The Interaction Between China and Russia after the Collapse of the USSR: the Role of Shared Ideas in Paving the Way to Shanghai Declaration

Ðàçìåùåíî íà http://www.allbest.ru/

The Interaction Between China and Russia after the Collapse of the USSR: the Role of Shared Ideas in Paving the Way to Shanghai Declaration

1. The Formation Process of the Shanghai Declaration in 1996

1.1 An introduction: the Shanghai Declaration in 1996 and Shanghai Five mechanism

âçàèìîäåéñòâèå äåêëàðàöèÿ ðàñïàä

The Shanghai Declaration known as Agreement between Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and China on Confidence Building in the Military Field in the Border Area, was signed by China and Russia in 1996, during the official visit by China's President Jiang Zemin to Moscow. As its title shows, the parties of the agreement include China and Russia, together with three Central Asian countries Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan. The Shanghai Declaration, with the focus on the border security confidence measures, calls for military disclosure, the reduction of troop levels in border areas and allows the parties to observe and inspect troop movements in each other territory upon invitation . The achievements of the Shanghai Declaration are highly evaluated as it is of great significance not only to the safety of the five countries but also to the peace and stability in Asian- Pacific region and even around the world . More than the guarantee of border safety and military mutual reliance, the profound meaning of Shanghai Declaration lies in providing a new cooperation model. As what Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lu Kang commented on the achievements of the Shanghai Declaration in a regular press conference in 2016, 20 years after that agreement was signed, the Shanghai Declaration in 1996 created a “brand new security cooperation model” as it “broke the mentality of the cold war”.

Back to 1997 when the agreement on the reduction in the military troops along the border was made as a supplement for the Shanghai Declaration, Chinese President Jiang Zemin made a similar comment as Lu's: the years of negotiations was a step toward a “security model that differs from the Cold War mentality.” Russian President Boris Yeltsin also spoke highly of these agreements, regarding the Shanghai Declaration and the agreement in 1997 as “a breakthrough for the Asian-Pacific region.” Under this model, negotiation and consultation is paid attention to with a better understanding in dealing with bilateral and multilateral issues; Moreover, different parties attach more importance to cooperation rather than differences; Last but not least, the maintenance of the security interests of all parties is the starting point for jointly safeguarding regional political and economic security .

The effort for maintaining border security and building up military mutual trust can date back to the Soviet era. Early in November 1991, between China and the Soviet Union the negotiation on the mutual reduction of military strength and the enhancement of military trust started and later in April 1990, China and the Soviet Union signed an agreement on guiding principles of reduction of military forces and confidence building in the military field in border areas, which laid the foundation for the negotiation on border disputes and military issues after the disintegration of the Soviet Union, and in this two-side negotiation, where Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan engaged together as one side, continued to participate in border negotiations with China, and finally based on the guiding principles acknowledged in 1990 the five countries reached a consensus as a basis of the Shanghai Declaration.

The Shanghai Declaration can be regarded as a breakthrough in the development of Sino- Russian relations for it presents a deeper mutual trust in military and territorial safety, the cores of national interests. Most importantly, the Shanghai Declaration marks a beginning of the process of the Shanghai Five mechanism, a new cooperation model dealing with safety and security. After the signing of the Shanghai Declaration, Shanghai Five, short for the five parties including China and Russia, signed the Agreement on Mutual Reduction of Military Forces in the Border Areas in Moscow, 1997, which serves as the specification and supplement of the Shanghai Declaration. And later in 1998 and in 1999, Joint statement of participants of the Almaty meeting and the Bishkek declaration, both of which emphasizes on combating transnational crimes, curbing the national separatism and the religious extremism, were signed respectively, which further consolidated regional security and cooperation. Finally, the fifth conference of Shanghai Five was held in Tajikistan and the Dushanbe Declaration was signed which reaffirms the joint efforts of Shanghai Five to fight against terrorism, separatism and extremism as well as presents the review of the past and the plan for prospects in the 21st century. All the progresses made by the joint efforts demonstrated the formation of Shanghai Five mechanism step by step and it laid the foundation for the formation of SCO. To sum up, the breakthrough that Shanghai Declaration made and the novelty of Shanghai Five mechanism provides a new framework of formulating the relations between major regional protagonists and former Soviet Republics of Central Asia- the Shanghai spirit is characterized by mutual trust, common advantage, equality, cooperation, respect for cultural diversity, and collective development .

1.2 The factors contributing to the signing of the Shanghai Declaration and the formation of Shanghai Five mechanism between China and Russia

Basically when it comes to the factors leading to this high level of cooperation with mutual political and military trust, usually the realist approaches are employed to analyze how the process was developing step by step to achieve the consensus on the signing of the Shanghai declaration based on the domestic and international demands.

