Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Strategic Triangle of Russia, China, and India: the Eurasian Aspect

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Strategic Triangle of Russia, China, and India: the Eurasian Aspect

    http://www.schillerinstitute.org/conf-iclc/2003/bd _schw/myasnikov.html


    `How to Reconstruct a Bankrupt World'

    Academician Vladimir S. Myasnikov
    The Strategic Triangle of Russia,
    China, and India: the Eurasian Aspect

    March 21-23, 2003



    Conference Declaration
    Contact The Schiller Institute


    Academician Vladimir S. Myasnikov addresses March 21-23 Bad Schwalbach
    Conference



    Dr. Myasnikov is an Academician of the Institute of Far Eastern
    Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences. His presentation to the
    Schiller Institute International Conference at Bad Schwalbach, was
    part of the March 22 panel on Eurasian development keynoted by Helga
    Zepp-LaRouche. The speech is translated from the Russian by Tamara
    Karganova; some subheads have been added.


    A strange but probably logical recourse of events can be observed in
    history. The advent of the 19th Century was marked by Napoleonic wars,
    and the beginning of the 20th Century, by World War I. Now, at the
    dawn of the 21st Century, we are witnessing the rapid lowering of the
    security threshold for the whole world. Notwithstanding the clear
    striving to peace manifested by a number of leading powers, the world
    again finds itself at the brink of war. In his address of Jan. 28,
    2003, Mr. Lyndon LaRouche, one of the most highly reputed and honest
    analysts, quite correctly noted that bombing of Iraq and making the
    latter a theater of hostilities could trigger a new world war and a
    new great depression. Lyndon LaRouche once again emphasized that the
    world would face an economic crisis more severe than the crisis of
    1928-1933. However, Iraq is not the only potential trigger.

    A recent report by the RAND Corporation, which presents "Conclusions
    on Russia's Decline ... and Consequences for the U.S. and Its Air
    Force," says that "degradation" of Russia would affect the
    U.S. interests directly or indirectly, and therefore it should be
    suggested that the U.S. armed forces might be asked to help, and then
    would have to operate in Russian territory or in the adjacent
    areas. Incidentally, U.S. interests in the Russian theater of
    international politics seem to be pretty much the same as in Iraq. As
    noted by authors of the RAND report, Russia is a major producer and
    supplier of energy resources, and a route for transit of oil and gas
    from the Caspian region, which is defined as a key area for
    U.S. national security interests.1

    Finally, in 2001, Gordon G. Chang, a Chinese American, published his
    book on The Coming Collapse of China.2 With his 20-year experience as
    a legal counselor for a big American company in Shanghai, Gordon Chang
    predicted that the Chinese state would collapse in the near-term
    future. His forecast was based on the perceived inefficiency of
    state-run enterprises, weaknesses and shortcomings of the banking
    system in the P.R.C., as well as on the P.R.C. leaders' alleged
    inability to build an open democratic society.

    So, let us try to visualize the global political scene in the near
    future: The United States is hit by financial crisis; Russia's
    degradation is at the point when U.S. military interference is
    required; while collapse of continental China shakes Asia and the
    world at large. This would be a most gloomy scenario of international
    developments in the first half of the 21st Century. To what extent it
    is realistic will become clear quite soon. In this presentation, I
    would like to address only those trends of international relations,
    which'should they gain momentum'might prevent realization of the above
    scenario.

    Russia, China, and India

    Can Guarantee Stability in Asia

    The need to accomplish their respective reforms properly predetermines
    a certain line of international behavior, pursued by the leaders of
    Russia, China, and India. "Peace and Development," the logo of the
    P.R.C. foreign policy, is being pursued in the form of active work for
    stability in East, Central, and Southeast Asia. As Eurasian powers,
    Russia and India are interested in sustained strategic stability in
    the whole of Eurasia. Visits by the Russian Federation President
    Vladimir V. Putin to China and India in December 2002 have manifested
    the shared positions of the three great powers with regard to major
    problems of contemporary international relations. The contents of
    Russia's relations of strategic partnership with China and India are
    becoming ever more specific.

    By the 16th Congress of the ruling Chinese Communist Party, the team
    of leaders headed by Jiang Zemin reached impressive results in the
    sphere of foreign policy. These results serve as a good foundation for
    international activities of the new team led by Hu Jingtao.

