|
|
|
|
CIAO DATE: 05/05
Russia, China and India: Context for Interaction
Mikhail Titarenko
The reaffirmation of the Panchsheel as a code of conduct in international relations by China, India and Russia is an important step towards the emergence of a polycentric world order which, under the auspices of a reformed UNO, is bound to replace the current unstable "unipolar" system. Bilateral and trilateral agreements between the three nations pave the way for this global transformation.
The fourth joint conference of scholars and representatives of practical diplomacy took place at a time of major international events. The very fact of holding this conference is a promising and significant phenomenon in the development of contemporary international relations. In the currently prevailing situation our three countries, representing three great civilisations of our time, face similar problems and challenges for their development and domestic stability.
Our relations evolve in the context of objective and quite contradictory processes of globalisation. As developed countries seek to subordinate that very process to the achievement of their hegemonic objectives, polycentrism is paving its rather zigzagging way in difficult conditions, coming across blatant intentions to assert absolute domination by one's own power and to make NATO function as an instrument for the defence of the unipolar interests of the so-called "Golden Billion". However, the stakes of the struggle against international terrorism and other non-traditional challenges have incited the USA and other developed countries to devote more attention to international cooperation with others, to review their initially unilateral aggressive actions in circumvention of the United Nations and its Security Council, as well as to declare the formation of an anti-terrorist coalition.
In this regard the high international reputation of Russia, China and India, plus their cooperation in the United Nations raise a serious legal, political and moral obstacle to policies based on force and total neglect of international law.
The three countries continue expanding and building up a multifaceted, constructive, and increasingly significant partnership dialogue. This cooperation is not directed against any third country, and its supreme objective is to assert the authority of international law, principles of justice, and, first and foremost, principles of peaceful coexistence. The course of current events proves the timeliness and practical value of the great principles of Panchsheel, the fiftieth anniversary of which has been celebrated recently in the three countries.
As is well-known, Russia's national leaders have stated irrevocably that the "Asian vector" and cooperation with China and India, Russia's closest partners, are regarded among the most important priorities in Russian foreign policy. President Vladimir V. Putin has reiterated this point again in his speech at the meeting in the Russian Federation's Foreign Ministry on July 12, 2004.
At previous conferences Russian, Indian and Chinese scholars and diplomats have analysed all bases of independent, autonomous and peaceful policy in each of the three countries. These analyses have been instrumental in identifying shared foreign-policy priorities to improve mutual understanding and to outline the paths for political resolution of existing disagreements. The format of trilateral cooperation represents a sort of practical realisation of the Panchsheel principles, which include respect of one's own and one another's interests as well as interests of other countries, and willingness to find a common basis for broad cooperation and interaction without resorting to confrontation. Hence, at this conference there is all the reason to place a special emphasis on the Panchsheel principles, formulated by India and the People's Republic of China in their Agreement "On Trade and Ties with the Tibetan Region of China". The document, signed on April 29, 1954 by India's Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and the PC State Council Premier Zhou Enlai, became an epochal event not only in the history of bilateral relations, but also in the history of international relations and international law. The agreement was signed in a difficult period for India and China, when both countries were still shaping their statehood and territorial integrity, solidifying national borders, and exploring ways to resolve domestic political problems, while pursuing a quest for appropriate socio-economic development models and resources for their realisation.
The five principles of peaceful coexistence were formulated for the first time in the preamble to the Agreement. The same principles are widely known under the Sanskrit title of Panchasheela (that is, Five Moral Principles).
These principles were enacted in the practice of international relations as a basis for interaction between states belonging to different social systems. They provided the basis for the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM); in their essence, the same principles had been laid out in the policy of peaceful coexistence, proclaimed earlier by the Soviet Union.
The Panchsheel ideology was elaborated mainly on the basis of understanding the proximity and kinship between the great Asian civilisations of India and China, the similarity of their destinies and their long dependence on European powers. Both sides expressed their intention of approaching all problems of international relations under the guidance of the Panchsheel principles, so that the latter would provide a solid foundation for peace and security.
The Panchsheel ideas were met with a broadly positive response—especially on the part of young Asian states that had just shaken free from colonialism and were seeking to assert their independent role in international affairs. Such a reaction was quite natural and understandable, because the principles of peaceful coexistence enshrined an effective alternative to the line pursued at the time by the United States and its allies to "bake" military blocks in Asia, such as SEATO, founded in 1954 and the Baghdad Pact in 1955. The foreign policy--making of young states was quite a difficult process, sometimes ridden with contradictions, and for many of them the Panchsheel supplied a general orientation in building an autonomous foreign policy course that would meet their national interests. Abiding by these principles, independent Asian states acquired an opportunity to strive for peace, develop mutually beneficial cooperation, overcome differences, distrust and whatever else that hampered and sometimes even distorted their full-fledged integration in the system of international relations.
