The war between Russia and Ukraine has become an international crisis reflecting the higher interests of many countries after the ongoing military offensives posed a threat to Europe’s security and resulted economically in global inflation driven by issues hitting the energy, food and construction worldwide. Communication between Russia and Ukraine, and between Russia and other countries, have not been halted, and the exchange of signals and messages has not completely stopped, no ceasefire was put in place nor a political settlement to the crisis was reached as the Russians remain entrenched behind their relative military superiority and the Americans and Europeans behind ratcheted up economic sanctions. More than two months into the war, every party continues to cling to their initial demands.
Ukraine, the weaker party in each and every equation, attempted to bolster its resistance and draw international sympathy after it suffered a large number of casualties including civilians, and three million Ukrainians were rendered refugees. Because the crisis continues unabated, relations between the world’s great powers came under massive pressure as did the world order and its interactions. The end result is either that humanity would die because of the pains of labor, or that the current situation would give birth to new international understandings and agreements that might lay the foundation for a new world order that can achieve international peace and security.
Back to the February 4 Joint Statement
China’s implication in this process is extremely important. Perhaps because of the nature of developments and the focus on wars and the economic collision, Beijing, on the surface, appears to be playing only an insignificant role, but in reality, it shows a different Chinese role ushered in by that joint communique which was issued on February 4, 2022 following a summit meeting between Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin during the opening of the Winter Olympic Games in the Chinese capital.
The Russian-Chinese statement was but a call for re-assessing and reviewing the world order which became stable after the Cold War ended and the US became its sole superpower, upon which global security and peace was built. The statement says that democracy is a universal human value, “rather than a privilege of a limited number of states,” and that its promotion and protection is a common responsibility of the entire world community. It also says that “any nation can choose such forms and methods of implementing democracy, and “it is only up to the people of any country to decide whether their state is a democratic one.” The statement also stresses that attempts by “certain states to impose their own ”democratic standards“ on other countries, to monopolize the right to assess the level of compliance with democratic criteria, to draw dividing lines based on the grounds of ideology, including by establishing exclusive blocs and alliances of convenience, prove to be nothing but flouting of democracy… pose serious threats to global and regional peace and stability and undermine the stability of the world order.”
The call for change should be shared with other world powers, including new powers such as Russia, which does not view itself as a continuation of the former Soviet Union but a significant power, not only because of its massive nuclear arsenal but also because of other military capabilities that can be used by the state’s political will, as is the case in Syria. For its part, China is now a giant economic and military power and, in the global market, is a major partner whose international and regional interests in the South China Sea cannot be ignored. The key word of the joint statement and the following statements is that the United States should treat its counterparts i.e. China and Russia, with respect and not by lecturing on democracy and human rights.
As the the war between Russia and Ukraine escalated, there were strong doubts about whether China was aware of the intentions of Russia (moving from theory to practice in its bid to review the world order) to restrict NATO's capabilities by expanding into Ukraine, while at the same time doing a comprehensive review of the history of the end of the Cold War that gave rise to US global leadership as the sole superpower in a new global order. For Putin, that meant the largest geopolitical loss in the history of the world because it led to the United States’ unwelcome monopoly of global politics.
Despite its agreement to reviewing the world order, China did not break up after the Cold War came to an end. Rather, it achieved significant economic and technological growth, and has already its own way of achieving globalization through its Road and Belt Initiative. Additionally, China plays an important role in the World Trade Organization and became the United States largest trading partner. That is what represents the difference between China and Russia regarding the review. Given its behavior after the Ukraine crisis broke out, China was likely unaware of Russia’s intentions, except that it knew that NATO’s expansion deeper into Europe is not without damage.
China’s Sudden and Complicated Stand
After the February 4 Sino-Russian joint statement was issued, the initial explanations of the crisis between Russia and Ukraine, actually put Russia and China in one camp. But China soon surprised everybody by siding with Russia and rejecting NATO’s plan to expand into Ukraine and justified Russia’s reaction as something customary for a state that does allow threats expanding to its border. At the same time, however, China did not want the crisis over Ukraine to grow into a global crisis at a time when the world needs further cooperation, and not more rifts, to be able to counter the Covid-19 pandemic, inflation and an energy crisis.
The political crisis that broke out over Russia’s mobilization of military forces soon became a military crisis that culminated in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. That is where the divergence between Russia and China took shape. As a global economic power with a massive population that aspires for a stable world ruled by cooperation and harmony. According to this view, it is only natural for China to reject military alliances including NATO, but it is not natural that rejection of NATO is a reason for invading Ukraine before exhausting attempts to hold negotiations and look for ways of achieving common security instead of taking to arms.