    Such attainments include, but are not limited by, the following:
    Treaty of Good-Neighborliness, Friendship, and Cooperation with
    Russia; agreement on the free-trade zone with the ASEAN member-states;
    normalization of relations with India; balanced condition of relations
    with the United States and Japan; and, willingness to resolve border
    issues with all neighbor countries within 20 years.

    The new world environment offers opportunities for peaceful
    coexistence and other universally recognized principles of
    international law, which guarantee observation of national interests
    to prevail in interstate relations. Exactly such principles serve as
    the basis for the Treaty of Good-Neighborliness, Friendship, and
    Cooperation between the Russian Federation and the People's Republic
    of China, signed by Russian Federation President Vladimir V. Putin and
    P.R.C. President Jiang Zemin in Moscow on July 16, 2001. This Treaty
    is of substantial importance'not only for Russia's relations with its
    great neighbor in Asia, but also for the whole complex of
    international relations in the world of the 21st Century.

    What is the reason to qualify this "treaty of the century," as the
    P.R.C. President Jiang Zemin put it, in the above terms?

    First, the Moscow treaty restored the international legal and treaty
    platform of Russian-Chinese relations that had been in existence for
    three-plus centuries. Second, such restoration took place on a
    qualitatively new basis, in conformity with the principles of
    good-neighborliness, friendship, cooperation, equal trustful
    partnership, and strategic interaction between the states in the 21st
    Century. In this sense, the Moscow treaty, having summed up the
    previous decade of constructive progress in good-neighborly relations
    between Russia and China, has also paved new ways for their further
    enhancement and development in the long-term perspective.

    Third, for a long time already, Russian-Chinese relations have been
    responsible for the general climate of international life. In the
    given case, the treaty has laid the bases for regional stability in
    East and Central Asia. And, finally, this instrument is the first
    treaty of such magnitude in the new century. Having signed this act,
    Russia and China substantially contributed to construction of the new
    system of international relations, which is taking shape these days.

    Russian-Chinese Treaty

    The Treaty, with its systemic and comprehensive nature, has
    established that Russia and China build their relations in compliance
    with the universally recognized principles and norms of international
    law'i.e., principles of mutual respect of sovereignty and territorial
    integrity, mutual non-aggression, non-interference in one another's
    domestic affairs, equality and mutual benefit, and peaceful
    coexistence. In their mutual relations, the two parties would
    repudiate the use of force or threat of force as well as other methods
    of pressure, and would confirm their pledge of non-first use of
    nuclear weapons and non-targeting strategic nuclear missiles against
    one another. These commitments are especially meaningful in the new
    circumstances, when the United States has seceded unilaterally from
    the ABM Treaty.

    With the proper respect of social, political, economic, and cultural
    development of each party, Russia and China provide for long-term and
    stable progress of relations between the two states. Based on their
    respective national interests, Russia and China support one another in
    issues pertaining to protection of the state unity and territorial
    integrity for either party.

    Article 6 in the Treaty is of exceptional importance, as it stipulates
    that the Parties, "recording, with satisfaction, the absence of mutual
    territorial claims, feel resolute to transform the border between them
    into a border of eternal peace and friendship to be passed through
    generations, and shall apply active efforts to this end."

    Russia and China are aware of the fact that arrogance of force in
    international affairs could lead to irreparable
    consequences. Therefore, they "stand in favor of strict observation of
    universally recognized principles and norms of international law, and
    against any actions, designed to exert force pressure or to interfere
    in domestic affairs of sovereign states under any pretext whatsoever;
    [they] intend to apply active efforts for consolidation of
    international peace, stability, development and cooperation" (Article
    11). As a follow-up of the Treaty provisions, Russian Federation
    President Vladimir V. Putin set forth an initiative of building the
    "arc of stability" in Eurasia.

    Proceeding from this principal position, both states pledged to take
    efforts in order "to enhance the central role of the UN as a most
    highly-reputed and most universal international organization, formed
    by sovereign states, in resolution of international affairs,
    especially ... in providing for the main responsibility of the UN
    Security Council for sustaining international peace and security"
    (Article 13).