After the disintegration of the Soviet Union, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, faced the emergent necessity of constructing the newly-independent countries and at the same time China was striving for economic construction as its central task, the five countries were facing the tasks of revitalizing the economy, catching up with the world's scientific and technological developing and coping with the challenges of economic globalization. Because of the domestic demand for revitalization, a peaceful and stable surrounding environment as well as to develop multi-faceted cooperation with the neighboring countries was of significance required to fulfill these demands . China and the Soviet Union shared a border of more than 7,500 kilometers, and after the disintegration of the USSR, China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan have the long common border, which made these five parties face the necessity to avoid border disputes. Therefore, with regards to the factors in Sino- Russian aspect, the first factor should be the necessity of solving the border issues which was left over by the history and was one of the biggest obstacles that hindered the normalization and further development of the bilateral relations.

During the official visit of Chinese President Jiang Zemin with Russian President Yeltsin in 1997 when the agreement on reduction of military forces was signed as a supplement for the Shanghai Declaration, Jiang pointed out that “Sino-Russian relations have shaken off the ups and downs of history and embarked on a broad road of comprehensive development for the 21st century.” It can be proved that the settlement of the military issues and the guarantee on border security are the cornerstones of the Sino- Russian relations.

The border disputes between China and the USSR can date back to half of a century ago. After the establishment of PRC, because of the ideological acknowledgment, the border security had not been put into a primary place as what it was later, and this acknowledgement served as a major impetus to form a strong political connection between Russia and China, and because of it, a series of “fraternal socialist cooperation” were implemented, including trans-border cooperation. With the focus on improving Sino- Soviet trade relations, significant investment in physical infrastructure was made by the USSR. However, later due to the ideological differences with the fear of Soviet “hegemonism” the tension over the border-related issues was escalated and reached the peak with the outbreak of Zhenbao Island incident, which resulted in the open military confrontation between China and Russia in 1969. In the 1970s, Soviet military actions, for example, use of Vietnam's Cam Ranh Bay naval base, the close military links with India as well as the Soviet's invasion to Afghanistan, stirred fear of China over the concerns on strategic encirclement by the USSR, which worsened the concern over border security. For decades, both sides carried out military buildups along the border. In the early 1980s, the Sino- Soviet border even became one of the most heavily militarized borders around the world , which caused a huge financial burden for both countries. For example, it was estimated that based on the price level in 1980, the 20-year confrontation from the 1960s to the 1980s between China and Russia led to a cost of around 100 billion dollars to the Soviet Union . Therefore, a lesson which both countries should learn from is that the unsolved border disputes only results in the negative outcomes such as the huge military expenditure and worsening relations with neighboring countries. Given to the historical lesson the border issues were of the significance to deal with in the 1990s as the Russian Federation was just established and a new phrase of Sino- Russian relations was waiting to be written.

Besides the political reasons leading to the border disputes, another major reason would be the imbalance of the ethnographic distribution of the population and the political jurisdiction, which is a product of historical trends in border area, not only within Sino- Russian one, but also involving with other Central Asian countries. For example, people who identify themselves as Uygur inhabit China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, and Tajikistan . Also, the complexity of border situation in Central Asia was partly influenced by the choice made by Stalin, who created precise borders not based on “national” or “ethnically demarcated” factors, but intended to “determine in each republic an artificial titular ethnic majority” , a majority that is a little larger than other minority groups, which made the border issues and disputes more complicated to settle. Therefore, the clarification on border line and the more transparent border cooperation was required to maintain the integrity of a state and reduce the separatism.