The Soviet Union welcomed the enactment of the Panchsheel principles in Sino—Indian relations and in all possible ways contributed to their broad international endorsement. In February 1955 the Supreme Council of the USSR addressed parliaments of all countries and called upon building international relations on the basis of the five principles of peaceful coexistence. In the course of diplomatic contacts with national leaders of Asian and African countries, Soviet leaders expressed a readiness and commitment to facilitate the development of international relations on the platform of peaceful coexistence.
Such support was quite helpful in making the five principles a norm of international law. At the Soviet Union's initiative, the twelfth session of the UN General Assembly passed the resolution on peaceful coexistence and thus actually confirmed the need to take the guidance of Panchsheel principles in the conduct of international relations.
The Bandung Conference of Asian and African countries held in Indonesia in 1955, was a remarkable event in the process of international recognition of the Panchsheel principles. The seven—paragraph Bandung Declaration for General Peace and Cooperation was passed as a follow—up of the five principles of peaceful coexistence and supplemented them with such provisions such as respect for basic human rights and observation of the UN Charter, recognition of the equality of all nations, and compliance with international commitments. The prevailing perception was that the task of overcoming backwardness, inherited from the colonial period, could be resolved only in conditions of lasting peace and security.
The Bandung resolutions prompted the participant countries to take joint foreign-policy actions in defence of their respective sovereignties for safeguarding and strengthening peace in Asia and Africa, as well as in the world at large. Thus the basis was laid for the Non--Aligned Movement, institutionalised several years later, in 1961. The NAM's most important objective was defined as "protection of peace and non-participation in military blocs". Non--aligned countries recognised openly that peaceful coexistence was the only way to consolidate general peace, based on the principles of national freedom, equality and justice.
The Panchsheel principles, having been instrumental in the struggle against racism and colonialism, were enacted in the lexicon of international law and in the practice of diplomacy. This took place when the world was divided between two conflicting camps, the East and the West. The fifty years which have passed after the proclamation of the Panchsheel principles, have seen many events that may be considered either as demonstrations or as blatant breaches of the said principles. The ideas of Panchsheel, while having undergone severe trials, retain their relevance even today, after the long period of Cold War and confrontation, when the principles of détente in international tensions and development of all-sided international cooperation on the basis of territorial integrity and non-interference in domestic affairs of one another are recognised by the absolute majority of countries as the fundamental tenets of their foreign policy. At the same time, however, the fall of the Iron Curtain and end of the Cold War as such have not eased international tensions, have not made the conflict situations less acute, and have not opened the road to a safer world order.
The long-standing challenges to humanity happen to be supplemented by new and no less threatening ones, coming from international terrorism, religious extremism, militant chauvinism, the drug trade and organised crime.
International terrorism runs absolutely counter to the Panchsheel principles and in fact violates all five principles of peaceful coexistence. The states which use all sorts of terrorist groups in order to attain their geopolitical objectives, demonstrate utter disrespect for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of other states. By interfering in the domestic affairs of other countries, such states thus actually attack their territories. Certainly, the very notion of terrorism may not be associated with the idea of mutual benefit. Therefore, both in form and essence, terrorist activity runs counter to the peaceful principles of coexistence.
At the dawn of a new millennium both authors of the Panchsheel ideas—China and India—have become independent and weighty determinants of global policy, while other Asia-Pacific countries have intensified their quest for new forms and mechanisms of interaction.
Opportunities are growing in the Asian arena for new structures and platforms of dialogue for regional cooperation—such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) and the Conference for Interaction and Confidence-Building Measures in Asia. The major principles of the SCO activities represent a creative interpretation of the Panchsheel rules adapted to the new realities. In fact, the necessary prerequisites have been created in the Asia-Pacific region for building a polycentric and trust-based system for regional security and cooperation. This flexible network of region-wide interaction is based on the principle of equality and is intended to safeguard general security as well as to create favourable conditions for prosperity within each state in the region. The realisation of those very tasks was the focus of the Panchsheel principles.
Together with ideals, the concept of Panchsheel contains a good deal of common sense, based on the millennia-long experience of great civilisations. Certainly, the changing international realities require a new understanding of the Panchsheel principles, while the fundamental platform of these principles remains solid and unwavering.