    The true democratization of international life suggests recognition of
    the fact that a partner in international relations must be taken as
    such, and that each state is entitled to select independently,
    autonomously, and on the base of its specifics, the mode of
    development without interference on the part of other states. With
    this, differences in social systems, ideologies, and systems of values
    must not impede development of normal state-to-state relations. All
    countries, whether big or small, rich or poor, are equal members of
    the international community, and none of them should seek hegemony,
    purse a policy of force, and monopolize international affairs.

    The new international order must not be imposed forcefully. More
    generally, in order to establish the new comprehensive security
    concept, it is necessary to eradicate the Cold War mentality and the
    recidivisms of using some national armed forces beyond the national
    territory.

    As emphasized in Article 20 of the Moscow treaty, "the High
    Contracting Parties, in compliance with their respective national laws
    and international commitments, actively cooperate in the struggle
    against terrorism, separatism and extremism, as well as in the
    struggle against organized crime, illegal traffic of narcotic
    substances, psychotropic substances and weapons, and other criminal
    activities." Certainly, struggle against international terrorism must
    proceed most resolutely.

    Action Against Terrorism

    The context of terrorist acts that took place in several countries in
    September and October 2002 serves as a basis for a conclusion that the
    counter-terrorist operation, started in Afghanistan in 2001, did not
    bring comfort to the world. On the contrary, terrorism building up its
    muscles and attacking in various corners of the globe.

    By all evidence, it is necessary to draw national programs of struggle
    against international terrorism'for example, like the one developed by
    Japan's Prime Minister Koizumi in 2001. Further on, it might be
    possible to draw regional programs for struggle against terrorism'like
    the one tried by the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO)
    member-states. For Northeast, East, and South Asia, such programs
    might consider the experience accumulated in drafting the regional
    security systems'with the only reservation that terrorism, being
    well-organized and actively operating, would give us no respite, no
    chance for slow action, and no opportunity for years-long negotiations
    on the matter. Government structures must be better organized and more
    active, must operate preventively to frustrate any possible plans and
    attacks on the part of terrorists.

    Finally, it seems necessary to hold a special session of the UN in
    order to develop a comprehensive international counter-terrorist
    program of action that would take account of political, economic,
    legal, social, and national aspects of such phenomena as
    terrorism. Russia, China, and India, for whom counter-terrorist
    struggle is not merely a part of the international campaign but rather
    an urgent national task, seem to be able to put forward their joint
    initiatives on this issue on the international scene.

    It should be noted, however, that'as evidenced by the course of
    history'no "witch-hunt" could ever serve a basis for religion. By the
    same logic, the "international terrorist-hunt," too, cannot serve a
    basis for contemporary international relations. For normal interaction
    of states on the world scene, their activities must be put on a
    healthy, positive, and constructive basis.

    New World Order

    As Chinese experts emphasize, the P.R.C. pursues a pragmatic foreign
    policy, which meets the national interests of China. National
    interests and their priorities are defined in the modern world on the
    basis of reasonable national egoism. They are tightly connected with
    provision of the given nation's actual rights to political,
    territorial, cultural, and linguistic freedom and autonomy, as well as
    to equal co-existence with other nations.3

    At the present time, national interests are closely connected with a
    most acute issue of world policy'i.e., construction of a New World
    Order. As evidenced by analysis of the concepts developed in this
    sphere, they have nothing to do with purely theoretical designs, which
    are always in stock with fans of scholastic discussions at
    international conferences. The problem of building a new structure of
    international relations is connected with national interests of all
    states of the contemporary world. What is the core of the problem?
    Addressing the attitudes of Russia, China, and India in this regard,
    Sherman Garnett, an American political scientist, at the same time
    discloses the main line of differences. In his view, all three states
    feel more or less suspicious about the phenomenon, which appears as
    the world order dominated by the United States. Each of the three
    actors prefers one or another version of what was qualified in the
    Russian-Chinese declaration of April 27, 1997 as the "multi-polar
    world"; and they see such a world as a world which would give more
    room for their respective national interests.4

    Indeed, Russia, China, and India stand in favor of building a
    polycentric world; i.e., a new structure of international relations
    taking shape in the context of objective development conditions in
    individual countries. This concept is supported by many states on
    various continents, because it is designed to create optimal
    conditions for realization of their national interests, and to provide
    a new historical environment for the life of mankind in the new
    century. Being renovated today, the system of global political,
    economic, and cultural ties must be built on the basis of democratic
    elements and principles of the UN Charter, as well as the fundamental
    principles of international law. Meanwhile, it would be necessary to
    consider all value orientations of each civilization, the regional
    interests as well as national interests of any international actor.

