The Annenberg estate summit between Chinese President Xi Jinping and US President Barack Obama put the two major powers’ relations on the right track towards non-confrontation, mutual respect and win-win cooperation. Xi went on a tour of Europe bringing EU countries one massive purchase order after another, arousing enthusiasm for cooperation with the world’s second largest economy. Obama visited Asia to sow both hopes and worries and brought more uncertainty to the tense relations among the West and Pacific nations. Russian President Vladimir Putin visited China amid speculations and suspicions, but it is undoubted that the Beijing-Moscow ties have entered a new stage of all-round strategic partnership.
Top-level mutual visits and bilateral interaction are the best ways to add positive energy to relations between countries and are usually welcomed by third-party countries. But they may not be viewed positively if they touch a third party’s core interests and sensitive nerves. And it is even more unwelcome for one side in the bilateral interaction to show partiality or make irresponsible comments to add fuel to the discord between the other side and the third party.
The United States, China, Russia and Europe Union are the world’s four power centers. The US is the sole superpower. China is a rising power and the world’s second largest economy. Russia plays a pivotal role in global security affairs. EU’s comprehensive economic strength counts heavily in the world. And one should not forget that the US and EU have a North Atlantic Treaty Organization at hands. The four sides all play indispensable roles in today’s world affairs. The problem now is that the four major players on the global stage often find themselves in awkward, contradictory and even opposite-to-each-other positions. They often have to weigh the choices of forming an alliance or entering into interaction only.
Alliance, a hot word in the Cold War period, is an agreement between countries to fight against their common enemy. It emphasizes both sides’ obligation to joint defense at the cost of a third party’s interests. Interaction, on the contrary, refers to countries supporting and cooperating with one another for their common interests or certain similar goals but it does not damage any third party’s interests. There were two alliances during the Cold War – the Warsaw Pact and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. After the Cold War ended, the former was disbanded; the latter lost the ground, at least theoretically, for continuous existence. Many think tanks, including those in Western countries, hold the view that the practice of the US and its allies to imagine other countries as enemy or potential enemy only serves to increase tensions in the global security map.
When visiting four Asian countries recently, US President Barack Obama made remarks about security concerns in the East and South China Seas, going out of his way to state that he did not mean to contain China. What some of his allies and newfound partners in Asia have since done, however, bore witness to the real consequence of what the US President said and didduring his Asian tour. Of these allies and partners, one vowed to revise its pacifist Constitution to lift the ban on the right of collective defense and spread the myth of “China threat” everywhere in the world; another arrested Chinese fishermen in Chinese territorial waters and illegally put them to trials; and a third other instigated riots in its country to damage Chinese and other overseas enterprises’ properties and to kill and injure Chinese workers while sending ships to harass Chinese oil rig staff in their normal operations in the South China Sea. The blatant violation of China’s sovereignty and interests is intolerable. As is viewed by this writer, the world’s number one power is still obsessed with the Cold War scenario and playing a dangerous game of rebalancing with its allies and partners. If it does not refrain from going further, the dangerous game may spiral out of control and backlash to place it in great trouble.
In today’s world, it is unrealistic for anyone from the US, China, Russia and EU to set any other in a completely opposite position. In fact, they have common needs in economic co-existence, anti-terrorist acts and global climate interference. First, China and Russia. Geopolitically speaking, the two nations define their relationship as a normal one between countries and won’t forge an alliance no matter how close their relationship will be. Second, China and the US. The world’s number one and number two will not likely to form a “Group of 2”, as was speculated by some analysts, for the intrinsic contradiction between them is substantial enough for both sides to keep working and haggling to have things under control. Third, the US and Russia. The formal Cold War rivals have had troubles redefining their relationship but will not likely go into war even though the US and EU imposed sanctions on Moscow in the Ukrainian crisis. Fourth, the European Union versus other parties. Although it often tries to stay away from controversies and troubles, it needs to be wary of blindly following a certain party.
Control the alliance, rely more on interaction, try hard to reduce tensions in international situation and cooperate for common benefits. These are what small potatoes like this writer would like the bigwigs to do.
Chen Yonglong is Director of the US Center of the China Foundation for International Studies.