The growing interaction of three world giants Russia, China and India—with their foreign policy representing the consistent realisation of Panchsheel principles—is bound to contribute substantially to the development of a polycentric, fair and democratic world order based on principles of peaceful coexistence. The basic parameters of interaction shall include priority of law; the recourse to multilateral mechanisms towards the resolution of vital current problems, (e.g. struggle against international terrorism); the central role of the UN in settling of regional conflicts; preventing the domination of one country or group of countries in world affairs, and overcoming the negative aspects of globalisation.
The Panchsheel principles of peaceful coexistence, with their high legal and moral authority on the international scene, have been applied and developed in the practice of contemporary international relations. The case in point is the formation of a new form of non-alliance relations of strategic partnership and strategic interaction. These categories define relations between our respective countries at bilateral level and have been expressed in joint documents, signed between Russia and China, Russia and India, as well as India and China. In 2001 Russia and China made another major move to further good-neighbourly relations of friendship, cooperation, strategic partnership and interaction. The very fact of signing the Russo--Chinese Treaty of good-neighbourliness, friendship and cooperation (July 16, 2001) has been an important event in the history of international relations.
Russia is consistently strengthening its interaction with China and India. Relations with both these countries rank as strategic partnership. Having grand prospects, the trilateral interaction between Russia, China and India provides the best evidence of the vitality of Panchsheel ideas.
Let me highlight briefly some events that cause our special concern. Among those, the Iraqi problem appears to be of the gravest importance. Developments in Iraq since early 2003 amply reveal all the dangers of unilateral and, in terms of international law, illegitimate actions taken in the current context. All evidence shows that no state in the world will be able to cope alone with challenges and threats to security through the use of military force. Guarantees of international, regional and national security can be found only through international cooperation and a search for mutually acceptable compromise solutions. As is well known, Russia, like China and India, together with many other countries, has called consistently for a political resolution of the Iraqi issue and has warned of the inevitable negative consequences of hostilities, carried without the sanction of the UN Security Council.
Today, well over one year after the start of the war, the motivations for the US military operations have proved entirely fallacious, as neither the weapons of mass destruction, nor Baghdad's alleged connections with Al-Qaida have been shown to exist. The same pretext applies to the war campaign against terrorism. While no traces of terrorist leaders have been found in Iraq, the negative result of the war is obvious: Iraq has become a springboard for international terrorism. All this generates a serious threat of destabilisation throughout the already troubled region of the Middle East. Other notable consequences of the crisis in Iraq include the drastic deterioration of its economic situation—even worse than in the period of international sanctions—along with instability in the raw materials and financial markets. Even bigger concerns stem from humanitarian aspects of the tragedy such as massive human losses and multiple seizures and executions of hostages. And this is not the full list of negative consequences in Iraq, which, although not always directly, affect the interests of many countries such as Russia, China and India. However, political optimism, which is required in such cases, leaves us to hope that it is not in vain that the world is paying such a high price.
Confronted with serious difficulties in Iraq, the United States began stepping back from the initial course of imposing an arbitrary resolution to the problems. The three resolutions, passed by the UN Security Council on post-war arrangements in Iraq, although not openly condemning the occupation regime, strengthen the UN role in the settlement of humanitarian and political issues in the country. By voting for these three resolutions, Washington for the first time actually recognised the defeat of its earlier announced policy of unilateralism, which proved entirely ineffective.
The firm position of the international community on the issue of Iraq—including the principled stand taken by Russia, China and India, who insist on strict compliance with norms of international law—together with other factors, affords the opportunity to bring the problem back into the channel of multilateral political initiatives within the UN framework.
In this connection it would be appropriate to note the following. While discussing the role of the USA in the context of trilateral interaction between Russia, China and India, we came to the shared understanding that such interaction was not targeted against the US or any other third party, and further, was based on the clearly recognised interest of each of three countries in improving their relations with Washington. At the same time, our discussions evinced an obvious consensus that objectives for political cooperation between Russia, China and India must include, among others, convincing the US partner that there are no realistic prospects of success in unilateralism and that repudiation of the latter would meet the interests of the world community and of the USA itself. In view of the fact that at the two informal trilateral meetings of Foreign Ministers, the Russian Federation, People's Republic of China and India, the Iraq issue was one of the main items on the agenda. It would not be an over-statement to say that we are moving in the right direction, and that the united stand of our three countries can help bring about a resolution of the Iraq issue as well as of other major problems.