    Would it be possible to build a polycentric system of international
    relations? In the view of Russia and China'the most active promoters
    of this concept'the answer is "yes." Both states proceed from the
    understanding that by the end of the 20th Century, the post-Cold War
    international relations have undergone profound changes. The two-pole
    confrontational system has disappeared, to be replaced by the positive
    trend for construction of a polycentric world. Changes are taking
    place in relations between and among major states, including the
    former adversaries in the Cold War. A growing number of countries
    shares the understanding that their national interests must be
    provided by equality and mutual benefit in international affairs,
    rather than by hegemony and policy of force; by dialogue and
    cooperation, rather than by confrontation and conflicts. Regional
    organizations of economic cooperation play an ever more active role in
    building a new peaceful, stable, fair, and rational international
    order. Broad international cooperation becomes an urgent requirement
    for realization of national and state interests.

    Russia and China coordinate their plans for realization of such grand
    projects of the 20th Century, as development of Western China; the
    East-West and North-South international transport corridors;
    construction of pipelines for downstreaming of hydrocarbon resources
    from Russia to China; and the Eurasian Transcontinental Economic
    Bridge. All these projects are tied directly to the central regions of
    Eurasia.

    Events of Sept. 11, 2001 in the United States

    The New York explosions have caused a tangible effect on the course of
    international affairs. The international environment, where states
    operate as sovereign actors, has been made much more complex. Russia,
    China, and India actively joined the anti-terrorist coalition and
    supported the U.S. military action against the Taliban movement in
    Afghanistan. Such support was, as well, manifested by the fact that
    base airfields in the Asian states of the Commonwealth of Independent
    States were provided for the U.S. Air Force transports. For the first
    time in history, the U.S. Air Force came to be stationed in the
    immediate vicinity of Russia's and China's strategic rears. In this
    context, the above-cited forecast by the RAND Corporations appears
    even more ominous.

    In order to sustain stability in central Eurasia, Russia and China
    have been and are exercising strategic partnership with Central Asian
    countries, republics of the former Soviet Union. In April 1996,
    Russia, China, Kazakstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan held their summit
    in Shanghai and signed the Agreement on military confidence-building
    measures in the border area. Thus the five powers, nicknamed as
    "Shanghai Five," started their cooperation. In 1997, at their summit
    in Moscow, leaders of the Five signed the even bigger-scale Agreement
    on mutual reduction of armed forces across the former Soviet-Chinese
    border.

    The summit meetings of the Shanghai Five, held in Almaty (1998) and
    Bishkek (August 1999), proved that these powers could interact quite
    productively'both in the political sphere (in order to sustain
    stability and to deter aggressive assault on the part of Islamic
    extremists and terrorists in Central Asia), as well as in trade and
    economic affairs.

    On June 15, 2001, the Shanghai Five, convened in session at the
    Shangri-la Hotel in Shanghai, admitted Uzbekistan as a new member and
    was institutionalized as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization
    (SCO). At the same time, the SCO decided to set up its anti-terrorist
    center in Bishkek, the capital of Kyrgyzstan. Finally, at its summit
    meeting, held in St. Petersburg in July 2002, the SCO passed its
    Declaration and Charter (the latter deemed as the organization's
    statute). The Secretariat of the SCO is headquartered in Beijing. The
    organization is not closed, and offers the procedures for admission of
    new participants in their capacity of attending observers or
    full-fledged members.5

    Mongolia, India, Iran, Pakistan, and even the United States express
    certain interest in interaction with the SCO. In the view of Kazakstan
    President Nursultan Nazarbayev, the SCO must become a body of
    confidence and partnership among the member-countries, while Russia,
    China, and India are to play a key role to this end.

