Three Core Concepts of Sino-Russian International Cooperation

Sino-Russian international cooperation revolves around a number of core concepts, among which multipolarity, globalization, and international order-building occupy a prominent place. The consensus between the two countries on these concepts constitutes an important basis for Sino-Russian international cooperation, while at the same time, the two countries have their own characteristics in interpreting the concepts, applying the policies and choosing the paths.

Judging from the current situation, the multipolarity of the world has become a general trend that is difficult to stop. The growth of emerging economies, the expansion of the BRICS Group and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the development of regional organizations and the role of the Global South have provided the material conditions for world multipolarity, while the increasing awareness of independence and autonomy of the majority of countries, their growing resistance and defiance of hegemonism and their increasing pursuit of more just world have provided the spiritual impetus for world multipolarity. It can be said that multipolarity is already a reality, because there is no single center of power that can dominate the world.

On the issue of multipolarity, there is no obvious difference in the conceptual understanding of China and Russia, both of which believe that it is a necessary condition for the realization of a just and fair world political, economic, trade and financial order, and both of which have been very stable in their policies. There is also a general convergence of approaches, with a particular emphasis on the role of the SCO, the BRICS group, the Global South and other regional organizations. In the future, multipolarity will remain as one of the core concepts of Russian-Chinese international cooperation. However, multipolarity is not the ultimate goal; it is only the way to build a fair and just international order. Moreover, multipolarity alone is not a guarantee of international justice and security. What is more important here is the shape and nature of the relationship among the multipoles, which can be harmonious and cooperative or confrontational and conflictual. Therefore, with the realization of multipolarity, a more significant challenge is understanding what kind of relationship should be formed among the multipoles. In this regard, China has chosen multilateralism as the way to build a virtuous multilateral relationship. Multilateralism is also a very important but rather difficult concept to articulate, and China therefore calls it “genuine multilateralism” for the time being, to distinguish it from other interpretations.

The promotion of economic globalization is another important concept of Russian-Chinese international cooperation, specifically in the economic sphere. This concept entered the main vocabulary of Russian-Chinese international cooperation at least 20 years ago. However, unlike multipolarity, there are major differences between the positions of China and Russia on economic globalization. There are understandable reasons for this situation. Generally speaking, China focuses on defining globalization from an economic perspective, thus calling it economic globalization. Under its policy of reform and opening up, China has rapidly integrated into the process of economic globalization, reaped enormous benefits from it, and sustained its rapid economic development, becoming a major trading nation, a major manufacturing nation and an infrastructure powerhouse in the world, and rising to become the world's second-largest economy. China's ties with the international market and the world economy have never been closer, and it is the largest trading partner of more than 100 countries in the world. China's growing economic scale is also driving its economy to the whole world, so economic globalization is naturally needed by China, and the higher the degree of globalization, the greater the room for China's economic development.

Russia's situation differs from China's in that it defines globalization more often in political terms. Russia's rejection of economic globalization is on two levels. Politically, it is characterized as Western globalization, a reflection of Western globalism in the economic sphere, on the basis of which a Western-dominated world economic order has been formed, the main purpose of which is to serve the West and reflect its economic hegemony. Russia is determined to break free from this Western globalization, which it opposes with the concept of integration.

Should globalization, which is now being pushed around the world by the West, or the Western model of globalization, still be promoted? Is it possible to create an alternative to the Western model of globalization?

Whether politically or economically, it is still desirable to continue with globalization. All that needs to be done is to transform it to make it more just and fairer. In the latest joint communiqué of China and Russia, the meaning and goal of promoting economic globalization has been interpreted in a new way, namely, “to promote all-beneficial and inclusive economic globalization, to push for the formation of a fair world trade and monetary and financial system, and to expand the voice of emerging markets and developing countries in global economic governance.” This is also the objective of the economic process promoted by the BRICS Group, which, as many data show, has surpassed the G-7 in terms of purchasing power parity, and its position in the world economy is still rising, thus giving it an increasing ability to shape and influence the process of globalization.

International order building is the core of the core concepts of Russian-Chinese international cooperation, to which all other concepts are ultimately subordinate in a certain sense. This concept has accompanied Russian-Chinese international cooperation throughout its history. In the joint statement of April 1996, when the two countries declared themselves to be strategic partners, “a new, just and rational international political and economic order” was set as the goal of international cooperation, and today it still remains the main aim of international cooperation between the two countries.

