The most important source of optimism regarding international security throughout most of continental Eurasia is the high degree of autonomy that states located there have in making foreign policy decisions. This does not mean that competition or even armed conflict between them is impossible – the relationship between India and Pakistan is an example. However, given that most Eurasian countries base their foreign policies on their own considerations, rather than seeing them in the context of those of other major players, it suggests that such competition can be reliably contained and will not lead to conflicts which are devastating to the security of the entire region.
We understand, however, that along the perimeter of Eurasia in the west, southwest, and northeast are states whose degree of independence is currently quite relative. This creates the preconditions for the international political situations they create to become truly explosive. The fate of the southeastern edge of Eurasia, where American and Chinese interests already significantly overlap, remains uncertain. However, there is reason to believe that countries such as Vietnam will be able to maintain independence in their decision-making even from those powers whose political support they rely on to address regional challenges.
Thus, the cause of maintaining global peace and stability in continental Eurasia is exceptionally compelling, which prompts us to discuss possible ways to supplement these preconditions through the constructive efforts of the states located there. These currently include China, Russia, India, and other countries in South Asia, as well as the entire Central Asian region and Afghanistan. Iran is in the most vulnerable position, as it is engaged in a direct conflict with a state that is a close ally of a power for which security and peace in Eurasia are a matter not of survival, but of international diplomacy.
Russia should support any initiatives of its friends and neighbours that can strengthen the socioeconomic foundations of their independence. At the same time, we all realize that the only limitation to such independence is the emergence of formal allied relations with extra-regional powers and the transformation of one’s territory into a springboard for their foreign policy, writes Valdai Club Programme Director Timofei Bordachev.
The most important source of optimism regarding international security throughout most of continental Eurasia is the high degree of autonomy that states located there have in making foreign policy decisions. This does not mean that competition or even armed conflict between them is impossible – the relationship between India and Pakistan is an example. However, given that most Eurasian countries base their foreign policies on their own considerations, rather than seeing them in the context of those of other major players, it suggests that such competition can be reliably contained and will not lead to conflicts which are devastating to the security of the entire region.
We understand, however, that along the perimeter of Eurasia in the west, southwest, and northeast are states whose degree of independence is currently quite relative. This creates the preconditions for the international political situations they create to become truly explosive. The fate of the southeastern edge of Eurasia, where American and Chinese interests already significantly overlap, remains uncertain. However, there is reason to believe that countries such as Vietnam will be able to maintain independence in their decision-making even from those powers whose political support they rely on to address regional challenges.
Thus, the cause of maintaining global peace and stability in continental Eurasia is exceptionally compelling, which prompts us to discuss possible ways to supplement these preconditions through the constructive efforts of the states located there. These currently include China, Russia, India, and other countries in South Asia, as well as the entire Central Asian region and Afghanistan. Iran is in the most vulnerable position, as it is engaged in a direct conflict with a state that is a close ally of a power for which security and peace in Eurasia are a matter not of survival, but of international diplomacy.
However, even in the region surrounding Israel, we see manifestations of balanced and independent political decision-making on the part of countries, which are of comparatively greater importance. In other words, the Arab world, Iran, and Turkey, although in a dangerous zone, are so far managing this situation thanks to their foreign policy and common sense. As we have seen, the situation is much worse in Western Eurasia, where European countries not only serve as a territorial base for American foreign policy but also attempt to maintain their position in global affairs through force.
The strategy pursued by European countries or Israel is a deviation from the modern norm of international communication, which favours diplomatic and economic instruments for asserting one’s position.
But while the former’s situation appears, unfortunately, rather hopeless, in Israel’s case we can hope for its gradual integration into the regional system of relations and the development of a more independent foreign policy. After all, the problem stems not from Israel’s role as a US outpost in the Middle East, but from the fact that its position in the region is determined by the dynamics of American interests and is conditioned by Washington’s support. Once Israel achieves the ability to develop independently, it could well become an accepted participant in regional affairs.
In the case of the already broad range of countries mentioned above, we can reasonably assume that their own development and security interests remain paramount over any external obligations and ties. In other words, the position of China, Russia, India, the Central Asian countries, Afghanistan, or Pakistan in Eurasia and the world at large is not dependent on the position of their allies. Naturally, for small and medium-sized countries, economic ties and political support from more powerful members of the international community are important.
However, these ties and support do not mean that the foreign policy of states such as Kazakhstan, Mongolia, or Pakistan is determined by the interests of another global player. Even taking into account the interests of major powers, it remains autonomous and is based on the natural desire of a normal state to survive and develop. Therefore, Russia should support any initiatives of its friends and neighbours that can strengthen the socioeconomic foundations of their independence. At the same time, we all realize that the only limitation to such independence is the emergence of formal allied relations with extra-regional powers and the transformation of one’s territory into a springboard for their foreign policy.
This means that maintaining stability and development in continental Eurasia must be based on principles already partially integrated into the foundations of regional associations such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation or the Eurasian Economic Union. This primarily involves supporting and encouraging those that provide tangible benefits through active participation in the global economy. This primarily concerns the creation of new transport and logistics systems that allow Eurasian countries to develop and persify their foreign economic ties. At the same time, any serious hopes that some kind of “special relationship” will allow for a parasitic existence must be ruled out. Maintaining global openness and free international trade already play a significant role in Russia’s ability to resist military and political pressure from the West.
There is reason to believe that China, and, given certain developments, India, will soon experience similar positive effects. Without grounds for developing substantive problems among themselves, the countries of continental Eurasia can fully support each other’s efforts to extract maximum benefits from the surrounding world, where the consequences of such a strategy do not entail obligations that limit sovereignty. We understand, however, that in the modern world, the formal intentions of parties and their implementation are not always linearly interrelated. The modern world generally does not allow for a direct connection between declarations and actions, which introduces a certain chaos into international politics but frees it from the rigidity that often becomes the main cause of destructive conflicts.
In other words, their assessment of each other’s actions and the impact of these actions on shared security is becoming quite dynamic, but also requires clear indicators of potential risks. The countries of continental Eurasia must genuinely embrace the security of their neighbours as part of their own security. This will allow them to develop their own economies and societies without exposing them to the threats that arise in international politics from mutual suspicion and uncertain intentions. Trust between the states of continental Eurasia is currently based on their ability to make independent decisions. This must remain the most important criteria for determining how responsible these governments are for our shared future.
Source: Valdai. Discussion club