    At the signing of the SCO basic documents in St. Petersburg, President
    Putin noted that requirements for admission of new members were
    described in the statutory documents, and in principle, any country
    that shared the principles of the SCO Charter could become a new
    member. Moreover, Russia's President said that India "was exploring
    the possibility of a more detailed introduction in the SCO activities"
    through Foreign Ministry channels. As noted by India's Foreign
    Minister Yashvant Sinha, "India believes that the SCO fulfills
    important tasks, especially in the struggle against the threat of
    terrorism. India is interested in joining the SCO and has notified
    Russia and other member-states of her intention. Our membership in the
    SCO does not depend on whether any other country is or is not going to
    join this structure. We believe that India can contribute considerably
    to the SCO activities. However, we realize as well that at the present
    moment its admission regulations make it difficult to become a new
    member. Nevertheless, we watch its activities attentively."6

    U.S. 'Sole Superpower'

    A most important strategic objective of the United States in the
    continent of Eurasia is to prevent the growth of forces, which could
    compete with American domination and therefore are qualified as
    "hostile to the United States." Such a force was represented, for
    example, by the former Soviet Union. Now the United States sees a
    threat to its interests in integration developments in the post-Soviet
    space, as well as in the potential unpredictability of China's policy
    in case the latter is not "engaged" in the U.S.-tailored model of
    international relations.

    While addressing national interests, one cannot but devote some
    attention to the new role of the United States in the contemporary
    world.

    Today the U.S. international strategy is based on the intention to
    build a one-system'that is, actually, one-pole'world. In the given
    case, one system means establishment of such regimes in the world as
    would comply with the national security interests of the world's
    strongest military power. The old motto'"he who is not with us, is
    against us"'has been transformed into the notion of the "axis of
    evil."

    Some experts (in particular, at the Schiller Institute) argue that the
    United States has moved to build an empire by the model of ancient
    Rome. This would mean division of the world into two parts, metropolis
    and periphery. In order to sustain its domination, the metropolis
    would keep the periphery in the condition of instability, leaving very
    little, if any, room for strengthening either the entire periphery or
    individual peripheral states. Those countries, which for one or
    another reason cause concerns in the metropolis, would be subject to
    preventive attacks by metropolitan armed forces.7

    The U.S. military doctrine of such kind was elaborated as early as in
    the early 1990s, right after the disintegration of the Soviet
    Union. Today D. Rumsfeld, R. Cheney, and P. Wolfowitz, perceived as
    active promoters of this doctrine, exert influence on President George
    Bush along the relevant direction.

    At the same time, however, experts from the Brookings Institution in
    Washington argue that Sept. 11, 2001 opened a "post-post-Cold War
    era," in which the central role should belong to the "concert of
    powers," struggling against terrorism. In their view, the architecture
    of the would-be system of international relations is not yet quite
    clear, but it would hardly be the one-pole structure of the post-Cold
    War period. However, in the nearest future the world would not be led
    by a "global government," represented, for example, by such an
    international organization as the UNO. By all evidence, the concept of
    a one-pole world is starting to lose support within the United
    States'at least, at the experts' level.8

    >From the standpoint of Russia's, China's, and India's national
    interests, the most acceptable policy of the United States would be
    one for the stabilization of international security. Such a policy
    should not proceed from narrow self-interests of some group within
    American ruling circles, but rather from true care about sustainable
    peace that would correspond also to the U.S. national interests. In
    this sense, the "concert of powers" theory may be considered as an
    option of the "polycentric world" theory, which is accepted by the
    three states as well.

    New Silk Road Policy

    As for the nations which the United States tries to make an object of
    its policy, they, too, are not at all happy to play the offered
    role. Along with active participation in the SCO, they are putting
    forward broad initiatives for the system of international relations in
    the 21st Century to be polycentric and aimed at economic reforms in a
    peaceful environment. For example, in the Spring of 1999, Askar
    Akayev, President of the Republic of Kyrgyzstan, published his
    manifesto entitled "Silk Route Diplomacy," which says: "Building of a
    nuclear weapon free zone in Central Asia, discontinuing the arms race,
    and converting defense production, as well as providing proper
    conditions for sustainable development of all countries along the
    Great Silk Route without exception'all these would give a reason to
    hope that in the beginning of the 3rd Millennium, the [Silk] Route
    region, with its enormous potential and resources, would be one of the
    most prosperous and wealthy in the world; because problems, connected
    with interests of all countries, would be resolved jointly; and all
    obstacles to free movement of goods, capitals, services, and labor in
    the whole area of the Route would be eliminated.