Given the completely different views of the international order between Russia, China and the West, will it be possible for the two sides to reach a compromise, find common ground and form a unified international order? The answer is that it is highly unlikely in the short- and medium-term future. The world is now in times of rapid dividing, and the international community is moving towards total separation, not only in politics, security and ideology, but also in economic and technological systems, and even in humanistic culture, which is clearly not a period for the formation of a unified order and rules, and the emergence of a relatively unified and holistic international order can only take place in more distant future. The majority view is that the international order of the coming period will be fragmented, or even devoid of order. Strictly speaking, if it does not have a certain universality, if it is not accepted by the majority of countries, if it is not shared by China, Russia and the West, then it cannot be called an international order, but only a “local” order.

Diversity is a fundamental way of being in the world. The social systems, political cultures, ideologies, nationalities, religions, customs, etc., of the countries of the world have always been diverse, and, like it or not, the world will be the same and will not change, whether in the past, at present or in the future.

The model of inclusiveness, or international order, also includes the West, otherwise it cannot be called inclusive. In fact, the West, as a huge political and economic power, cannot be excluded from the world. Thus, the formation of the so-called inclusive model presupposes the elimination of the gap between the West and China and Russia and establishing bridges by which they can communicate, that is, despite their differences, the parties are able to engage in a dialogue, a dialogue that is not aimed at changing the other side, but at seeking a basis for peaceful coexistence and cooperation.

However, this is only possible to be truly realized when the West uphold the same attitude of inclusiveness. Naturally, this is an idealistic wish. However, any desire for a better world is pure and idealistic, but that does not mean that one should not strive in that direction, nor does it mean indulging in illusions and losing a sense of reality.

Sino-Russian international cooperation revolves around a number of core concepts, among which multipolarity, globalization, and international order-building occupy a prominent place. The consensus between the two countries on these concepts constitutes an important basis for Sino-Russian international cooperation, while at the same time, the two countries have their own characteristics in interpreting the concepts, applying the policies and choosing the paths.

Multipolarity

Aleksandr Dynkin:
World Order Transformation: Economy, Ideology, Technology

Multipolarity was the starting point of the Russian-Chinese consensus on international cooperation, i.e., the opposition to the unipolar structure of the world and the advocacy of a multipolar international political structure was the first factor that pushed Russia and China towards international cooperation. In April 1996, President Boris Yeltsin visited China to take part in the first summit of the “Shanghai Five” in Shanghai, where he made an impromptu speech at the summit dinner that caused a wide international reaction. He said, “Russia is a big country, China is a big country; let those countries see how they will be together”. Although Yeltsin said this as he was walking towards the exit of the hall at the end of the banquet, and although it was an impromptu speech, the thought expressed was serious, and he happened to be at the table where the author of this article, as a member of the staff, was sitting at the time, and so heard him directly.

The significance of these words at that time was extraordinary. At that time, the Cold War had just ended, and the United States had rocketed to unipolar power, leaving all countries far behind. Russia was still in the throes of the collapse of the Soviet Union, and its national strength was in sharp decline. China was not yet developed either. Yeltsin's speech may have been the first to suggest that China and Russia should join forces to oppose unipolar hegemony and promote multipolarity in the world. In fact, the Sino-Russian strategic partnership was also first proposed by President Yeltsin in April 1996, on his flight to China. This idea was soon translated into the policies of the two countries, and in April 1997, China and Russia issued the Joint Declaration on Multipolarity in the World and the Establishment of a New International Order, which was the first joint declaration on international cooperation between the two countries, as the previous joint declarations of the two countries were basically about the development of bilateral relations. Since then, the multipolarity of the world has become one of the key elements and core concepts of Russian-Chinese international cooperation, and this is still the case.

Initially, the reason for cooperation between China and Russia on the issue of multipolarity was explained on the basis of a simple logic –the balance of power: after the Cold War, the United States became the sole superpower and formed a unipolar hegemony. Both China and Russia were weak countries, so they needed to join forces in order to improve their international standing. This interpretation no longer applies because both China and Russia have grown so much in power and stature that they are in effect the two poles of the world. What China and Russia are now promoting is multipolarity on a broader scale than that of the two countries, or the goal is no longer limited to their own countries as poles, but to form a multipolar world on a global scale. China and Russia's promotion of multipolarity has been motivated more by the idea of establishing a fair and just world order, and multipolarity is a necessary condition to it; in a certain sense, the promotion of multipolarity is an integral part of the promotion of the construction of a fair and just international order.