Russia in particular faced the challenges brought by separatism and realized the emergency of maintain the border security and integrity in border area. While Russia was widely accepted as the successor state to the USSR, it was the successor of complicated ethnical contradiction and even conflicts. Because of it, the separatism caused a big headache to newly-established Russia government in Chechen area with the assertion of independence by Dzhokhar Dudayev in 1991 and the outbreak of the first Chechen war from 1994 to 1996. The strong intention to maintain the integrity was conveyed through the speeches by Russian President Boris Yeltsin with republic leaders, in which the willing of “to build a unified and strong Russian Federation” was highly stressed many times . Therefore, to maintain the border security and integrity was a main goal for Russia as it had been stuck in tricky separatist problems and it would not be willing to see the separatism continue to spread over the border area. On the other hand, in case of any potential risks in the border disputes, Russia was not so capable to exert its military power in maintain the security as its military expenditures had been declining year by year since 1992. According to statistics from the London Institute for International Strategic Studies, the defense spending of Russia actually decreased by about 45% from 1992 to 1995. In 1996, Russia's defense spending was about 82.4 trillion rubles, which only made up 30% of the actual demand . To sum up, the concern over the spreading of separatism over the country and the decreasing military power are the stimulus for Russia to keep the safety in border area and it promotes the process of negotiations to the signing of the Shanghai declaration. Even from China's side, although the situation comparatively was not serious as that in Russia, the revival of Islamic fundamentalism in Central Asia was a major factor causing risks of the security problems in the Northwest China. After the reform and opening, especially in the 1990s, Pan-Turkism and Islamic extremist forces colluded to create organized riots and various terrorist activities in Xinjiang Province, among which the most influential organization is the "East Turkistan" terrorist forces with the purpose of establishing an "East Turkistan independence state." In general, both sides shared their common willingness to fight against international terrorism, religious extremism, and national separatism, together with which also the criminal activities including the illegal circulation of weapons and narcotics illegal immigration. Therefore, the threats, namely international terrorism, religious extremism, and national separatism, pushed these two countries on the track to the Shanghai declaration.

Apart from the necessity of maintaining security and integrity, for both sides a higher political mutual trust can pave a way for a more comprehensive cooperation in particular in economic area, and the complementary advantages in geo-economic structure can be made use of better based on the comprehensive cooperation. From Russia's perspective, the unoptimistic economic situation required for a deeper cooperation in particular in economic sphere with its neighboring countries since its shock therapy caused a sharp decline in social production. In 1992, Russia's GDP fell by 14.5% from the previous year, national income of production fell by 16.2%, industrial production fell by 18%, and capital construction investment fell by 40 %, as well as agricultural production also fell by 8%. From 1992 to 1995, Russia's inflation rate remained high for four years, and in 1992 the number of inflation rate reached the highest point as 2610%. Therefore, a better cooperation with neighboring countries to relieve the negative influence brought by the shock therapy should be the desire. As for China, it realized the potential of the cooperation with Russia together with the other Central Asian countries as it could help not only in the security field but also the future improvement of infrastructure in border area such as construction of transportation and communication networks in western China, the implementation of energy projects. Also, China was in need of natural resources, especially oil and gas resources to support its domestic development, which are abundant in Russia and Central Asian countries. Besides, manufacturing industry was the pillar of China's economy in the 1990s with the main products as daily necessities, food, household appliances and certain mechanical products while the main products in these areas were cotton, wool, leather, fertilizer, steel, metallurgy. What's more, as Central Asian countries are landlocked countries with no access to the sea while China is a country with a long coastline, China could provide access of the export of goods and resources for the Central Asian countries . Taking all the benefits into consideration, for China there was a considerable profitable prospect in the comprehensive cooperation with Russia and other Central Asian countries, and the building up of political mutual trust was the first step, which promoted the process of the negotiation of military reduction and border security.

Moreover, although the Shanghai Declaration claims that it does not aim at any third country, some observers regarded that the Shanghai Declaration and the unification of the Shanghai Five was motivated by the fear American encroachment and the expansion of NATO into this region . Given to the strategically important geographic position of Central Asia and the abundant resources in this region, the entry of the United States can be a significant composition of its strategies of suppressing the revitalization of Russia and the development of China so as to consolidate its leading role around the world as its entry can expand the NATO's influence and enhance the US-Japan security alliance . After the collapse of the USSR, this region was left as political loophole, which provided America the opportunity to expend its power in political, economical and military fields to this region. What made it worse is that Russia implemented pro- Western foreign policy in this period, and owned an astronomical foreign debt at 121.6 billion dollars, including the debt of 110.3 billion dollars in the Soviet era and the debt of 11.3 billion dollars by Russia since 1992. Altogether with the decreasing economic and political power the international position of Russia was greatly weakened and the US's intention to step into the region which was traditionally controlled by Russia stirred the concern of the Russian government. Therefore, Russia had to take action to protect its security and safety in its traditional sphere of influence, and the Shanghai declaration, with the aim of strengthening the military mutual trust and cooperation, is in accordance with Russia's strategies to protect its security.