Polycentric World
Another important result arising from the events in Iraq and directly connected with the major global trends is seen in a progressive movement towards a polycentric order, for which Russia, India and China have been taking a consistent stand. Signs of this shift are obvious in the continued emergence of new "poles" outside the US-led power centre. They manifest the growing vulnerability of the unipolar edifice, apparent in the wake of the Iraq war and in the face of new threats (terrorism, drug traffic, cross-border crime, etc.), which require collective responses from all the major powers, if not all members of the international community.
Gradually, the world is becoming ever less dependent on the United States. The forecast aggregate GDP of Russia, China and India by 2015 would amount to 30 per cent of the world's GDP while the USA would account for only 15 per cent. The Iraq war is an example of the growing dependence of the USA on the rest of the world.
It seems that in the not too distant future the world agenda would include such tasks as building and fine-tuning the mechanisms to regulate relations among the world "poles"; in keeping with principles of just international relations that would warrant international peace and stability. Such principles might and should include the Panchsheel as well as the time-tested practical norms of the United Nations.
Un—The Iraq Factor
The events in Iraq have echoed in the obviously changed tone of long-standing discussions on the role and place of the United Nations Organisation in the contemporary world. One year after the beginning of the war it became obvious that all talks and concerns about the "failure" and "demise" of the UN were totally unreasonable. In fact, there is better understanding of the urgent need to strengthen UN activities in the contemporary world. As President Vladimir Putin stated in his address to the 58th session of the UN General Assembly, the main lesson of the "UN school" is the fact that mankind does not have any other alternative to build a secure, fair and prosperous world. The same logic is followed in the resolution passed at Russia's initiative at the last session of the General Assembly and entitled "Reacting to Global Threats and Challenges". Its contents reflect the ever more widespread opinion that the UN must provide the basis for a comprehensive system to counter current threats and challenges.
However, acknowledging the UN's vital role is not to imply that the organisation does not require improvement and modernisation. Russia, as well as China and India, advocates the most effective adaptation of the UN to the new international realities. In outlining the vectors of the search, based on the admitted need to give a more representative composition to the Security Council and to devise a more flexible decision-making system that would combine consensus and compromise, it is necessary to keep in focus the main goal of ensuring utmost efficiency in the functioning of the UN mechanisms. Russia's firm support of India becoming a permanent member of the Security Council is well-known.
It appears worthwhile to emphasise once again that a new recognition of the United Nations central role does not reduce but rather enhances the timeliness of Russia's, India's and China's efforts to improve the effectiveness of this universal structure, all the more so since the shared traditions, promising opportunities and favourable prospects for trilateral cooperation in UN-related affairs have been the focus of discussions at our previous meetings.
Terrorism
The theme of counter-terrorism measures, always present in all of the most important Russian-Chinese and Russian-Indian documents, in the last years has been developed further, and new elements have been incorporated, for example, in the Russian-Indian Declaration on global challenges and threats to international security and stability (November 12, 2003).
Russia, China and India, who are all too familiar with the evil of terrorism, have accumulated valuable experience in their cooperation—including, among others, the operation of bilateral working groups for anti-terrorist action. One way to make their activities more efficient would be to take more resolute steps to cooperate in the trilateral format. Another timely task involves the coordination of the three countries' anti-terrorism initiatives within the framework of the United Nations, especially the Counter-Terrorist Committee of the Security Council, as well as interaction for the promotion of such important documents as the Indian draft of the Complex Convention Against International Terrorism, and the Russian draft Convention Against Acts of Nuclear Terrorism.
Bilateral Relations
Finally, let me say a few words about bilateral relations. First of all, it is necessary to emphasise the positive fact that since the end of 2003 relations between our countries have been developing at the highest political level, while the objectives and ideals, outlined in the joint documents, are being achieved according to plans.
Meanwhile, Russia has been watching with keen interest the normalisation of India-Pakistan relations, which are most important for future cooperation in the region. As Vladimir Putin said at the press conference about the results of Russo-Indian negotiations on November 12, 2003, "Russia welcomes India's new initiatives, aiming at improvement of relations with Pakistan". The volume of trade between the three countries is growing, and the fastest growth was recorded in trade between China and India. As was the case before, bilateral relations remain reliable indicators for the trilateral dynamics.
Such cooperation requires thoughtful, direct and efficient communication. The forthcoming regular meeting of foreign ministers will certainly give it a new impetus. Our conference, too, is intended to contribute to the progress of trilateral relations. As for the general message, it was best expressed by President Putin on the eve of his latest trip to Beijing and Delhi: "We must not run too far ahead or rush into uncharted areas. Everything must develop consistently and in harmony. But, of course, it is necessary to move forward in the development of relations among our states."