China’s abstention from voting on a UN Security Council draft resolution about the Ukraine crisis in March was surprising, but in fact was an accurate expression of China’s view which Foreign Minister Wang Yi said was consistent with the principles of China’s foreign policy, including first-and-foremost respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all states, including the Ukraine crisis. Secondly, China backs common, comprehensive and sustainable security for all states. Thirdly, as China is following up the developments of the Ukraine crisis, the current situation is something it does not want to see.
Hence, all parties should work to keep the crisis under control and hold negotiations to resolve it and have Ukraine as a bridge between the East and the West instead of becoming a front line between great powers. A highly delicate balance between Ukraine’s right to sovereignty and Russia’s right to security should be achieved by putting these rights within the context of each state’s living space but within the context of the regional security of all Europe.
Given that, China wanted to make sure that the United Nations and the Security Council are not puppets in the hands of any state, since the Security Council is meant to solve conflicts and not to complicate them. That is why, China always opposes attempts to cite Chapter 7 of the United Nations Charter, which allows the use of armed force and sanctions, in the Council's resolutions.
China’s voting at the Security Council and the General Assembly shaped a complicated position with Russia with which, on the one hand, it shares the same princples of reviewing the World Order and geographic proximity, and it has economic relations with the United States and the West as a whole, on the other. Since then, China continued to call for a ceasefire and a peaceful solution to the crisis while keeping lines open between Beijing and Kiev. On the other side, the lines remained open with European powers seeking a diplomatic solution i.e. France and Germany, and more importantly with Washington. It should be noted that talks between the US and China were held within a global context while talks between China and Russia were largely confined to the current crisis. As a matter of fact, despite their disagreement about issues raised by Washington about conflict between democracy and authoritarianism, the right to interference over human rights in China and other states, as well as the issue of Taiwan and the South China Sea, contacts between Washington and Beijing have always been long and deep.
In November last year, US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan met with China's top diplomat, Yang Jiechi, for three hours. President Joe Biden also met virtually with Chinese President Xi Jinping for another three hours. The meetings were held before the outbreak of the Ukraine crisis and war, but were followed by other meetings in Rome on March 14 that took about seven hours. Later, on March 18, another virtual three-hour meeting was held between the two presidents. The lengthy meetings reflect seriousness, on the one hand, and the long agendas between the two sides, on the other.
Towards an American-Chinese Equation
These talks come under a broad headline of “efforts to manage competitions between the two countries and discuss the implications of Russia’s war on Ukraine for regional (Europe) and global security.”
During the talks, the United States’ position was a revisit to the Shanghai Joint Communiqué signed 50 years ago to lay the foundations for Sino-American relations. President Biden emphasized that the US-China relationship has once again come to a critical time. How this relationship develops will shape the world in the 21st century. Accordingly, that the US does not seek a new Cold War with China; it does not aim to change China’s system; the revitalization of its alliances is not targeted at China; the US does not support “Taiwan independence”; and it has no intention to seek a conflict with China. The US is ready to have candid dialogue and closer cooperation with China, stay committed to the one-China policy, and effectively manage competition and disagreements to ensure the steady growth of the relationship. President Biden expressed readiness to stay in close touch with President Xi to set the direction for the US-China relationship.
President Xi Jinping touched on the Ukraine crisis noting that the prevailing trend of peace and development is facing serious challenges to security, peace and development. For Xi Jinping. As permanent members of the UN Security Council and the world’s two leading economies, China and the US must not only guide their relations forward along the right track, but also shoulder their share of international responsibilities and “work for world peace and tranquility.”
But the Chinese leader blamed the former US Administration of Donald Trump for creating a predicament over the issue of Taiwan and encouraging the Taiwan independence forces and blamed others in the US for not acting on the US President’s positive statements.
Following this, it became possible to talk about addressing the war between Russia and Ukraine and the option of a ceasefire, and also taking the humanitarian situation in Ukraine into consideration.
Further developments are yet to be seen, and the two leaders are likely to let their aides set the relevant measures. But it should be noted that China was more insistent on reminding them of the global Covid-19 pandemic situation and the worsening global economy that require maximum cooperation between the two countries. While it is hard now to talk about identical points of views because the devil is in the details, China’s positions open the door for significant developments. Firstly, in light of the spirit of cooperation that prevailed in the summit talks, China will throw its weight behind efforts to achieve a ceasefire in Ukraine because it cannot reverse the US sanctions against Russia and consequently enter into a confrontation with the US. This is the stand that China can take to work with the US to restrict NATO from further enlargement.
Secondly, despite disagreement about the very existence of NATO, and US alliances with Australia, Japan and South Korea, there are still enough points of agreement to put an end to the war in Ukraine.
Thirdly, the talks between the two sides suggest their awareness of the fact that they are soon to become the two superpowers in the near future. If Russia joined the club, its international reputation will already be damaged by the outcome of the war and its humbled economy.
The overall conclusion is that China’s involvement in the Ukraine war is set to shape a great deal of the coming world order.