In conclusion, the factors leading to the signing of the Shanghai Declaration include the necessity of solving the historical border disputes which caused a huge waste and burden to both countries. In this period Russia especially had a strong intention to solve the border disputes in a peaceful way as it suffered from the economic crisis and the decreasing of military power, which made Russia in great need of the border security as it could help reduce the unnecessary military expenditure and avoid distraction from economic revitalization and dealing with the challenges from Chechen. Also, the emergency of fighting against the separatism, extremism and terrorism as the Chechen issues and the separatist and extremist movements in Northeast China alarmed Russia and China respectively to take immediate measures. What's more, the great potential in a comprehensive cooperation encouraged China and Russia come together to settle the border disputes and maintain the security for further development of the bilateral relations. Finally, it is reasonable that the concerns over the spreading of American influence in Central Asia would be a major stimulus to the cooperation of these countries.

Generally, most of the analysis on the factors leading to the signing of the Shanghai Declaration focuses on explanation of how the process developed from the realist approaches or from the material perspectives, and the roles of non- material factors, such as shared ideas, in the contribution to the development of this process have remained unclear which deserves discussion, and it is meaningful to explain how the mutual high level political and military cooperation, which is symbolized by the Shanghai Declaration here, can be achieved from a different perspective.

2.The Shared ideas in the Sino- Russian Relations in the 1990s

2.1 The definition of shared ideas and their roles based on Alexander Wendt's theoretical framework

From the constructive perspective, “the structures of human association are determined primarily by shared ideas rather than material forces, and the identities and interests of purposive actors are constructed by these shared ideas rather than given by nature”. As constructivism emphasizes the decisive impact of ideas on international political structure, shared ideas serve as the one of the most significant concepts in constructivist theories. However, despite the fact that the constructive theory by Wendt provides a clear framework of explaining the relations and dynamics among culture of international politics, national identities and interests and their behavior, the definition of shared ideas still lacks specific discussion and has remained obscure. Therefore, in order to understand what shared ideas are and the roles that shared ideas can play in the process of interaction, the first task to accomplish is to conclude the definition of shared ideas. In general, the definition of shared ideas can be concluded as follows:

1) They are the common and connected ideas leading to a conflictual or cooperative result, which are shared socially in the process of interaction;

2) The socially shared ideas can construct a certain comparatively stable model or framework, under which actors have certain desires and beliefs and thus there is a behavior preference for them to take action.

The first point to discuss is that shared ideas can only take place in the process of interaction. Shared ideas are constructed, being constructed and playing their roles in the process of interaction, which is clearly demonstrated through the definition of shared knowledge (ideas) given by Wendt as the narrow definition of ideas can be regarded as knowledge . Therefore, the shared ideas can be discussed in the way of socially shared knowledge or, to a broader extend, “culture”, as an aggregation of socially shared knowledge, which is both common and connected between individuals. Since the shared ideas, knowledge or culture, come into forming while being common and connected, the process of interaction where the shared ideas can function is of necessity, and the shared ideas must be socially shared as it contains meaning in a cultural sense.

At a macro level, as what Wendt points out, the process of the forming of social structures is based on actors' ideas about the nature and roles of Self and Other. Therefore, social structures are “distributions of ideas” or “stocks of knowledge”, and shared ideas make up the subset of social structure known as “culture”', which in practical are usually constituted by shared ones even though there are private ideas and shared ideas .

In Wendt's constructivist theory, in international politics, culture, constituted by shared ideas, can be classified into three cultures of anarchy, namely Hobbesian, Lockean and Kantian depending on three roles including enemy, rival and friend, and each culture is characterized with the rules of engagement, interaction logics and systemic tendencies. Although a culture or aggregation of shared ideas generally remains “communally sustained” for a certain period of time, it is not unchangeable. That is to say, in a certain culture, actors, namely countries, take action with regards to the recognition on the roles of others- enemy, rival or friend. To sum up, in a culture, actors possess a certain behavior preference based on the recognition on the roles of Self and Other in the interaction and the thus their action can be predicted based on the logic of the style of culture.

When it comes to a more micro level, rules, norms, institutions, or so on, they are made up by shared ideas as well, as what Wendt emphasizes “…shared ideas making up norms, institutions, threat-systems, and so on that constitute the meaning of the distribution of power,…” . No matter are the different cultures of anarchy at a systematic level or the norms and rule at a more micro level, shared ideas actually constitute a certain model or framework, under which actors consciously or unconsciously obey or accept the standards and take actions in the process of interaction based on the logic in this model or framework, so there is a behavior preference which can be predicted and concluded as a characteristic in this cultural aggregation made up by shared ideas.

A point needed to be clarified here is that the cultures of anarchy or norms, rules and so on are made up by shared ideas, but at the same time, they are the embodies of shared ideas and shared ideas themselves. In his opinion, culture “takes many specific forms, including norms, rules, institutions, ideologies, organizations, threat-systems, and so on…”.

