By Brett Daniel Shehadey
Special Contributor for In Homeland Security
With the annexation of Crimea and the new Russian expansionist agenda, should China’s importance now be seen as more critical to Washington than before? It would seem that the US-China strategic relationship should always have been taken more seriously and certainly handled better. The latest Russian move provides new opportunities as Moscow and Washington race for China.
The problem is an opportunity: with Russia reuniting with its sordid past of satellite states and annexation of ethnic Russians, this is a time to rein-in China and increase bilateral and multilateral relations as well as expand mutual interests and commitments. Informal variants as well as formal diplomacy might eventually need to further isolating Russia from China. To settle energy needs, NAFTA states might also be able to supply some of China’s growing energy needs and beat Russia to the punch or compete. This energy cooperation and possibly even the sharing of Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands gas reserves could be a trilateral win as well. At the same time, the US should not close the door on Moscow—always welcoming them back, should they choose a more peaceful future path.
China has already taken steps to tilt toward in a neutral position and if they have to choose between the greater world and Russia, they would leave Russia in no time. But why will they have to make this choice? What is in it for them if they do will need to be greatly convincing. So in many respects, this is China’s lucky day.
China is already moving in the right direction: they have abstained a UNSC vote in the Ukraine. Most importantly, they do not believe in the new Russian approach to the region or the promotion of ethnicities declaring their own independence through votes within sovereign states. They have the Tibetans and the Taiwanese to think about.
China will likely side with the US, the EU and the greater world in the long-term against Russia, should it come to that; as they did before during Mao’s late era and the Nixon-Kissinger moment. The President will need to convince China that Russia is again a threat to China and to peace. It must at the same time convince China that the US and allies can offer more than Russia ever will.
Before China sides with anyone, they will likely court attention at all costs and play both sides for the best offer as the international system begins to readjust. This is provided that Russia continues the course of its former belligerence.
Rather than cheating the Chinese, the US should give them the best offer on the table sooner, rather than later—one Russia could never provide—and if possible, mend ties with Japan and China by stabilizing their joint energy and fishery needs. Even if they play both sides the US will sink a larger hook into the dragon and establish a greater base of influence there, as it is presently diminishing due to regional matters.
Putin dreams of China more and more these days. The year 2018 is a deadline for Russia’s Gazprom to provide China with 38 billion cubic meters of gas per annum. Security cooperation and arms sales are also on the menu between Moscow and China. But Russia is only Beijing’s seventh largest export destination and not even among the top ten state leading imports; according to a Reuter’s article.
If the US and EU and much of the rest of the world continue on opposite courses with Russia, China may too. Russia can offer the world nothing but natural gas and caviar and their threats to the EU are likely to make them an even bigger menace than they already are. Meanwhile, at home, President Putin’s, and therefore Russia’s actions, are largely popular and celebrated—but like the old days, there is no way of verifying the accuracy of polls in a closed state without liberty.
Does China want to rely on threats, corruption, pollution and separatists or be fair, free, equal, honest and open? The US must employ a great deal of patience with China but walk a fine line. China will have a choice to socio-politically follow Russia backwards to the darker times of humanity or push ahead in the hope of their people and their future. They may choose the middle path too. But that is really a false choice and a temporary adjustment.
Comments are closed.