Chinese Ambassador: the Ukrainian crisis and its consequences
The Chinese ambassador to the United States, Qin Gang, wrote an article in The National Interest. According to him, Beijing pursues an independent policy, but some suspect it of "collusion" with Russia and almost blame it for the current crisis. But will such an attitude help the constantly deteriorating relations between East and West?
The Ukrainian crisis is painful, and every minute of it turns into a severe ordeal for 43 million Ukrainians. The most important thing now is to put an end to this unnecessary conflict as soon as possible.
China is for peace and against war. He advocates compliance with international law and generally recognized norms governing international relations, as well as respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries, including Ukraine. China supports all efforts that will help promote a ceasefire and alleviate the humanitarian crisis, and will continue to play a constructive role in achieving this goal.
Lessons must be learned from the current situation. In parallel with the efforts aimed at ending the conflict, it is worth seriously thinking about the changes caused by the crisis and the next steps.
The post-war international system is experiencing the strongest pressure since the Cold War. A pandemic, the likes of which happen once in a century, the Ukrainian crisis and unprecedented sanctions, rising inflation and an impending recession all herald the "boiling" of the international system. It is high time to ease the pressure on our common world, and not vice versa.
Europe became the center of pressure, its prospects for stability and prosperity were undermined overnight, and they were replaced by a comprehensive uncertainty. To reverse this situation, it is necessary not only to put an end to the conflict, but also to find a principled solution to ensure lasting peace and stability in Europe, as well as a balanced, effective and sustainable philosophy and architecture of its security.
The contrasting changes that have taken place over 30 years at the two ends of the Eurasian continent should shed light on how to ensure security for Europe and the whole world. After the Cold War, when Europe decided to use NATO's eastward expansion for this purpose, at the other end of the continent, China, Russia and the countries of Central Asia initiated an unprecedented study of a new philosophy and model of security, launching the mechanism of the Shanghai Five. In 1996, when President Bill Clinton first announced the schedule for NATO expansion, China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan signed an Agreement on confidence-building in the military field near the border, once and for all resolving China's border issues with the countries of the former Soviet Union and putting an end to the military confrontation along the Soviet-Chinese border. This became the cornerstone of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and contributed to the birth of the “Shanghai spirit”, which combines mutual trust and benefit, equality, negotiation, respect for cultural diversity and the desire for common development. Thus, good-neighborly friendship and common peace reigned between China, Russia and the countries of Central Asia. As history shows, a different choice leads to different results.
The unfolding crisis in Ukraine has put America's relations with both Russia and China to new tests. In 1992, when Russian President Boris Yeltsin made his first trips to the United States and China after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the countries agreed not to consider each other as adversaries, which put Moscow's bilateral relations with Washington and Beijing on the same level. Over the past 30 years, Sino-Russian relations have progressed quite far, but they are still based on the rejection of the alliance, confrontation and targeting against third countries. The Celestial Empire has been and will remain an independent country that determines its position on the merits of each issue without being subjected to external pressure or interference. The claims that Beijing knew in advance about Russia's intentions and about its military assistance to Moscow are pure disinformation. If similar conflicts had occurred in other places or between other countries, China's position would be exactly the same. At the same time, US-Russian relations are slipping into a new cold war, which does not meet the interests of Beijing, Washington, or Moscow. After all, the deterioration of relations between Russia and the United States does not mean their improvement between Beijing and Washington, and similarly, the deterioration of relations between China and Moscow does not guarantee an improvement in ties between America and Russia. Moreover, if Sino-American relations deteriorate, it does not bode well for either Russian-American relations or the whole world.
It is alarming that against the background of the crisis, China is threatened with sanctions so that it abandons an independent peaceful foreign policy. Some are making a fuss about the Moscow—Beijing axis, interpreting Sino-Russian relations through a dangerous and incorrect prism and demanding that Beijing take responsibility for the crisis. Someone compares Taiwan with Ukraine and shouts about the risks of another conflict. And others, despite all the lessons, inflate pockets of misunderstanding, confrontation and insecurity in the Asia-Pacific region, not thinking that events here can develop according to the European scenario. Such words and actions will not help either resolve the crisis or ensure the stability of Sino-American relations. Demoralization will not bring any benefit to future generations.
Ukraine knows best how the post-war international system was built. More than 70 years have passed, and again her tomorrow is closely connected with the future of the whole world. Although at the moment we are unable to reach consensus on the vision of the international system, "the disasters of the war of the last century, which twice in our lifetime brought untold grief to humanity," and the four decades of alienation that followed should finally open our eyes to the fact that we all live in one world with a common future. There can be no question of any country or a bloc of countries having absolute security, while ignoring the security of other countries. Without respect, trust, mutual concessions and cooperation, the earth would be constantly plagued by wars. The world cannot afford another cold war after the Ukrainian crisis.
China and the United States should not only jointly fight global warming, but also strive for maximum mutual understanding by solving the problem of the international political climate. Differences in perceptions of the crisis do not justify unfounded accusations or pressure and should not hinder joint efforts to end the conflict. I am in close contact with my American colleagues on this issue. At the same time, China and the United States should consider the situation in the long term, conduct a pragmatic and constructive dialogue, coordinate and cooperate on what awaits us beyond the current crisis and after it. In this way, we will be able to achieve an agreement acceptable to all parties on lasting peace and stability in Europe; properly regulate the situation in other hot spots of the planet; prevent and eliminate the impact of the crisis on the world economy and trade, finance, energy, food, industry and supply chains; and minimize losses to the economy and the welfare of the people. The current international system is imperfect. It must keep up with the times, and China is striving to make a feasible contribution to this process and support it in every possible way, and not undermine or destroy it. Ultimately, our joint goal is lasting peace, universal security and prosperity for 1.8 billion Chinese and Americans, as well as all the inhabitants of the planet without exception. This is the historical responsibility of China and the United States as two great Powers.
Qin Gang
