“Olympic Spirit” let Russia and China move closer

Foto: shutterstock

In Cele­bra­tion of Goodwill

 

By Von JURY TAVROVSKY | The forces of good and evil constantly oppose each other, some­times more, some­times less. These days the good force of „yang“ has been figh­ting back the dark force of „yin“ at the Winter Olym­pics in Beijing. The very fact of the opening of the compe­ti­tions turned-out as a big win for the thousand-year-old idea of recon­ci­lia­tion, good­will and an open commu­ni­ca­tion without second thoughts. The events in Beijing let remember Noah’s Ark, which gathered „a pair of each crea­ture“ to save them from disaster. The compa­rison is quite appro­priate: The COVID pandemic hit huma­nity like a Great Flood. The threat of a man-made cata­strophe on a global scale and a clash of oppo­sing fronts in style of a Cold War have incre­ased to the extreme. However, the global Olympic festival has streng­t­hened the forces of light and diluted those of evil.

It was not easy for the hosts of the Olympic Winter Games to keep their promise made quite some time before the onset of that natural disaster known under the name of COVID. China‚s neigh­bour Japan had decided to post­pone the Summer Olym­pics from the year 2020 to 2021. But this time the games have encoun­tered addi­tional stress due to economic sanc­tions, mili­tary pres­sure and an infor­ma­tion war waged by the West. Having suffered a humi­lia­ting defeat in Afgha­ni­stan and strained by their effort to contain Russia, America is buil­ding a world­wide coali­tion to fight „auto­cratic regimes“ like Moscow or Beijing. Last November’s „Summit for Demo­cracy“ drew a new line of a global disen­ga­ge­ment accordingly.

„Diplo­matic boycotts“ have been insti­gated to call the tradi­tional Olympic opening cere­mony into ques­tion. Further on, even more dange­rous events created new chal­lenges to the orga­ni­zers: In addi­tion to the usual forces by the US-Navy, two aircraft carrier groups have jointly showed-up close to China‚s shore. In addi­tion to the flagship nuclear aircraft carrier, each group consists of dozens of frigates and subma­rines with nuclear weapons. That threat had forced the Chinese mili­tary to issue their warnings, that it would respond force­fully in case of new provocations.

Key to fulfil­ling the obli­ga­tions of China have not been “empty words”, but solid deeds but its current leader, Xi Jinping. It is not the first time for China staging the Olympic Games. In 2008, Xi was assi­gned to provide the final prepa­ra­tions for the Summer Olym­pics. He gathered a repu­ta­tion as „crisis manager“ after a trouble shoo­ting mission in 2007 in Shanghai in the wake of the Expo 2010. The Olympic budget in 2008 amounted to 43 billion dollars. With such huge spen­ding the centre of Beijing has been trans­formed and the land­mark stadium well known as Bird’s Nest was created, which has served again as the centre stage arena for the Winter Olym­pics this year. Thanks to the already created sports infra­st­ruc­ture, the costs for the current event have been limited to 4 billion US dollars.

The National Stadium in Peking: A symbolic centre point next a historic global re-set
Attri­bute: Peter23, wiki­media commons / CC BY-SA 3.0

However, seven new types of compe­ti­tions have been added still to the overall sport‚s program of this Winter Games.

Xi Jinping had has demons­trated more than once his ability to win and mobi­lize the entire nation, whenever found necessary and tackle special chal­lenges during his years of leadership at the helm of the Middle Empire, like endu­ring the recent pandemic, a global economic crisis, a trade war and a tech­no­lo­gical blockade by the USA. China‚s presi­dent has gathered vast expe­ri­ences regar­ding Olympic Games in stressful situa­tions: In 2014 at Sochi it was Xi Jinping, who helped to break the „diplo­matic boycott“ by then. Now it has been the turn of Russia to reciprocate.

Among some three dozen of global statesmen, Putin has achieved a place at the centre. This has been empha­sized by the Chinese media and was reflected by the protocol of the Olympic events as well. Subse­quently the meeting between Putin and Xi Jinping had lasted for three hours! This happened even before the important opening of the Olympic Games so important for the Chinese.

Even before the compe­ti­tion was started, Putin and Xi Jinping had won the first ‚gold medals‚ in the field of the poli­tical arena: They have success­fully cornered their oppon­ents, performed perfectly in single – & team events and have finally mastered long distance as well as short track in both bila­teral – as well as inter­na­tional affairs. The results had been published in the main docu­ment of that Olympic Summit under the title: „Joint state­ment of the Russian Fede­ra­tion and the People’s Repu­blic of China on inter­na­tional rela­tions ente­ring a new era and global sustainable deve­lo­p­ment

This most compre­hen­sive bila­teral docu­ment of almost 6,000 words contains a detailed summary of shared views by both great powers on the most important issues of our times. Also listed are the discrepan­cies regar­ding the visions, as imposed with vigour on the world commu­nity by the West. It is worth mentio­ning, that Moscow and Beijing have both rejected such protra­cted Western hege­mony with their claim for their own role in world affairs: “… a trend is emer­ging for redis­tri­bu­ting the balance of world powers; the demand of the world commu­nity for leadership in the inte­rest of peaceful and progres­sive deve­lo­p­ment is growing. At the same against the back­drop of the ongoing pandemic, the situa­tion in the field of inter­na­tional and regional secu­rity is beco­ming more and more compli­cated by the day, whereas global chal­lenges and threats have been multiplying.”