Judging from the current situation, the multipolarity of the world has become a general trend that is difficult to stop. The growth of emerging economies, the expansion of the BRICS Group and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the development of regional organizations and the role of the Global South have provided the material conditions for world multipolarity, while the increasing awareness of independence and autonomy of the majority of countries, their growing resistance and defiance of hegemonism and their increasing pursuit of more just world have provided the spiritual impetus for world multipolarity. It can be said that multipolarity is already a reality, because there is no single center of power that can dominate the world.

On the issue of multipolarity, there is no obvious difference in the conceptual understanding of China and Russia, both of which believe that it is a necessary condition for the realization of a just and fair world political, economic, trade and financial order, and both of which have been very stable in their policies. There is also a general convergence of approaches, with a particular emphasis on the role of the SCO, the BRICS group, the Global South and other regional organizations. In the future, multipolarity will remain as one of the core concepts of Russian-Chinese international cooperation. However, multipolarity is not the ultimate goal; it is only the way to build a fair and just international order. Moreover, multipolarity alone is not a guarantee of international justice and security. What is more important here is the shape and nature of the relationship among the multipoles, which can be harmonious and cooperative or confrontational and conflictual. Therefore, with the realization of multipolarity, a more significant challenge is understanding what kind of relationship should be formed among the multipoles. In this regard, China has chosen multilateralism as the way to build a virtuous multilateral relationship. Multilateralism is also a very important but rather difficult concept to articulate, and China therefore calls it “genuine multilateralism” for the time being, to distinguish it from other interpretations.

Economic Globalization

Andrey Kortunov:
Multilateralism in the Era of Weak Institutions

The promotion of economic globalization is another important concept of Russian-Chinese international cooperation, specifically in the economic sphere. This concept entered the main vocabulary of Russian-Chinese international cooperation at least 20 years ago. For example, in the Sino-Russian Joint Statement on the International Order in the 21^st Century, published on July 02, 2005, Russia and China agreed that economic globalization was a major trend in the world's development and that it had a positive significance for the development of the world economy. 

However, unlike multipolarity, there are major differences between the positions of China and Russia on economic globalization. China has a very positive attitude towards economic globalization and shows a high degree of activism. Although Russia has kept the promotion of economic globalization in common documents between China and Russia, such as the Joint Statement on Deepening the Comprehensive Strategic Collaborative Partnership in the New Era of Russia and China in March 2023 and the Joint Communiqué of the Twenty-Ninth Regular Meeting of the Prime Ministers of Russia and China in August 2024, both of which contain statements on the promotion of economic globalization, it is less common to see such statements in Russia's domestic foreign policy documents. Moreover, economic globalization is viewed critically and negatively in Russian official and academic circles. 

There are understandable reasons for this situation. Generally speaking, China focuses on defining globalization from an economic perspective, thus calling it economic globalization. Under its policy of reform and opening up, China has rapidly integrated into the process of economic globalization, reaped enormous benefits from it, and sustained its rapid economic development, becoming a major trading nation, a major manufacturing nation and an infrastructure powerhouse in the world, and rising to become the world's second-largest economy. China's ties with the international market and the world economy have never been closer, and it is the largest trading partner of more than 100 countries in the world. China's growing economic scale is also driving its economy to the whole world, so economic globalization is naturally needed by China, and the higher the degree of globalization, the greater the room for China's economic development. 

Russia's situation differs from China's in that it defines globalization more often in political terms. Russia's rejection of economic globalization is on two levels. Politically, it is characterized as Western globalization, a reflection of Western globalism in the economic sphere, on the basis of which a Western-dominated world economic order has been formed, the main purpose of which is to serve the West and reflect its economic hegemony. Russia is determined to break free from this Western globalization, which it opposes with the concept of integration. Economically, it has led to the flow of global wealth to the West, resulting in greater polarization between rich and poor and the economic exploitation of the rest of the world by the West. Russia believes that the Western model of globalization is obsolete and that it has lost its relevance. In terms of real interests, Russia's economic integration into globalization is not so deep, its position in the international industrial chain is relatively insignificant, and it does not benefit much from the process of globalization, even to the detriment of Russia's interests. So naturally, Russia will not be positive about economic globalization. 