As Wendt points out, the shared ideas “might also constitute the meaning of behavior, and even construct identities and interests” , “identities and interests are more constructed by the international system than can be seen by an economic approach to structure”. Based on this logic, shared ideas contribute to constitute the identities and interests of countries, which further determine the behavior. Since identities and interests are the most significant variables in explaining the how countries behave, so it is necessary to conclude what identities and interests are constituted by the shared idea with specific characteristics and finally, to explain how these dynamics leading to the behavior, the signing of the Shanghai Declaration in 1996.

2.2 The application of the concept of shard ideas to the Sino- Russian relations in the 1990s

2.21 The partnership culture - the form of shared ideas in the bilateral relations

In terms of the definition of shared ideas in an abstract sense, the conclusion is conducted as that shared ideas are the common and connected idea socially shared in the process of interaction. Therefore, when it comes to the shared ideas at a diplomatic level, with regards to the first characteristics of the shared ideas in which the “socially” is emphasized, the shared ideas must be officially acknowledged by both sides in the process of interaction between two countries, namely China and Russia.

As what we discusses above, the concept of the shared ideas is huge and it contains various sub-concepts ranging from the different cultures of anarchy to the more detailed and micro concepts such as norms and institutions. With the aim of understanding the situation and exploring the dynamics of the interaction between two countries, a broader perspective is preferred as the focus on the micro angles, for example, norms which exist covering from economic sphere to political sphere, is not so practical compared to a broader perspective.

From a systematic point of view the shared ideas are regarded as the cultures of anarchy which are based on the different roles structures, including Hobbesian, Lockean and Kantian. Generally after the disintegration of the USSR the Sino- Russian relations had developed smoothly with an optimistic trend. Since China recognized the Russian Federation and established the diplomatic relations at the ambassadorial level in December 1991, a series of the mutual official visits and the joint statements such as the Joint Statement on the Basis of Mutual Relations between the People's Republic of China and the Russian Federation in 1992, remark that the both sides showed their sincerity and confidence in building up a cooperative and reliable bilateral relations in the 1990s. In this way, taking the three cultures of anarchy into consideration, the Sino- Russian relations are more in line with the description of Kantian culture. However, the interaction between China and Russia is beyond the definition of what Kantian political culture is.

The foundation of Kantian culture lies on a role structure of friendship, in which two rules should be obeyed by the actors, namely the rule of non- violence based on which “disputes will be settled without war or the threat of the war”, as well as the rule of mutual aid in which actors “will fight as a team if the security of any one is threatened by a third party” . These two rules serve as the most significant pillars of the sub-logics and tendencies such as “pluralistic security communities” and “collective security” which are constituted by “shared knowledge of each other's peaceful intentions and behavior” . In another words, the one of the most significant characteristics in Kantian culture in that one of the ways to present, consolidate, and constitute the friendship among the countries is to maintain security when one is threatened by the way of alliance. In accordance with the logic of alliance, there must be a threatening third party which may be potential one or practically exist. Considering these two key points, “alliance” and “a threatening third party”, even though the Sino- Russian relations in the 1990s are characterized by the features of a friendship framework, it is absolutely not a form of Kantian culture. From China's perspective, the opposition to alliances on principle has remained the core of foreign policy in any bilateral relations, as a result of which the standard of second rule cannot be fulfilled in any case even facing the threat from other countries.

Looking back to the second definition of the shared ideas, it can be found that no matter in political culture, norms or institution, the logic hidden behind these different forms of the shared ideas can actually leads to accordant behavior preference because the actors will adopt the strategies and take action in accordance with the interests shaped by the shared ideas. Therefore, when it comes to the shared ideas of the Sino-Russian relations in the 1990s, the focus can be placed on the mutual recognition evolving from a “good-neighborly relationship” to a “strategic partnership” as the recognition also can be regarded as a cooperation framework, which means it can exert the influence on behavior preference. The “partnership” provides a framework in which “a new type of state-to-state relationship based on the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence which is non-confrontational in nature and is not directed against any third country” is coming into formation. In the “partnership” China and Russia take action as to respect the choices of different social systems and ideologies, and solve the border disputes by peaceful negotiations instead of violence, as well as to show the willing in and make joint efforts to maintaining the regional security. Therefore, the “partnership”, essentially a political culture (shared ideas), is similar to the Kantian culture which is based on friendship where different countries tend to have cooperative attitudes and ideas. The specific shared ideas in these bilateral relations more exactly tend to be based on partnership to the neighboring countries, rather than the friendship based on the definition of Wendt's theoretical framework while the role structures of enemy and of rival are not compatible with this political culture.

