In a televised interview on Friday, China’s ambassador to Paris made revisionist statements about Crimea and the situation in the former Soviet states, hinting that his country is far from the commonly known vision of Russia. Why is this all so shocking? Because we know that the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has traditionally followed the rules of the UN Charter and only accepts military intervention in self-defense, collective security actions clearly authorized by the UN Security Council, and rejects ab initio unilateral intervention without the mandate of the RoK. By tradition, it strongly opposed political and military actions that lead to interference in the internal affairs of another sovereign state. Thus, in 1968, he condemned the invasion of the Warsaw Pact forces into Czechoslovakia, and in 1999, the NATO bombing of the small Yugoslavia. In 2003, he strongly opposed the military campaign of the US and its allies in Iraq, which led to regime change in Baghdad. According to China, all military actions must comply with the limitations imposed by Article 2.4 of the UN Charter. Thus, Beijing has become a tradition of not recognizing territorial annexations as a result of the use of military force, as well as the emergence of new states as a result of illegal military intervention by states or organizations, including those justified by humanitarian goals. It did not recognize the temporary annexation of Kuwait to Iraq (1990), later it did not recognize Kosovo, Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent states.

The official documents that laid the foundations of China’s doctrine of reporting on the use of military force are the Principles of Peaceful Coexistence, the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China, the White Paper on Defense (2019), the Global Security Initiative (2022), etc. Therefore, China adheres to the official policy of non-interference in the internal affairs of other states and promotes a peaceful and diplomatic approach to international relations. Chinese PR has generally avoided the use of force to resolve conflicts throughout its 74-year history (with the exception of the border war against India in 1962 and the invasion of Vietnam in 1979) and has preferred dialogue and negotiation to reach agreement. All official speeches and documents related to security refer to China’s commitment to the principles of the UN Charter, multilateralism and peace-making. She insists on the peaceful resolution of all conflicts. Sporadic armed incidents in which units of the People’s Liberation Army confronted the border troops of India or the military forces of Vietnam and the Philippines in the South China Sea were justified by the need to protect the national interests of the Chinese people, given the presence of land borders and disputed seas.

Thus, China wants to present itself as a neutral actor regarding the Russian-Ukrainian conflict and take on the role of a peacemaker who acts for the benefit of the international community based on the principles of the UN Charter.

China has been plagued by accusations that it may be secretly providing weapons and technology for Russia’s military use, and wants to prove that it is not doing so. Although it is clear that Russian-Chinese economic and technological exchanges are helping Russia maintain its capacity for economic resilience even as it faces the largest sanctions ever imposed on a country by the international community.

China’s peace plan for the war in Ukraine (a simple set of generous principles, but without any comments about the need to withdraw Russian troops), along with other Beijing initiatives, is primarily addressed to the states of the Global South. , which the West views with skepticism or even hostility. And, of course, to the citizens of China, who must always be proud of their country, as required by state propaganda.

But how to understand the statements and position of the Chinese leadership?

We do not believe that Beijing rationally wants the defeat of Russia, since this would mean the strengthening of the power of the West (especially the US) and the loss of the similar, non-democratic political regime that China is counting on in the future. But what if Russia collapses into civil war and China regains territories it lost in the past? Outer Manchuria (one million km2) is rich in valuable mineral resources. We don’t know if there are plans for this or what plans there are, but Xi Jinping and those in the decision-making circle cannot help but consider such a scenario. What we do know is that Beijing is preparing for a long-term competition and systemic rivalry with the US, the most powerful nation militarily and technologically, it is considering occupying Taiwan by force if peaceful means are not possible, so it sees Russia as its strongest possible ally in future, because Moscow and Beijing share hostility to the USA, NATO and the liberal values ​​of the West.[i]

But he probably also does not want the complete defeat of Ukraine and the capture of its territories by Russia, since at this moment the entire territorial status quo in Europe will be called into question and Moscow will significantly increase its power potential in Eurasia. Beijing could see this as a dangerous precedent for territorial change by force, knowing also that in the 19th century, the Russian Empire annexed vast territories belonging to the declining Chinese Empire. But if the Chinese elites do not rule out the possibility of one day taking these territories from Russia, then forcefully changing the borders creates a desirable precedent! A legitimacy factor based on history is important, but it will lead to the marginalization of international law. And since joining this organization, the PRC has been a constant supporter of the legitimacy of the principles of the UN Charter.

