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

To sum up, the ideological differences do no longer hinder in the Sino- Russian bilateral relations with the recognition the national interests and identities changed. In the era of the Sino- Soviet alliance, as the ideological acknowledgment was the criteria to identity countries as allies and was the significant pillar supporting the bilateral relations, because the congruence of socialist system and the ways of development was the guarantee to ensure the stability of the bilateral framework and thus the ideological factors were a core component of national interests since both countries could benefit from the alliance. But in the partnership culture, the ways to identify countries and to define the national interests have been changed. As what is discussed above, the partnership culture framework is based on the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence focusing on the mutual cooperation, in another word, the pillar to support the culture is not ideological congruency but the recognition on improving cooperation, and therefore, any behavior against the principles, such as the imposition upon other countries to accept the values as a means of spreading a certain kind of ideology, is a damage to the normalization and development of the bilateral relations, which is not in accordance with the national interests because both countries regarded economic development or revitalization as their primary tasks. In general, the logic of the ideological differences are not longer the obstacle in the bilateral relations in the framework of the partnership culture in the 1990s is that, first, there is no necessity to regard ideological congruency as a part of the national interest as both sides realized that more attention should be paid to the economic interests given to their domestic situation and global trend, as well as to the long-term good relations; second, there is no reason to emphasize the importance of the ideological congruency as the it does not serve any special role in maintaining a stable framework in which the actors can benefit from. Considering all the aspects, the ideological factors are not longer the influential factor in constituting the national interests and the standards to define the identities of countries.

3.1.2 Mutual interests and identities were constituted based on equality

As what is discussed above, since the national interests and identities are constituted by shared ideas, the interests and identities are not unchangeable though they are comparatively stable. And the changes of any forms of the shared ideas can lead to a cooperative or a conflictual result. Therefore, the most distinguishing influence of the partnership culture is that it constituted, is constituting and will constitute the national interests, mainly mutual interest here, and identities based on equality.

Since the starting point of the modern Sino- Russian relations is the acknowledgment about that both sides regarded each other as friendly neighboring countries based on the Five Principle of Peaceful Coexistence in the partnership culture, the starting point of the identity constituting process, in accordance with it, is that they defined each other as partners on equality, and the recognition that the national interests of other countries should be respected has become the principle of interaction in such cultural framework. On the one hand, it guarantees that both sides have equal status in the interaction process; on the other hand, it ensures that an acceptable way for both sides to pursue national interests is to strengthen the mutual interests by settling contradictions and focusing on cooperation while sacrificing part of mutual interests is not accepted in the partnership culture, which makes the equality not only on constituting identities but also on constituting the mutual interest an inherent requirement in the partnership culture.

Compared to the history of the Sino- Soviet alliance, the differences between that the national interests and identities are constituted based on equality and that not based on equality can be presented. Dating back to the Sino- Soviet alliance, it is undoubted that the sharing of the mutual interests was the fundamental factor why these two countries allied, but the alliance broke up was not unbreakable as it was promised. Apparently, the recognition on the mutual interests and the identities of regarding each other as close allies were far from enough to become a solid and long-term pillar to support the development of the bilateral relations in that period, because these mutual interests, a part of national interests, and the identities of the close allies, were shaped on unstable foundation as they were not based on equality.

