If you get wind that two of your neighbors are so terrified of you, they came together and talked about forming an alliance to protect themselves when you’ll decide to strike at them, the last thing you want to do is reinforce their suspicion.
To
avoid a bad outcome, you refrain from engaging in any act that might give the
impression you are preparing to strike. Instead, you go out of your way to
signal that you’re a sweet neighbor who wants to be helpful in any way you may
be asked to lend a hand.
This
kind of human interactions applies not just to individuals, but also tribes and
nations. In fact, it is extremely important to keep this in mind when the
nations involved in this sort of kafuffle, happen to fall in the category of
big powers. A current example is that of Russia and China, reportedly coming together
and coordinating between them for fear of the United States. This should compel
America to think seriously if it wants to confront them both, or reassure them
it has nothing but good intentions, and would rather work with them for the
betterment of mankind than quarrel with them.
Unfortunately,
America and others are not getting the right advice. It has been a generation
since the end of the Cold War, and the frame of mind of the groups responsible
for the countries’ foreign relations has not changed enough to ascertain that a
sustained condition for peace has set-in to guarantee that humanity will not
destroy itself. The illusion of peace lasted only a few years after the fall of
the Soviet Union and then, warmongering on all sides started to creep in, and steadily
escalated to reach Cold War levels.
What’s
making matters even worse, is the rise of China as a third power to rival both
America and the successor to the defunct Soviet Union, known as Russia. While
there are voices emanating from around the planet asking the three powers to
cooperate at fixing the many challenges facing humanity, other voices are giving
hawkish advice as toxic as it can get. And then there are the moderates who may
still be powered by the mentality of the Cold War, but are giving advice which are
neither hawkish nor dovish.
Two
of those voices are Andrea Kendall-Taylor and David Shullman. They jointly
wrote an article that came under the title: “China and Russia’s Dangerous
Convergence,” and the subtitle: “How to Counter an Emerging Partnership.” It
was published on May 3, 2021 in Foreign Affairs.
Taylor
and Shullman have referred to the meeting that took place on March 23, 2021
between the foreign ministers of China and Russia, one day after the Chinese
and the Americans had a very undiplomatic encounter. If there was a story to be
told here, Russia and China told it to America, not with words, but with
action. They meant to say, you’re doing three things we don’t like, America. We
advise you to change course. Here is what’s bothering us about you:
First,
there is your crusade about human rights, which is laughable considering your
own record. What you’ll get from us in response is the middle finger and a
whole lot of contempt. Second, there is the issue of your promiscuity in the use
of economic sanctions to punish those who refuse to toe your line. Well, we’re
taking care of this problem, working as hard as we do on diminishing the
potency of that weapon. We are, in effect, creating a parallel financial system
that will render ineffective the one you’re using. Third, there is the matter
of our sovereignty to which we respond as follows. Actually, my dear reader, Taylor
and Shullman did a good job summing up that response. Here is how they phrased
it:
“Within
days, Russia began amassing troops along Ukraine’s border—the largest number
since Moscow’s annexation of Crimea in 2014. Simultaneously, China began
conducting highly publicized amphibious assault exercises and air incursions
into Taiwan’s air defense identification zone at the highest frequency in
nearly 25 years. These military moves have reignited concerns in Washington
about the potential depth of Chinese-Russian coordination”.
In
view of all this, the two writers came up with advice of their own for America.
You’ll find such advice to be a basket of postures, moves, reactions and
signals that might irritate China or Russia at one time or another, but will
not diminish them so fundamentally as to make America’s system of liberal
democracy look superior to what’s practiced by the other two.
You’ll
find the content of the basket to cover the range from an idea as silly as
this:
“Striking
at the foundation of the Russia-China relationship will require Washington to
show Moscow that cooperation with the US is preferable to subservience to
Beijing”;
to
a somewhat more serious set of ideas such as these:
“Washington
could start with the extension of the New START treaty as a jumping-off point
for dialogue on arms control, strategic stability, and nonproliferation. The US
could further engage with Moscow to facilitate Iran’s return to the 2015
nuclear deal and secure a stable peace in Afghanistan. Washington should
immediately move to restart the Arctic Chiefs of Defense (CHODS) forum, a space
for dialogue with Russia and other Arctic partners about the region’s growing
militarization”.
But once you’ve read and internalized all of that, you wonder why Andrea Kendall-Taylor and David Shullman deemed it necessary to “drive wedges” between Russia and China. Why could they not embrace the idea preferred by the rest of the world, which is for the three big powers to work together toward the betterment of the human condition?