Another possible perspective for understanding China’s position looks at the pressure of Chinese nationalism, which is powerful both inside and outside the Communist Party. A successful occupation of Ukraine by Russia will force Chinese nationalists to put more and more pressure on the authorities in Beijing to force them to occupy Taiwan as soon as possible. The Chinese PR considers this state a rebellious province and deprives it of its sovereignty and the right to be an independent state. When the PRC was admitted to the UN, Taiwan (Republic of China) was expelled from the organization and could never return. Beijing and Moscow will use their veto power in the Security Council to block the nomination.

Tradition (moderation) versus radicalism in Chinese diplomacy

As it is easy to see, China does not support Russia’s war, but neither does it condemn it. On April 5, 2023, China’s ambassador to the EU, Fu Cun, stated that his country is not a supporter of war, does not recognize Crimea and Donbas as belonging to Russia, and does not provide Russia with any military assistance. His reaction came after the US warned that Beijing was secretly ready to supply Russia with weapons and ammunition. But the diplomat says his country has also not condemned the war because it understands Russia’s view of defending against NATO expansion and believes the invasion is based on “more complex reasons.” China maintains neutrality, does not condemn Russia, does not demand the withdrawal of Russian troops from Ukraine, but at the same time does not recognize territorial annexations as a result of the use of force and non-compliance with the norms of international law. This is a traditional principle of Chinese foreign policy. Chinese diplomacy quite rightly observes that Russia and Ukraine appear unwilling to sit down at the negotiating table, preferring to prepare their future actions on the battlefield in order to gain strategic advantages that they can use during negotiations. Perhaps that is why China did not put forward more specific proposals in its peace plan, but it is more likely that the plan was actually addressed to the countries of the Global South to convince them that the PRC has good intentions and is largely a more legalistic version of the revisionist Russian actor. Fu Tsung is a traditionalist ambassador.

But every day there are signals that a hard wing (the so-called wolf warriors, Wolf warrior[ii]), summarizing the politicians, diplomats and military advocating the recognition of historical territorial rights in favor of China and its strategic allies/partners, ignoring the rules contained in the UN Charter. I mentioned at the beginning the ambassador of China in Paris Lou Chaillet, who in an interview with the French channel LCI ​​on April 21 suggested that Crimea actually belongs to the Russian people, since it was handed over to Ukraine by Khrushchev, and ex. – Soviet countries would not have a clear international status, because there is no international treaty that would confirm their sovereignty.[iii] Lu is a member of the WW Group, and the primacy of history over international law suggests that the PRC is becoming an increasingly revisionist actor and is looking to Russia for help to one day reclaim Taiwan and disputed islands with neighboring states, with the dangerous argument that they belonged to certain periods of the Chinese Empire, or that the earliest known maps show that they were discovered by Chinese navigators hundreds of years ago. Under the influence of the international scandal caused by Lu Shaye’s statement, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China announced on April 24 that the People’s Republic of China “supports the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of all states and fully relies on the principles of the UN Charter.” Spokeswoman Mao Ning also stated that her country recognized the newly independent states shortly after the collapse of the USSR.[iv] Apparently, leader Xi Jinping fears that EU countries will become even more vocal against ratifying the comprehensive trade and investment agreement with China (CAI) that Berlin and Beijing so wanted. Signed in December 2020, it has not yet been ratified by European countries, which have accused the PRC of harmful economic practices and aggressive behavior towards the Uyghur minority and in diplomatic relations. Although Ms. Mao Ning’s words seem reassuring, the damage has already been done, and the post-Soviet countries are beginning to realize that they have no reason to demand political support from China, which is moving closer to Russia. Read the rest on Contributors.ro