The origin of chal­lenges has been allo­cated East and West of both powers, which made them to move closer the faster. Moscow and Beijing have the same view of common threats: “The parties oppose the further expan­sion of NATO, call on the North Atlantic Alli­ance to abandon the ideo­lo­gized approa­ches of the Cold War, respect the sover­eignty, secu­rity and inte­rests of other coun­tries, the diver­sity of their civi­liz­a­tional, cultural and histo­rical ways … The parties reject the forma­tion of closed bloc struc­tures and oppo­sing alli­ances in the Asia-Pacific region and remain highly vigi­lant regar­ding the nega­tive impact on peace and stabi­lity in this region by the Indo-Pacific US strategy.”

Consi­derable room is given the theme of demo­cracy, which, after the November Summit for Demo­cracy, acquires not just an ideo­lo­gical, but also a stra­tegic dimen­sion. The US wants to divide the world into „demo­cratic“ and „autho­ri­ta­rian“ coun­tries and have them played-out against each other. Thus, the forma­tion of fronts along a Cold War 2.0 takes shape. The docu­ment says: “Demo­cracy is not built according to a single template. Depen­ding on the socio-poli­tical struc­ture, history, tradi­tions and cultural charac­te­ris­tics of a parti­cular state, its people have the right to choose such forms and methods of imple­men­ting demo­cracy that corre­spond to the speci­fics of this state. The right to judge whether a state is demo­cratic belongs only to its people. Refor­mat­ting the world order according to ideo­lo­gical criteria is rejected by our two powers.” Both parties oppose attempts to replace gene­rally accepted formats and mecha­nisms consis­tent with inter­na­tional law, by certain rules deve­loped by “closed circles” of indi­vi­dual coun­tries or blocs of coun­tries, and both parties oppose solu­tions of inter­na­tional problems not on the basis of consensus.” 

The “State­ment” of some 6,000 words has further addressed an analysis of specific secu­rity problems emana­ting from the mili­ta­riz­a­tion of space, cyber­space rese­arch, arti­fi­cial intel­li­gence, chemi­stry and bacte­rio­logy. Due atten­tion is paid to success­fully deve­lo­ping bila­teral economic coope­ra­tion and trade with inter­ac­tions within the frame­work of the SCO, BRICS, APEC, the EAEU inclu­ding the One Belt and One Road initiative.

However, the main atten­tion of analysts seems to be drawn to the inclu­sion of the following words into that „State­ment“: “The parties confirm that the new type of Russian-Chinese inter­state rela­tions is supe­rior to the mili­tary-poli­tical alli­ances of the Cold War. Friendship between the two states has no borders, there are no forbidden zones in coope­ra­tion, the streng­t­he­ning of bila­teral stra­tegic coope­ra­tion is not directed against third coun­tries and is not influ­enced by the chan­ging inter­na­tional envi­ron­ment and situa­tional changes in third countries.”

“The world order has entered a new era,” Liu Xiang, a rese­ar­cher at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, wrote in the Beijing Global Times news­paper. Russia and China jointly outlined a new defi­ni­tion of the world order and named the main threats to stabi­lity. Now only Russia and China have the ability to protect their funda­mental inte­rests and peace in the world.”

The London Daily Tele­graph believes that the publi­ca­tion of the „State­ment“ by Putin and Xi Jinping, „symbo­lizes the tran­si­tion to a funda­ment­ally new struc­ture of inter­na­tional rela­tions, the advent of a new geopo­li­tical era. From now on, the domi­nance of the US-led global West will no longer be taken for granted, will not be tole­rated.”  According to the authors,“after decades of humi­lia­tion,”  Russia and China, “have risen from their knees and will now turn the unjust world order that has deve­loped after the Cold War.”

Die Olympic large hill looms large against the back­drop of global poli­tics by the great powers
Source: CGTN

The „Olympic Consensus“ has demons­trated the acce­le­ra­tion of the process for synchro­ni­zing the posi­tions of Russia and China on the problems of our times that are vital for them as well as the world. At the same, there is still room for further progress. Ever­ything will depend on the assess­ment of the proxi­mity of national inte­rests of Moscow and Beijing versus the degree of enmity between Washington and the other capi­tals of the West.




Kommentieren Sie den Artikel

Bitte geben Sie Ihren Kommentar ein!
Bitte geben Sie hier Ihren Namen ein