From the perspective of Chinese scholars, the inequality is regarded as one of the biggest reasons why the Sino- Soviet alliance broke up . Great-nation chauvinism (daguo zhuyi) and great-party (dadang zhuyi) chauvinism was the blasting fuse in the worsening bilateral relations. In 1950 when China and the Soviet Union formed an alliance, both sides shared the similar strategic and national interests. The CCP believed that the Sino- Soviet alliance could provide a security guarantee, as it could break the blockade of the US-led Western camp . As what Mao Zedong pointed out, the cooperation between China and the Soviet Union "is to cooperate against the imperialist aggression and for international peace cooperation." , the Sino-Soviet alliance "brings us a reliable ally, which allows us to focus on the domestic construction and helps us deal with the possible imperialist aggression and strive for peace of the world all together" . From the other side, the Soviet Union believed that the establishment of the alliance could build up a barrier to the security of the East which strengthened the solidity of the socialist camp. Therefore, in the beginning of the shared ideas symbolized with the alliance, the national interests and identities were constituted in line with each other. However, the balance of mutual interests and the identification of brothership were fragile as they were constituted in the shared ideas that equality was not put into a primary place. For example, the prohibition on the entry of foreigners to Xinjiang and Manchuria, to establish a Sino- Soviet joint-stock companies and the unreasonable RMB-rub currency were the examples of the unequal practices of the Soviet Union to China, which proves that the Soviet Union did not treat China equally even they were the allies and shared the mutual interest. It damaged the stability of foundation of the mutual interests and identification. According to the logic of the constructivism, ideas constitute identities which play a decisive role in defining interests, and the interests lead to the choices of behavior. The inequality of identities results in the fragility of maintaining mutual interest and identities that supports the long-term relations as there was no guarantee on not to maximize the national interests by sacrificing the mutual interest, more exactly, the interests with involving countries. As what SUN Qiming commented on the rupture of the Sino- Soviet alliance, �there are always differences in national interests and contradictions in the interaction between two countries, which usually influences on the relations, but the degree of influence is dependent on the nature of contradiction and the ways to deal with the contradictions . A possible explanation on why the ways to deal with the contradictions different caused problem in Sino- Soviet alliance is that the Soviet Union preferred to sacrifice the interests involving with China to maximum its own nation interests as the identities and mutual interests were not constituted in an equal status in the very beginning.

Therefore, the characteristics of the partnership culture which is based on the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence contribute to the forming of the principle that the mutual interests and identities are constituted based on equality, which avoids the fragility of the stability of the identities and mutual interests.

3.2 On the way to the Shanghai Declaration: how the national interests and identities constituted based on the principles of the partnership culture functioned

The Shanghai Declaration was signed by five countries including China and Russia with the focus on the border security confidence measures. Therefore, with regards to the Sino- Russian bilateral interaction in the 1990s, the process to the Shanghai Declaration can be divided through two approaches, the mutual political trust building and the mutual participation in regional issues, and the task here is to provide an explanation on how the national interests and identities constituted by the partnership culture based on the principles including the dilution of ideological differences and the emphasis on equality can exert their influence through two approaches leading to a cooperation result.

3.2.1 The first approach: the mutual political trust building

The first approach to the Shanghai Declaration is the mutual political trust building. In the partnership culture, because of the principles of constituting identities and national interests based on equality exclusive of ideological differences, the unnecessary frictions in the process of political communication can be avoided because the different political systems can be respected by each other as their internal affairs which will not cause damage to others' political interests. There is an opinion that in the post-communist era many of tensions are caused by the fact that �the asymmetrical manner in which the Cold War was transcended � as one bloc on behalf of its specific value and principles, the communism, disintegrated denying its own model while the other bloc declared the victory of its principles and extended the principles of victory as universal ones trying to expanding them to the space where the �defeated� principles covered in the past. However, the partnership culture provides more tolerance and flexibility for the choices of different principles and values, and the ideological differences are not regarded as a negative factor in constituting identities, which means the identities of the countries are not defined as the ones which threaten the validity of the social systems and lead to the loss of the nation interests. It guarantees the benign development of the political mutual trust building and the impossibilities of retrogress from the starting point as �friendly neighboring countries� to the worse as both sides acknowledge the any damage to mutual interests can only lead to the loss of their national interests. Consequently, the general process of the political building between China and Russia showed an upward trend in the 1990s.

The best example to demonstrate the upward trend is the renewals of recognition on bilateral relations. Since the recognition on �good-neighborly relations� was achieved by both sides in 1992, the starting point of recognition of identities and interests between China and Russia should be that both sides did not regard each other as dangerous neighboring countries which can threaten the their national interests. The establishment of the �friendly neighboring countries� in which the development of good- neighborly relations and no participation in military and political alliances against each other was emphasized also marked that China and Russia got rid of the uncertainty when the foreign policies of both countries to each other were at the embryo stage, and it laid the foundation for the future political communication. Following the initial recognition, the political mutual trust was developed step by step from the �constructive partnership� in which the completely equal good-neighborly relations, mutually beneficial cooperation as well as the nonalignment and non-targeting at any third country was underlined, and finally before the Shanghai Declaration to the �strategic partnership� in which a new type of state-to-state relationship was built on the basis of non-alignment, non-confrontation and non-targeting at any third country, the political complete equality, mutual trust in security and the comprehensive cooperation was stressed on was built up. It shows a clear line of development of political mutual trust building.