    "There are sufficient grounds to suggest that all countries of the
    Great Silk Route would apply maximal efforts to the effect that in the
    new millennium, only positive impulses of creativity, peace, progress,
    and prosperity would be generated from the region of the Route, which
    is a vast space crossing the whole mainland of Eurasia from East to
    West, and which unites the rich diversity of cultures, traditions, and
    historic destinies."9

    This approach is accepted by a number of Asian and European states
    that are interested in the grand project of the 21st Century'the
    Trans-Continental Economic Bridge. In China, for example, this project
    has been adopted as a government program. The project means to build a
    high-tech-based network of high-speed transport and communications
    lines in the expanses of Eurasia, and thus to unite Asian and European
    nations in a new type of association for development. The central
    purpose of such an association would be to build, through joint
    efforts, an integrated super-modern infrastructure for transport,
    energy, and communications, that would extend from the Pacific through
    to the Atlantic, and thus provide a basis for rapid economic
    development of the whole mass of Eurasia in the 21st Century.

    As noted in the comprehensive expert assessment of this project,
    "Having lived through geopolitical manipulations, alienation and
    conflicts, as well as the 'Great Game' of the colonial powers, peoples
    of the greatest continent have approached the opportunity to overcome
    the chronic backwardness of Eurasian 'inland areas' with the help of
    advanced technologies. For the first time in history, Eurasia, as an
    integrated unit, would arrive at a quite clear economic reality,
    composed by sovereign states intensively cooperating with one
    another."10

    Coming back to Russia's current strategic partnership with China and
    India, it should be said that an important strategic objective in the
    central part of Eurasia is the need to create and to sustain favorable
    international conditions for successful realization of planned
    reforms. This is a point of coincidence among major national interests
    of Russia, China, and India, which is multiplied by the existing long
    traditions of friendly ties in the spheres of economy, culture,
    science, and technology. Lyndon LaRouche highlighted exactly this
    point in his presentation of Dec. 3, 2001 in New Delhi; and exactly
    this point provides a real opportunity for interaction among the three
    Eurasian giants. However, in practice, the opportunity alone would not
    be sufficient for such interaction, because the latter could take
    place only in a certain international environment, which we have to
    create and for which we shall have to struggle.

    In the environment which is taking shape under the influence of other
    powers, favorable factors work together with quite many unfavorable
    ones, which could complicate and even frustrate interaction among the
    three powers, and which are not generated exclusively by bilateral
    relations within the "triangle." So, let us try to systematize the
    main unfavorable factors, and to weigh the real extent to which such
    factors could jeopardize attainment of our common strategic objective.

    Old and New Aspects of International Security

    The first group of factors is connected with international security,
    as well as its old and new aspects. All strategic threats'or, in the
    given case, unfavorable factors'are embedded in the changed state of
    international security. The trends that have generated the change have
    been accumulated implicitly. The main aspects of the old security
    structure (in the 1960s-1980s) were represented by the willingness: to
    avoid nuclear war at the level of the two superpowers; to prevent the
    growth of local conflicts and wars into a universal holocaust; to
    block the proliferation of nuclear weapons; to solve the ecological
    problems of the planet; and, to regulate the demographic explosion.

    The disintegration of the Soviet Union activated development of some
    old trends and generated new ones, such as: 1) So far, the reduction
    of nuclear weapons and their delivery systems does not guarantee
    against a nuclear war; 2) The proliferation of nuclear weapons could
    not be stopped, and now the task is not so much to make such weapons
    unavailable to states, but rather to individual terrorist
    organizations and groups; 3) Ecological problems are mounting'both in
    connection with the U.S. refusal to sign the Kyoto Protocol, and in
    connection with global climate change and the growing number of
    technology-generated catastrophes; 4) By all the evidence, demographic
    problems will be growing until the mid-21st Century, which is defined
    as the final point of demographic transition (i.e., a global
    self-regulating demographic process); 5) By that time, China's
    population, for example, would reach the mark of 1.6 billion; 6) The
    two-pole structure of the world in general, and international security
    in particular, is being replaced by a multi-polar structure of both,
    which is taking shape in the struggle against the trend towards a
    U.S.-led one-pole world; 7) Hence, there is reason to discuss the
    United States as playing a new role, of a "brake" on the development
    of international relations; 8) In the resolution of international
    problems, evident attempts are being taken to regard domestic
    legislation as higher than the UN Charter; 9) The creation of the EU
    and the role of united Europe carry both positive and negative
    potentials for the new system of international relations; 10) China
    and India have appeared in the position of major world powers, and
    their role will be growing; 11) As proved by the financial crisis of
    1997-1998, the economic security of nations is no less important than
    security in the military and political spheres; 12) The role of such a
    factor of world development as the Islamic Revolution is growing
    rapidly; and 13) Finally, factors have appeared such as international
    terrorism, the international drug business, corruption and crime in
    many spheres of human activity, etc., all of which serve as a reason
    to discuss the process of criminal globalization. The above list of
    factors could be crowned by the appearance of a worldwide
    anti-globalist movement.

