- Jin Liangxiang
- Senior Research Fellow
- Center for west Asian & African Studies
- Institute for International Strategic Studies
- China’s Foreign Policy under Presid...
- Seeking for the International Relat...
- The Contexts of and Roads towards t...
- Three Features in China’s Diplomati...
- The Green Ladder & the Energy Leade...
- Building a more equitable, secure f...
- Lu Chuanying interviewed by SCMP on...
- If America exits the Paris Accord, ...
- The Dream of the 21st Century Calip...
- How 1% Could Derail the Paris Clima...
- The Establishment of the Informal M...
- Opportunities and Challenges of Joi...
- Evolution of the Global Climate Gov...
- The Energy-Water-Food Nexus and I...
- Sino-Africa Relationship: Moving to...
- The Energy-Water-Food Nexus and Its...
- Arctic Shipping and China’s Shippin...
- China-India Energy Policy in the Mi...
- Comparison and Analysis of CO2 Emis...
- China’s Role in the Transition to A...
- Leading the Global Race to Zero Emi...
- China's Global Strategy(2013-2023)
- Co-exploring and Co-evolving:Constr...
- 2013 Annual report
- The Future of U.S.-China Relations ...
- “The Middle East at the Strategic C...
- 2014 Annual report
- Rebalancing Global Economic Governa...
- Exploring Avenues for China-U.S. Co...
- A CIVIL PERSPECTIVE ON CHINA'S AID ...
Mar 27 2014
The rise of geopolitics and challenges to China
By Jin Liangxiang
The tensions between Russia and the West over the Ukraine issue culminated with Crimea's referendum and the West's move to impose sanctions on Russia. The new international hotspots have indicated that geopolitical competition is still one of the basic features of international politics, despite the strong trend of globalization. And China, as a major power, should also be vigilant about the geopolitics around it.
The West responded strongly to Vladimir Putin's recent actions in Ukraine. Barack Obama called Russia's movements "violations of international law and its encroachments on Ukraine;" the Group of Seven industrialized countries warned that Russia's actions "could have grave implications for the legal order that protects the unity and sovereignty of all states."
Objectively speaking, these statements are not without legal basis since the Crimea issue involves the principle of sovereignty. But it is too hypocritical for the West to talk about sovereignty. It seems that the United States and the West have poor memories. Fifteen years ago, it was just the United States and NATO that bombed Yugoslavia, overriding the principle of sovereignty in the name of safeguarding Kosovo's self-determination. And that story is the reverse of today's conflict over Crimea. That's why Putin said that there is a precedent when questioned by Barack Obama over the issue.
The conflict over Crimea is geopolitical by nature. The end of the Cold War and the disintegration of former Soviet Union never concluded the geopolitical competition between the West and Russia, which inherited most of the legacies of the Soviet Union. The West not only included most of the newly independent states into NATO and the European Union but also wanted to embrace Ukraine and the Central Asian states by promoting the Color Revolution. And the Ukraine issue is one part of its strategy to further squeeze Russia's living space.
Russia's response should be natural. Russia considers Ukraine as the last buffer zone against the West's encroachment of its sphere of influence on its western border. Therefore, Russia's strategy is to prevent Ukraine from coming under the influence of the West. Otherwise, Russia will have to face Western troops at its front door. As a nation always has an empire ambition, Russia also regards the West's aggressive encroachment as a kind of humiliation of its dignity.
Today's global geopolitical conflict culminates with but is not limited to clashes over Crimea. For instance, the Syria issue is a geopolitical conflict rather than issue of democracy, though Bashar Assad's regime might not be sufficiently legitimate according to today's political standards. It is Assad's policy of allying with Russia and Iran that angers the West and Saudi Arabia.
To put it another way, Iran intends to keep Syria as a major ally in the region so as to enhance its own regional role and balance against Saudi Arabia, its major regional rival, while Saudi Arabia needs to change Syria's policy of allying with Iran by changing the regime.
Syria is also relevant to the strategies of external powers. The Russians are trying to keep Syria as a staunch traditional ally while the West intends to take Syria away from Russia. In any case, Syria remains the only ally of Russia. And without Syria, Russia might not be able to play its due role as a major power in the region.
China is also a victim of rising geopolitics. The United States began its rebalancing or pivoting strategy in Asia-Pacific shortly after Barack Obama took office. As Leon Panetta, former U.S. secretary of defense, announced in the Shangri-La Dialogue in June 2012, the U.S. Navy would reposition 60 percent of its forces to the Pacific area. "That will include six aircraft carriers in the region, the majority of our cruisers, destroyers, combat ships and submarines," he said.