What needs to be clarified is that the starting point of the “partnership” culture does not need to be the official announcement of the establishment of the “strategic partnership” as the partnership culture basically describes the specific framework in which countries interact based on the characteristics in this culture. Before 1994, based on the official definition, China and Russia were “good neighboring countries” to each other, and but still in the statement in 1992 the basic principles of the partnership was established as the statement clearly defines that the bilateral relations are based on the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence and both sides hold the non- ideological attitudes to each other. Although compared to the “constructive partnership” and the “strategic partnership”, in the period between 1992 and 1994 the level of the bilateral relations had not reached a high level of mutual trust and cooperation, the basic principles were established in the very beginning, and the basic principles are the main content of the partnership culture which is referred to here. Therefore, before 1994 when constructive partnership was built up at an official level, the partnership culture still had existed when the interaction between China and Russia carrying the features of this culture.

Since the shared ideas in the bilateral relations in this period can be recognized as this mutual recognition, the characteristics of the mutual recognition need to be identified so as to figure out what are the priority interests and identities in this political culture in order to understand the roles of shared ideas (the political culture) between China and Russia in paving the ways to the Shanghai Declaration.

2.22 The characteristics of shared ideas in the bilateral relations in the 1990s

The shared ideas of the Sino- Russian relations in the 1990s are presented through the recognition evolving from a good-neighborly relationship to a strategic cooperative partnership. With the transformations from regarding each other as friendly neighboring countries to more reliable partner countries, both sides tended to take more cooperative strategies to get along with each other instead of the aggressive ones in the 1990s. As what is discussed above, shared ideas are the socially shared ideas in the process of interaction and they provide a framework of behavior with certain attitude preference. Therefore, the renewals of Sino- Russian relations present the aggregation of shared ideas at a diplomatic level, as the recognitions on bilateral relations are officially recognized by both sides, which prove that the recognitions are actually socially shared instead of a unilateral decision.

In the process of the developing of this framework of political culture, it is concluded that there are three renewals of the recognition on Sino- Russian relations from HPRC (The History of the People's Republic of China) by the Institute of Contemporary China Studies. As the information on official site of HRPC basically represents the position of China's authority, the renewals remarking the progresses that both sides achieved in strengthening cooperation and safety are officially recognized.

The three-time renewals of recognitions which witnessed the process of bilateral development from a “good-neighborly relationship” to a “strategic cooperative partnership” are remarked by the issues of joint statements: the first one is the issue of the Joint Statement on the Basis of Mutual Relations between the People's Republic of China and the Russian Federation in 1992 based on which it was announced that both sides recognized each other as friendly neighboring countries; the signal of the second renewed recognition was the issues of the Second Sino-Russian Joint Statement in 1994 when Chinese President Jiang Zemin visited Russia, announcing the establishment of constructive partnership featuring good neighborliness and mutually beneficial cooperation; the third renewed recognition was the establishment of a "strategic partnership of equality and trust oriented toward the 21st century" in 1996, which with the specific focus on regional and international cooperation further consolidated the comprehensive bilateral relations based on Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence, and a new non-aligned and non-confrontational mode of national relations without targeting at any third country .

Since these statements mark each leap of the framework Sino- Russian framework of interaction, and they are officially recognized by both sides, the content of these official documents can serve as a lens to generalize the characteristics of the shared ideas between China and Russia in the period of the 1990s.

When looking at the Joint Statement on the Basis of Mutual Relations between the People's Republic of China and the Russian Federation in 1992, the main achievement presented in this joint statement is that China and Russia regarded each others as friendly countries. This recognition is undoubtedly the most significant progress in the new era of Sino- Russian relations as it not only marked the smooth transition of China's relations with the Soviet Union to that with Russia based on the Five Principle of the Peaceful Coexistence, but also the differences of social systems and ideologies, which touched off the conflicts in the Soviet era, were not longer the barriers of development of these two countries .

Apart from it, territorial security and border disputes were put in a primary position in this joint statement. From China's angle, the insist on One China principle is the basis of diplomatic relations, and the recognition of Russian government on PRC as the only legitimate government in China laid the most basic foundation for further diplomatic development. At the same time, the promise of “not to participate in military and political alliances against each other” should be paid attention to as it guaranteed the basis of non-alignment bilateral relations.