    The second group of factors is connected with a struggle within the
    United Nations and for the United Nations. The UN was established as a
    collective guarantor of international security. Nowadays, we hear the
    widely disseminated view that the UN is somehow outdated and lagging
    behind rapidly developing international relations. To some extent,
    this view seems correct'especially in the context of several
    substantial failures of the UN in the last several years. The failures
    include: the Yugoslavian crisis of 1999, when NATO was placed over the
    UN; the year 2001, announced by the UN as the Year of Dialogue Among
    Civilizations, and "creamed" by the events of Sept. 11 in the United
    States; and, the resolution by the U.S. Congress allowing the
    U.S. President to attack Iraq at his own discretion, neglecting the UN
    resolutions and inspections. Today, if one asks the question as to
    "Who is interested in the UN?" the answer will be: "Nobody but,
    probably, Taiwan, who wants to be back in there" However, to bury the
    UN would be premature.

    Along with the ever more frequent neglect of the UN on the part of the
    United States and NATO, several objective factors, too, are
    responsible for weakening the UN's role.

    First, apart from the five leading countries'being the UN founders and
    permanent members of its Security Council'a group of other important
    actors has appeared on the world scene, and hence in the UN. These
    countries'India, Japan, Brazil, Germany, and Canada'seek to strengthen
    their positions in the United Nations. Reorganization of the UN
    structure has been on the agenda for several years already, but so
    far, consensus on this issue seems to be quite distant from
    now. Second, there are a number of new multinational associations
    (European Union) and international organizations'both regional (for
    example, APEC) and specialized (OPEC, WTO). Regular summit and
    ministerial meetings within the framework of such organizations
    somehow dissolve the need to delegate a number of problems to the
    UN. At the same time, informal but regular summits of the G-8 or
    Asia-Europe also remove many issues from the UN agenda.

    It appears that along with reorganization of the UN structure, the
    authority of this organization as the only world-scale forum to
    address the problems of international security could be enhanced by
    such measures, as: to conduct the G-8 summit at the UN'while resolving
    global issues, the G-8 must not isolate itself from the rest of the
    world, because otherwise it would place itself in confrontation with
    many states and with many movements; to continue the Year of Dialogue
    Among Civilizations and, to this end, to select the UN as the venue
    for the Asia-Europe summit, Islamic Conference Summit, and Conference
    on Islam and Europe (the latter planned to take place in Spain); to
    conduct the APEC and OPEC summits within the framework of the UN; to
    hold a special session of the UN General Assembly that would address
    unification of all forces in the struggle against international
    terrorism (as discussed above).

    The UN could make all the above-listed summits more transparent for
    the world public, and thus create an atmosphere of better confidence
    in the world. Such Eurasian powers as Russia, China, and India are
    interested, probably more than others, in the UN being again an
    efficient instrument of peace for the world community, and this is one
    of their shared positions, where they have started to apply
    coordinated efforts.

    Economic Crisis, New Bretton Woods

    The third group of unfavorable factors is connected with the economic
    aspects of international security. In the new system of international
    relations at the dawn of this century, the economic component has
    grown considerably. This growth has been predetermined by three
    elements: 1) the objective course of globalization; 2) depletion of
    world energy resources: and, 3) global ecology problems'such as the
    shortage of freshwater and depletion of soils.

    Apart from these rather obvious factors, there are factors, which are
    not very visible for the broad public, but which could blow up all
    economic ties in the world. By this, I mean the condition of global
    finance.