The United States has said that the repositioning of these military resources is not to oppose China, but is it true? The United States has long maintained the island chain circumventing China from South Korea up until the Philippines since the beginning of the Cold War. By pivoting to the Asia Pacific region, the United States obviously wants to strengthen its strategic encirclement of China. Anybody who glimpses at the map of East Asia can understand the story.
Since China's reform and opening-up, China has put its efforts into developing its economy, and China's foreign relations also, rightly, have an economic focus.
However, China should also be well aware that although globalization characterized by interdependence is accelerating in the new century, it has in no way diluted geopolitics. China has increased its military budget a lot in the last decade, but this money should not only be spent on improving the living standards of the soldiers. That should be the lesson that China should learn from the Crimea issue.
The West responded strongly to Vladimir Putin's recent actions in Ukraine. Barack Obama called Russia's movements "violations of international law and its encroachments on Ukraine;" the Group of Seven industrialized countries warned that Russia's actions "could have grave implications for the legal order that protects the unity and sovereignty of all states."
Objectively speaking, these statements are not without legal basis since the Crimea issue involves the principle of sovereignty. But it is too hypocritical for the West to talk about sovereignty. It seems that the United States and the West have poor memories. Fifteen years ago, it was just the United States and NATO that bombed Yugoslavia, overriding the principle of sovereignty in the name of safeguarding Kosovo's self-determination. And that story is the reverse of today's conflict over Crimea. That's why Putin said that there is a precedent when questioned by Barack Obama over the issue.
The conflict over Crimea is geopolitical by nature. The end of the Cold War and the disintegration of former Soviet Union never concluded the geopolitical competition between the West and Russia, which inherited most of the legacies of the Soviet Union. The West not only included most of the newly independent states into NATO and the European Union but also wanted to embrace Ukraine and the Central Asian states by promoting the Color Revolution. And the Ukraine issue is one part of its strategy to further squeeze Russia's living space.
Russia's response should be natural. Russia considers Ukraine as the last buffer zone against the West's encroachment of its sphere of influence on its western border. Therefore, Russia's strategy is to prevent Ukraine from coming under the influence of the West. Otherwise, Russia will have to face Western troops at its front door. As a nation always has an empire ambition, Russia also regards the West's aggressive encroachment as a kind of humiliation of its dignity.
Today's global geopolitical conflict culminates with but is not limited to clashes over Crimea. For instance, the Syria issue is a geopolitical conflict rather than issue of democracy, though Bashar Assad's regime might not be sufficiently legitimate according to today's political standards. It is Assad's policy of allying with Russia and Iran that angers the West and Saudi Arabia.
To put it another way, Iran intends to keep Syria as a major ally in the region so as to enhance its own regional role and balance against Saudi Arabia, its major regional rival, while Saudi Arabia needs to change Syria's policy of allying with Iran by changing the regime.
Syria is also relevant to the strategies of external powers. The Russians are trying to keep Syria as a staunch traditional ally while the West intends to take Syria away from Russia. In any case, Syria remains the only ally of Russia. And without Syria, Russia might not be able to play its due role as a major power in the region.
China is also a victim of rising geopolitics. The United States began its rebalancing or pivoting strategy in Asia-Pacific shortly after Barack Obama took office. As Leon Panetta, former U.S. secretary of defense, announced in the Shangri-La Dialogue in June 2012, the U.S. Navy would reposition 60 percent of its forces to the Pacific area. "That will include six aircraft carriers in the region, the majority of our cruisers, destroyers, combat ships and submarines," he said.
The United States has said that the repositioning of these military resources is not to oppose China, but is it true? The United States has long maintained the island chain circumventing China from South Korea up until the Philippines since the beginning of the Cold War. By pivoting to the Asia Pacific region, the United States obviously wants to strengthen its strategic encirclement of China. Anybody who glimpses at the map of East Asia can understand the story.
Since China's reform and opening-up, China has put its efforts into developing its economy, and China's foreign relations also, rightly, have an economic focus.
However, China should also be well aware that although globalization characterized by interdependence is accelerating in the new century, it has in no way diluted geopolitics. China has increased its military budget a lot in the last decade, but this money should not only be spent on improving the living standards of the soldiers. That should be the lesson that China should learn from the Crimea issue.
Source of documents:China.org.cn