As for the second joint statement in 1994, it showed the further consolidation of the new constructive partnership based on the joint statement of 1992, in accordance with which Sino- Russian relations would be established and would developed in a non-aligned and non-confrontational model without alliance or targeting at any third country ground on the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence. Apart from the willing of consolidation of a partnership framework, what makes the joint statement have a profound meaning in the history of Sino- Russian relations is that it provided a comparatively comprehensive cooperation framework covering from political relations, economic and technical cooperation to military political sphere and international relations. With a continuous focuse on endeavor to solve the border disputes peacefully and maintain the military security, in this joint statement for the first time emphasized the economic and technical cooperation perspective as both sides would take more active measures to develop bilateral cooperation with the priority on some specific spheres including laws, financial credit, transportation and information. Besides the new content on comprehensive cooperation, a higher level of cooperation was improved to a regional and an international level from basically a state-with-state one. In this joint statement, China and Russia demonstrated the ambition to enhance the multilateral cooperation level in Asian-Pacific area, promising to “regard each other as major countries that maintain peace and stability in a multi-polar world system which in under way”, and to “contribute to the establishment of a stable, fair and reasonable new international political and economic order” by negotiation and cooperation. In conclusion, the willing and prospect on a comprehensive cooperation with more attention paid to regional and international cooperation makes it a milestone in the development of the bilateral relations.

With regards to the third Sino- Russian Joint Statement signed in 1996, it announced “their resolve to develop a strategic partnership of equality, mutual confidence and mutual coordination for the twenty-first century” on the basis of the joint statements sighed in 1992 and 1994 respectively. In this statement, the comprehensive cooperation, including economic, technical, military as well as regional and international spheres, remained the core issues in the bilateral relations. While the border issues remained to be the priority to solve based on the 1991 Sino- Soviet Border Agreement and the Agreement on the Western Section of the Boundary between China and Russia in 1994, what needs to be mentioned is that in this joint statement China clearly declared that Chechen issue belongs to Russia's internal affairs and all the measures and action taken by Russia to maintain the national unity are supported by China. Compared to the joint statements before, this time the content about “International Peace and Development” as well as “Security and Cooperation in the Region of Asia and the Pacific” was given more prominence. For example, the cooperation with the aim of maintaining peace and development expended to the fields such as oceanography, meteorology, seismology, disaster reduction, marine rescue operations, environmental protection and so on at an international level. For the regional cooperation, both sides realized the importance of the agreement on enhancing the mutual military trust in border area , which is the prelude of the Shanghai Declaration that was sighed two months later.

Based on the introduction of partnership of strategic coordination between China and Russia by Ministry of Foreign Affairs of PRC, the characteristics of the mechanism can be concluded as followed:

1. A system of regular top level political meeting and a telephone hotline to exchange the views on issues of mutual interest;

2. A system of bilateral coordination and guidance for cooperation covering various fields including economic, trade, scientific, energy, transportation, nuclear energy and other important fields;

3. A system of consultation on important global and regional issues bearing upon on their respective interests;

4. A system of non-governmental exchanges in forms of committee, institution with the aim of to solicit public participation .

In general, from the official perspective, the mechanism of the partnership of strategic coordination operates as comprehensive multi-field cooperation mechanism with a high level of political mutual trust. It not only focuses on bilateral issues, but also expands its focus on the regional and global issues.

Taking the official conclusion and the characteristics conveyed through the joint statements which marked the renewals of this recognition together, the characteristics of the specific shared ideas in the bilateral relations in the 1990s which are presented in form of partnership political culture based on the non-alignment principle and Five Principles of the Peaceful Coexistence include: first, the recognition on to solve disputes and issues, in particular territorial and border issues with regards to the Sino- Russian relations in the 1990s, in a peaceful way; second, the respect on the different choices of social systems and ideologies, as both sides did not regard the ideological issues as the standards to define the identities of the countries as “brothers” or enemies; third, the recognition on the importance of the comprehensive cooperation; fourth, the willing to paying joint efforts to deal with regional and global issues which also are regarded as their interests.

3.On the Way to the Shanghai Declaration: How the National Interests and Identities Constituted in the Partnership Culture Led to a Cooperative Result

As what is discussed in the Chapter two, shared ideas can constitute national interests and identities. Therefore, to explain what the roles of shared ideas are in paving the way the Shanghai Declaration, we can come to the conclusion that in a macroscopic perspective the shared ideas between China and Russia in the 1990s after the collapse of the USSR, the partnership culture function in constituting their national interests and identities based on specific ways which are in accordance with the characteristics of the culture. In the partnership culture which is characterized and shaped by the features such as the focus on solving issues and disputes peacefully, the respect on different social systems and ideologies, the recognition on the importance of the comprehensive cooperation, and the consensus on participating and dealing with regional and global challenges together, the principles of constituting national interest and identities can be concluded and based on them the national interests and identities can function with the tendency defined by the principles towards a cooperative result, the signing of the Shanghai Declaration.