    The situation is presented most fully and clearly in the Resolution of
    Sept. 25, 2002, passed by the Italian National Parliament, with regard
    to authorizing the government to take measures that would help
    Argentina to overcome the crisis. The Parliament proceeded from
    recognition of the fact that escalation of the banking and financial
    crisis, which started from crises of 1997 in Asia, Russia, and Latin
    America, and has lasted through to the recent failure of the "new
    economy" in the United States, the massive and, so far, lasting
    banking collapse in Japan, and the bankruptcy of Argentina, cannot but
    cause concern in all countries'among the population, ruling classes,
    companies, investors, and depositors'because this is not some chance
    string of events, but rather expresses the crisis of the entire
    [global] financial system, marked by the staggering gap between the
    volume of speculative capital'worth $400 trillion ($140 trillion of
    which the United States accounts for)'and a world gross product worth
    only $40 trillion.

    This is exactly the delayed-action mine laid within the international
    financial system. The authors of the above-cited parliamentary
    resolution consider it necessary to convene a new Bretton Woods-like
    international conference that would address the adaptation of IMF and
    IBRR [World Bank] activities to the new conditions. The evident task
    of such a conference would be to free European countries from the
    dependence on the U.S. dollar, in connection with enactment of the
    euro, and to try to provide the same international parity for the euro
    as the one that was provided at Bretton Woods for the U.S. dollar. The
    nearest future will show if these efforts help to save the world from
    the so-called "vampire capital"'i.e., the continuously growing
    speculative capital, which is capable of causing damage not only to
    individual national economies, but to entire regional economies,
    too. So far, however, all countries should be prepared for a sudden
    and painful attack on the part of that vampire.

    Such preparations seem to be a reasonable element of interaction among
    Russia, China, and India within the framework of their constructive
    partnership. The prospects for interaction in the 21st Century among
    such countries as Russia, China, other SCO member countries, and
    India, Mongolia, Iran'i.e., the countries that historically are
    connected with the center of Eurasia'are not at all exhausted by the
    vectors addressed in this presentation. Certainly, interaction of all
    these countries must be put on the solid platform of economic and
    science-technology cooperation.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------
    Footnotes
    --------------------------------------------------------------------

    [1] This theory was voiced as early as July 1997, when the U.S. Senate
    Foreign Relations Committee held hearings on Washington's policy
    vis-à-vis "eight new independent states of Caucasus and Central
    Asia"'i.e., Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakstan, Kyrgyzstan,
    Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. According to the main
    conclusion of those hearings, these republics would form a sphere of
    U.S. priority interests. Such a conclusion was predetermined, first
    and foremost, by the extremely rich Caspian oil and gas deposits,
    comparable to the hydrocarbon resources of the Persian Gulf. In the
    Caspian, the United States considers Russia and Iran as its main
    competitors, while Turkey is seen in Washington as a potential ally or
    tool of its policy.

    [2] Gordon G. Chang, The Coming Collapse of China (New York: Random
    House, 2001).

    [3] V.S. Shevtsov, Gosudarstvennyi suverenitet'voprosy teorii (State
    Sovereignty'Questions of Theory) (Moscow: 1979), pp. 167-168.

    [4] Sherman Garnett, Influencing Transition States: Russia. China, and
    India; Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Project on "Foreign
    and Security Policy Problems," Program on Asian Security (Washington,
    D.C.: July 1998), p. 3.

    [5] For SCO documents, see: Far Eastern Affairs, 2002, No. 4.

    [6] Vremya novostei, Feb. 19, 2003, p. 5. (As the original English
    text of the speech by the Indian Foreign Minister was not available,
    the above quotation is translated from Russian.)

    [7] Such a U.S. strategy was outlined by Alexander Oslon, President of
    the Obshchestvennoye mneniye (Public Opinion Foundation), in a book
    published right after the events of Sept. 11, Amerika: vzglyad iz
    Rossii, Do i posle 11 sentyabrya (America: View from Russia, Before
    and After September 11) (Moscow: 2001), p. 14.

    [8] Brookings Northeast Asia Survey: 2001-2002 (Washington, D.C.:
    2002), p. 4.

    [9] A. Akayev, Diplomatiya Shelkovogo Puti (Silk Route Diplomacy)
    (Bishkek: 1999), pp. 1-3.

    [10] V.S. Myasnikov, "Kontinentalnyi most'proyekt XXI veka"
    (Continental Bridge: Project of the 21st Century), Metally
    Evrazii. Natsionalnoye obozreniye, 1997, No. 3, p. 8
Working...
X