Interview
In an interview with the Russian International Affairs Council, Dr. Vladimir Baranovsky, RIAC Member, RAS Full Member and Deputy Director of the Institute of World Economy and International Relations, takes us through the nuts and bolts of Russian, Chinese and U.S. policies in the Asia-Pacific region, relations within the Russia-United States-China triangle, and the development of the Far East.
Interview
In an interview with the Russian International Affairs Council, Dr. Vladimir Baranovsky, RIAC Member, RAS Full Member and Deputy Director of the Institute of World Economy and International Relations, takes us through the nuts and bolts of Russian, Chinese and U.S. policies in the Asia-Pacific region, relations within the Russia-United States-China triangle, and the development of the Far East.
Some experts argue that Russia’s interests in the Asia-Pacific region fail to fully match either American or Chinese aspirations. To this end, how do you see the relations within the Russia-United States-China triangle in the fields of military and political security? What stance seems most rational for Russia?
The foreign policy interests of each country are highly specific, both in the absolute, and in the particular, i.e. toward the Asia-Pacific region, especially when it comes to Russia, the United States and China. Their interests are not alligned. These differences produce elements of rivalry, competition and sometimes confrontation. The issues are how significant these elements are, and also the presence of shared interests and problems. To my mind, this is the only appropriate attitude, rather than searching for a more maximalist approach. Total harmony is by no means feasible, since the countries are large and in many ways different in their overall political orientation as well. With full harmony out of the question, there is the chance to reduce their disparate interests to a common denominator. As a matter of fact, these states’ interests in the Asia-Pacific region are not necessarily competitive.
The key issues for these actors are as follows.
China is working to secure its geopolitical buildup into a key regional power, in view of its emerging global role, the solution of economic problems relating to resource supplies, and integration into global economy.
The United States perceives China in the Asia-Pacific region as a challenge, and is striving to prepare its allies to face it. Problems arise in connection with the security of Japan, the Philippines, and with the global and regional balance of forces. As a matter of fact, China’s growth into a superpower fundamentally breaks the equilibrium.
I do not think Russia should regard the United States and China as excessively dangerous rivals. Competition exists in many fields, but this is not at the forefront and does not define the bilateral relationship in either case. I believe there is room for compromise.
Let me underline some points regarding the Russia-China-United States triangle. First, there are more contradictions between the Chinese-American duo than between Russia and the other two states.
Second, Moscow should resist the temptation to play the Chinese card against the United States or vice versa: this appears to be an important parameter for Russian policy – one that could be rationally applied within this triangle. Russian dialog with China and the United States is quite advanced, suggesting that there is a chance to convert this dialog into a trialogue, a tripartite system of relations. This would be the preferred model, but, for many reasons, it is extremely difficult to construct. Just take the military-political sphere, such as the limitation of strategic arms. Recent decades have seen the emergence of certain trends in the competitive and cooperative relations between Russia and the United States. China should be integrated into this pattern, but this has not happened to date, due to reasons relating both to Beijing and Washington. Americans view China as a major strategic challenge, especially when it comes to strategic weapons.
Russia is stepping up its economic cooperation with the Asia-Pacific countries, and a number of agreements were signed at APEC 2012 with China and Japan covering the development of Russia’s Far East. Is the involvement of Japan, China and other countries in Russia’s political and economic interests?
It certainly is, for numerous reasons. First of all, because of the economic challenges we face in Far East development. For Russia, this cooperation is vital since this region is a great distance from key national economic centers, making it difficult to reach. Huge investment is required. Budget allocations are unlikely to be sufficient, raising the need to attract private capital, including from other countries. In this respect, cooperation with foreign partners fully serves Russian economic and political interests. Clearly, we should avoid situations in which reviews show that the terms of cooperation were to our disadvantage or poorly balanced. This is serious work that involves a painstaking analysis of the projects proposed.
Alarmists insist that foreigners’ involvement in Russian regional development will lead to dependence and cause problems for the country’s integrity. The causes for this are clear and should be dealt with. However, now the Far East’s problem is not too great a foreign presence, but the reverse. The region needs much more involvement from overseas, because it needs more investment per domestic product unit per capita than the rest of Russia. The massive influx of capital is a momentous task, but it must be accomplished, as without it, transforming it the Far East into a self-sufficient region that forms a potent element of the nation’s economic might, seems impossible.
Also, the Asia-Pacific region is a global, international area that needs increasing attention. Russia’s access there through the Far East seems only natural. Hence, steps should be taken to align the region’s cooperation with the adjacent countries and territories in order to strengthen Russia’s position in the Asia-Pacific region. Politically, this achievement would be of great importance both in view of the Far East’s development and in the context of broader national interests in the international scene.
Keeping these considerations in mind, which Asia-Pacific countries do you regard as the most promising for cooperation?
Our natural partners are China and Japan. The United States also offers great potential, as does Korea, which absolutely must become a partner. Handling these issues, which are only natural in any partnership, we should take account of the region’s geopolitical status. There surely are larger horizons and other partners to engage, but the main focus should be on these four.
Thank you for your kind answers, Dr. Baranovsky.
Interviewee: Natalie Yevtikhevich, RIAC Program Manager