3.1 Two principles of constituting national interests and identities

3.1.1 Ideological differences were not longer the obstacle

In the partnership culture, in the bilateral interaction which is based on the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence, the importance of cooperation and the respect on different choices of social systems and ideological differences are the ideas that both sides have acknowledged and serve as the basic pillars to constitute the cultural framework. Ideological factors neither the core of national interests nor the criteria to identity the countries as partners. Therefore, even Russia gave up the socialist system and turned to the West, reconstructing their social system as a capitalist democratic one which is totally different from the socialist system that China possesses, the differences caused by ideological factors are not the obstacles for the bilateral cooperation.

If considering the bilateral interaction in a different cultural framework supported by ideological alliance, ideological differences can be an influential factor constituting the national interests and identities. The history of the Sino- Soviet interaction can be a good example. The alliance between the Soviet Union and China was supported by ideological acknowledgment in the beginning, which means their identities, allies to each other, were determined by ideological factors, and therefore their national interests were closely related to the ideological acknowledgement because it was a basis for the alliance from which two countries benefited. As the ideological factor is a key variable in constituting national interests and identities to cooperative trend, it can be a factor leading to the opposite result. From the point of views of many scholars, the different choices on how to construct socialism was one of the most important reasons why the Sino- Soviet alliance went to a collapse . During the Khrushchev administration, the Sino-Soviet alliance experienced a major turning point from friendship to rupture. In the early period of his administration, the Sino-Soviet alliance comparatively was tight, and the bilateral relations reached its peak in this phrase. However, after the 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, there was a rift between the Soviet Union and China. In the early 1960s, “the great Sino-Soviet debate” zhongsu dalunzhan) began and it resulted in the confrontation between these two countries, leading to the disintegration of the Sino-Soviet alliance. The outcome was directly related to the two countries' different directions to build the socialist system . In the beginning, Khrushchev and Mao Zedong realized the adverse consequences brought by the Stalin system and adjusted the proportional relationship among the agricultural industry, light industry and heavy industry, so although the ideological differences emerged as the different evaluations of Stalin, the ideological differences still not impact so negatively on the Sino- Soviet alliance. But later from the 1958s to the early 1960s, both sides showed a clear deviation in the process of exploring the ways of developing socialism, and the different choices were criticized by each other instead of being respected. While the class struggles were put the emphasis by Mao Zedong, Khrushchev preferred the idea that people should take the initiate and the main direction of the Socialist countries was to expand the democracy as much as possible. At the same time, the Soviet Union held the opposite attitude to the “Great Leap Forward” and the “People's Commune Movement”. In general, Mao Zedong regarded what the USSR as a modern revisionism and a deviation from Marxism while Khrushchev criticized China of applying dogmatism . Actually in September 1969, when Zhou Enlai and Alexei Kosygin met at the airport in Beijing, Premier Zhou proposed that the ideological differences between the two countries should not hinder the bilateral relations and with this principle he tried to improve the estrangement of two countries but this idea was not accepted and understood by the Soviet Union .

In the partnership culture, both sides have come to the consensus that the alliance based on ideological acknowledgement is not accepted while different choices of social system and ideologies are respected and the ways how to construct the domestic system only belongs to internal affairs. Therefore, the ideological difference will not exert their differences in bilateral interaction. The orientation of foreign policy can serve as a lens to figure out whether these differences cause negative influence on the interaction. In the 1990s, when some scholars predicted about what foreign policy that the newly-established government would apply, conclusions were made as that Russia's foreign policy mainly depends on two important factors: the social development model chosen by Russia, its geopolitical environment and the political and economic conditions .

Although the Russian foreign policy, even looking back to the 1990s from today, has been shaped by the domestic value, and even the totally pro-West foreign policy was implemented (but it was implemented for a while as the foreign policy focusing on the balance between the West and the East took the place of it later in 1993), the principle of the Russia's foreign policy at that time remained to establish good-neighborly and friendly relations with all neighboring countries, including with China, a socialist country, because Russia realized that the national interest should lay on the domestic stability and economic reforms exclusive of gaining ideological unity and to achieve this goal, the only solution was to dilute ideological differences . Also, in the International Symposium on Sino-Russian Cooperation which was held in October, 1995, participated by China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations and Institute of Far Eastern Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, the scholar from Russian sides clearly pointed out that “ideological congruency is not the decisive factor of the Russia-China relations but the national interests” , which implies that the ideological factors were not longer regarded as part of national interests in the partnership culture.