Russia is undoubtedly right in believing that globalization nowadays is of the Western model, and that the globalization of the world's economy had its beginnings in the West. Objectively, there is an inherent tension in the development of the economy, and after a certain level of grow-up of the world economy and with the transport and communications infrastructures systems developed, its power must spill over to the outside. Thus, the process of globalization naturally emerges, and the countries with greater economic power have a greater interest in reaching out to the world market. In turn, they also shape and influence the globalization process to meet their own needs. Historically, economic globalization in the West has indeed been accompanied by injustice and exploitation, such as the economic colonization of the world by the West, and then the unequal and irrational distribution of power in the international economic and financial institutions, and so on. However, promoting economic globalization now means to promote its positive aspects, that is, the rational allocation of resources worldwide, the maximization of economic benefits, the development of economic cooperation among countries and the promotion of the common prosperity and development of the world economy. 

It may be argued that there is now a rising tide of anti-globalization, with Western countries posing a serious challenge to economic globalization by so-called de-coupling and de-risking, severing the chains of international cooperation and destroying the world economic links that have been formed. This is indeed the reality, but not only should this be a reason for abandoning the economic globalization, but it shows the necessity and correctness of promoting globalization. If globalization is only beneficial to the Western countries, why do they want to reverse the process? This can only mean that they also feel the challenges posed to them by globalization and therefore want to change the rules. Russians often say that the rise of the Chinese economy has defeated the West within the rules set by the West, so the rules of globalization can be used to develop themselves; the important question is how to use the rules. If the rules are not well utilized, then no matter what the rules are, they will not bring opportunities. 

Should globalization, which is now being pushed around the world by the West, or the Western model of globalization, still be promoted? Is it possible to create an alternative to the Western model of globalization? 

To date, there has been no other model of globalization in the world but this one, and it is therefore impossible to promote economic globalization entirely apart from this process. It is equally impossible to create entirely new alternatives to the current process of globalization, and no country or group of countries has the economic power to do so. Also, parallel globalization is not true globalization; at best, it is “hemisphericization”, or regionalization. Of course, regional integration is also a very important form of cooperation. In a sense, if regional integration is open, it can also form part of economic globalization. 

Whether politically or economically, it is still desirable to continue with globalization. All that needs to be done is to transform it to make it more just and fairer. In the latest joint communiqué of China and Russia, the meaning and goal of promoting economic globalization has been interpreted in a new way, namely, “to promote all-beneficial and inclusive economic globalization, to push for the formation of a fair world trade and monetary and financial system, and to expand the voice of emerging markets and developing countries in global economic governance”. This is also the objective of the economic process promoted by the BRICS Group, which, as many data show, has surpassed the G7 in terms of purchasing power parity, and its position in the world economy is still rising, thus giving it an increasing ability to shape and influence the process of globalization.

International Order

Ivan Timofeev:
Ending Western Domination Is Key to the Emerging World Order. Here’s What Needs to Be Done to Achieve It

International order building is the heart of the core concepts of Russian-Chinese international cooperation, to which all other concepts are ultimately subordinate in a certain sense. This concept has accompanied Russian-Chinese international cooperation throughout its history. In the joint statement of April 1996, when the two countries declared themselves to be strategic partners, “a new, just and rational international political and economic order” was set as the goal of international cooperation. Today, it still remains the main aim of international cooperation between the two countries. However, there are still many questions to be explored on how to build the future international order.

One is how to deal with the old international order: whether to take a revolutionary approach and rebuild it completely, or to take an evolutive approach and carry out gradual reforms. On this issue, Russian academics have a view of “constructive destruction”, which means that in order to build a new one, one must firstly destroy the old one, or that only by destroying the old can one build the new. According to this point of view, the current international order and international rules are dominated by the West, which binds Russia's hands and feet so that it cannot play to its advantage; only by jumping out of this circle and confronting the West with new rules can Russia have the possibility to win. Therefore, breaking the current world order is Russia's choice and way out.

Influenced by the traditional culture of moderation, Chinese academia is more cautious, preferring gradualism and improvement to make it more just and fairer. Destroying an old order does not necessarily lead to the birth of a new order, especially not to the birth of a benign one. It may also result in political ruins and bring about chaos and disorder.

The current international order, that is, the international order that emerged after the Second World War, has its shortcomings, injustices and irrationalities, but the United Nations and the international organizations it created are by far the most representative organizations in the world. They have a unique role in global governance, and are an important part of the current international order. China and Russia are two of the five permanent members of the Security Council and have veto power over major decisions. The problem now is not that the international rules are all bad, but that the West has violated them. What China and Russia should do, therefore, is uphold international law and rules, improve the world order, and not overthrow them altogether.

