
Russian policy
has
designated
the
PRC
as
the
most
influential
actor
in
the
Asia-Pacific
region.
While
Yeltsin
has
raised
the
sensitive
issue
of
Chinese partici-
pation
in
a
nuclear
security
and
strategic
stability
treaty,
both
countries
are
looking
towards
increased
co-operation
in
the
United
Nations
Security
Council.
3
According
to
Andrei
Kozyrev,
'constructive
partnership'
includes
mutual
trust,
United
Nations
Security
Council
co-operation,
and
a
qualitative
shift
in
trade
and
economic
co-operation.
See
Konstantin
Eggert,
'Moscow
proposes
friendship
._'
Izvestia,
i
February
1994,
5,
in
Current
Digest
of
the
Post-Soviet
Press
(hereafter
CDP-SP)
46(no
5,
1994),
26.
RUSSO-CHINESE
BILATERALISM
753
This
post-Cold
War
paradox
is
even
more
intriguing
when
one
considers
the apparently anachronistic
basis
of
today's
for-
mal
state-to-state
relationship.
The
Cold
War
is
over,
but
the
Russo-Chinese
relationship
is
governed
by
the
Cold
War's
five
principles
of
peaceful
coexistence:
mutual respect
for
territorial
integrity
and
sovereignty,
non-aggression,
non-interference
in
each
other's
internal
affairs,
equality
and
mutual benefit,
and
peaceful
coexistence.
While
these
principles
were
often
corre-
lated
with
the
generic rules
of
interstate relations
in
the
United
Nations
Charter,
they
originated
in
the
management of
East-
West
ideological
differences.
Nikita
Khrushchev's historic
interpretation
of
peaceful
coex-
istence
focussed
on
his
relationship
with
the United
States.
He
qualified
Lenin
-
for
whom
coexistence
was
a
tactical
respite
in
an
otherwise
inexorable
armed
struggle
between the
two
social
systems -
to
take
account
of
a
potential
Soviet-American
nuclear
conflagration.
He
assumed
continuing
intersystem
economic
competition.
His
concept
provided
no
support
for
either
the
'convergence'
of
capitalism
and
socialism
or
a
pattern
of
eco-
nomic
interdependence
requiring
the deliberate
qualification
of
state sovereignty in
the
pursuit
of
new
internationalized
pro-
duction.
Peaceful
coexistence
alternatively
presumed
the
polit-
ical
centrality
of
state-to-state
relations.4
Contemporary
Chinese
analysis
stresses
that
the
five
princi-
ples
of
peaceful
coexistence
of
Zhou
Enlai
and
Jawaharlal
Nehru
had
their
rightful
birthplace
in
Asia
in
late
1953.5
In
4 I
prefer
to
use
the
term
in
its
original
reference
to
the
importance
of
national
self-determination
and
the
mitigation
of
ideological
differences
between
states. However,
David
Shambaugh
recently
applied
the
term
in a
contrary
way.
To
explain
current
Sino-American
relations,
he
distinguishes
'peaceful
coexistence'
from the
defensive
notion
of
'peaceful
evolution.'
He
locates
the
latter
in
an
'antiquated
Westfalian
world
view,'
based
on
the
prin-
ciple
of
'non-interference.'
He
correlates
the
former
with
a
new
commitment
to
'interdependence.'
Shambaugh,
'Peking's foreign
policy
conundrum
since
Tiananmen:
peaceful coexistence
versus
peaceful evolution,'
Issues
and
Studies
28(November
1992),
73-
5
For
a
historical
analysis
of
the
five
principles,
see
Ronald
C.
Keith,
The
Diplo-
macy
of
Zhou
Enlai
(London
&
New
York:
Macmillan
1989), 88-93.
To continue reading
Request your trial