Is China’s tilt towards Russia in Beijing’s best long-term interest?
- Trying to outflank the US by gaming geopolitically with Putin is a risky business, given the Russian president’s image abroad
- For its part, the US needs to show greater selectivity about when and where to try to plant the American flag or export the American way
The Chinese tilt towards Russia is understandable enough. It is immensely satisfying to be able to tell American leaders that China will do what it wants to do, whether the arrogant West likes it or not.
If the American people associate today’s China with the bad old days of the former Soviet Union, Zhongnanhai might be tilting against one of Chinese political culture’s greatest insights: always think long term. Consider that barbarian America will be around for a long time, whether Beijing likes it or not. Neither containment nor confrontation is what China or the US need.
He said: “Russia and China’s announced authoritarian coalition today shows just how badly Biden’s policy of weakness and appeasement has failed. Russia and China share a common interest to undermine the United States, and Biden, through his lack of leadership, has let them do it. …
“What’s also become increasingly clear is that China seeks to be the dominant force within a new world order run by authoritarians.”
It is noteworthy that Banks also helms the Republican Study Committee, founded in 1973 to bring together like-minded conservative House members. Today it is the largest caucus in the US Congress.
For its part, America needs to take a very careful look at itself. Even conventional thinkers in the US are calling for a round of reflection of the nation’s appetite for global commitments.
The trouble for China in staying friends with 2 foes, Ukraine and Russia
A good example can be found in a recently published book by Hal Brands, the Henry A. Kissinger Distinguished Professor of Global Affairs at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies.
Even this political conservative advocates trimming the global American remit from that of the sprawling, all-over-the-place policeman of the world to a more patient, domestically absorbed US that shows greater selectivity about when and where to try to plant the American flag or export the American way.
The policy wisdom of the day in Washington is now “pacing”. In the book The Twilight Struggle: What the Cold War Teaches Us About Great-Power Rivalry Today, Brand writes: “Setting a steady pace is admittedly easier said than done. Adversaries often expand into spaces left undefended; non-vital interests may no longer seem non-vital when attacked…
“Yet understanding the basic need for pacing is nonetheless vital because the cost of exhaustion is so high … In long-term competition, restraining your enemies may also require restraining yourself.”
In a recent joint statement, Xi did sign off on Russia’s request to oppose the further enlargement of Nato. Predictably, the official response from the West was defensive and huffy. But by itself, though, is this such a terrible idea?
Lord Salisbury, prime minister of Britain at the height of its power, once warned his fellow citizens against “sticking to the carcass of dead policies”. It is hard to avoid a fast-sinking feeling as the relationship between China and the US dips lower into the whirlpool of global uncertainty.
Author-journalist Tom Plate is Distinguished Scholar of Asian and Pacific Studies at Loyola Marymount University and vice-president of the Pacific Century Institute