Another question is what kind of international order is to be established, whether it is a unified international order or one in which each party has its own way of doing things. At present, two major ideas have emerged on the principle of international order: the Western idea of a “rules-based order” and the Chinese-Russian idea of an international system centered on the United Nations and a world order based on international law. The difference between the two propositions lies not in their literal expressions, but in the fact that they represent two major international forces, two political philosophies and two directions in the construction of international order. They do not get along with each other, are opposed to each other, and are even tit-for-tat.

Andrey Kortunov:
‘Senior-Junior Partnership’ Claim Distorts Russia-China Relations

So, given the completely different views of the international order between Russia, China and the West, will it be possible for the two sides to reach a compromise, find common ground and form a unified international order? The answer is that it is highly unlikely in the short- and medium-term future. The world is now in times of rapid dividing, and the international community is moving towards total separation, not only in politics, security and ideology, but also in economic and technological systems, and even in humanistic culture, which is clearly not a period for the formation of a unified order and rules. The emergence of a relatively unified and holistic international order can only take place in the more distant future. The majority view is that the international order of the coming period will be fragmented, or even devoid of order. Strictly speaking, if it does not have a certain universality, if it is not accepted by the majority of countries, if it is not shared by China, Russia and the West, then it cannot be called an international order, but only a “local” order.

The present situation is different from both post-World War I and post-World War II: no single country or group of countries possesses absolute superiority in power, and neither the West nor China and Russia can establish a grand unified international order in their own conception. Nor can they make each other acceptable in terms of their international political concepts, value systems, and arrangements for the distribution of international power. Moreover, the West and China and Russia do not represent the whole world; there are other major countries and medium-sized countries, and many regional organizations with significant influence, such as ASEAN, the Arab League, the African Union and others; and there is a rising Global South.

China and Russia, for their part, are also exploring their own paths on this issue. Some Russians advocate getting rid of Western concepts and ideas in politics, economy, security and culture, abandoning all Western models, be they globalization, Westernization, Americanization, universalization or liberalization, and relying on a comprehensive “sovereignization” to create a completely new set of conceptual systems and enter a “non-Western” world. Russia puts forward the idea of civilization as the path to building a multipolar world and international order, and advocates replacing the dominance of Western civilization with the interaction of civilizations. It is a revolutionary way to move into the future by breaking with the past.

Chinese thinking is not totally the same. In terms of traditional Chinese worldviews, it has always looked at the world from the perspective of “the land under heaven”, that is to say, the whole world, which, of course, is the scope of its vision, not necessarily the real whole world, but its worldview is holistic and not confined to a single corner. China also looks at the future international order from the perspective of the whole world and pursues a holistic international order. The “community of human destiny” proposed by China embodies this concept. At its core is the peaceful coexistence, friendship and cooperation of countries with different political systems, religions, civilizations and values.

Diversity is a fundamental way of being in the world. The social systems, political cultures, ideologies, nationalities, religions, customs, etc., of the countries of the world have always been diverse, and, like it or not, the world will be the same and will not change, whether in the past, at present or in the future.

In fact, no one denies the existence of diversity, but the disagreement is about how to treat it. There are two ways of thinking and behaving. One is exclusive, which turns the world into Manichaean black and white; it naturally has a kind of identity arrogance, a messianic complex, which thinks that its own system, ideology, culture is not only superior, but the only one that is right, and it wants to spread its system and ideology to the whole world. This would be normal if it only went so far, but it has resorted to illegal means to impose its own will and model on other countries, which violates basic international law and becomes a source of conflict.

Fyodor Lukyanov:
‘Being in Order’ Also Means Being in the World Order

Another kind of thinking is inclusive; the “Community with a shared future for mankind” advocated by China is one of them, which hopes that countries with different political systems, ideologies, religions and cultures will tolerate each other, coexist peacefully and work together to promote world prosperity and development. Obviously, it is a hundred times more difficult to push the world towards unity than to divide it, but this is the right direction.

The model of inclusiveness, or international order, also includes the West, otherwise it cannot be called inclusive. In fact, the West, as a huge political and economic power, cannot be excluded from the world. Thus, the formation of the so-called inclusive model presupposes the elimination of the gap between the West and China and Russia, and establishing bridges by which they can communicate. That is, despite their differences, the parties are able to engage in a dialogue, a dialogue that is not aimed at changing the other side, but at seeking a basis for peaceful coexistence and cooperation.

However, this is only possible to be truly realized when the West upholds the same attitude of inclusiveness. Naturally, this is an idealistic wish. However, any desire for a better world is pure and idealistic, but that does not mean that one should not strive in that direction, nor does it mean indulging in illusions and losing a sense of reality.