Actually since in the partnership culture both sides regard each other as partners with the tendency of solving problems in a peaceful way and the focus on cooperation, their identities and the ways of achieving interests guarantee that the political communication can be more efficient. The signing of a series of agreements presents the process of deepening political mutual trust building while showing a more peaceful way to promote the process, in particular with regards to border and territorial issues. After the signing of the 1991 Sino-Soviet Border Agreement which was recognized by China and Russia in 1992 after the collapse of the USSR, in the same year Decree of the President of the Russian Federation on Relations between the Russian Federation and Taiwan was signed by President Yeltsin. As the insistence on the One- China Principle serves as the most fundamental and principal basis for the political communication for China with any foreign country, it demonstrates a great leap of the Sino- Russian relations. In 1994, Russia and China signed the agreement on not targeting each other with nuclear weapons, which marked the hostility between two countries came to a complete end . The agreement on Western Section of Sino-Russian Border in 1994 is another progress in settling border issues. In 1995, Chinese President Jiang Zemin and Premier Li Peng successively visited Russia which greatly promoted a politically constructive partnership. While Russia reiterated its support for the One- China Principle and opposed Taiwan's application to the United Nations, and expressed its adherence to the Sino-Russian border agreements, the Chinese side supported Russia's stance in Chechen crisis and the Russia's participation in APEC. The historical facts show the developing political mutual trust between China and Russia in the 1990s and paved the way for the signing of the Shanghai Declaration.

3.2.2 The second approach: the mutual participation in regional affairs

The second approach contributing to the signing of the Shanghai Declaration is the mutual participation in regional issues. In the partnership culture, the process of constituting national interests and identities is not only limited to the state-to-state issues in the interaction between two countries, but also involves the bilateral interaction in the context of multilateral interaction at a more extensive level since the partnership culture is characterized with the fact that the actors show their willing to participate in regional and global issues as partners.

In view of that, the ways how the identities and national interest function leading to the multilateral cooperation such as the Shanghai Declaration are that, firstly, the preference of peaceful cooperation and the willing of the joint cooperation in the more boarder context are the reasons why they can become partners, so based on the recognition on their identities and national interests they naturally WILL jointly participate in the regional or global issues. Secondly, since they are partners, no matter in bilateral context or in the regional and global context, the cooperation in regional issues CAN go smoothly as the potential frictions and conflicts caused by ideological disputes and the imbalance of mutual interests due to inequality in the interaction can be avoided.

In conclusion, in the partnership culture not only the willing of participation in regional or global affairs serves a culturally internal force to drive China and Russia to define their identities as partners and their mutual interests as indispensable part of national interest, but also guarantees the highly possibility of the mutual cooperation in the broader context. Dating back to the joint statement signed in 1992, the significance of Sino- Russian cooperation in multilateral cooperation programs was recognized in the Article 9 as that two sides will work hard to promote peace, security, stability and prosperity in the Asia- Pacific region and the implementation of the bilateral or multilateral cooperation programs with aim of strengthening mutual understanding and economic development in Northeast Asia, and in the Article 10 that both sides will expand the bilateral consultations on international issues . When it comes to the joint statement in 1996 this intention became more obvious as that �International Peace and Development� and �Security and Cooperation in the Region of Asia and the Pacific� are outlined specifically as two out of the three main parts in this agreement . This intention was also presented in the Russian foreign policy in this period. Analyzing the materials from the Russian perspective a Chinese scholar ZHENG Yu observed the tendency of Russian foreign policy in the year of 1994, two year before the Shanghai Declaration, and made a conclusion on the tendency of Russian foreign policy in the 1990s that China is the key country in its strategy of cooperation in Asian- Pacific area: �the potential of Russian foreign policy is to activate itself in the Asia-Pacific region and collaborate with the United States, China, and Japan�; �We should continue to implement policies aiming at developing the most friendly and close ties with China." In general, the Russia's recognition on its foreign policy was �Russia not only hopes to develop relations with China to ensure the stability of its border areas, strengthen economic and trade cooperation, but also hopes that China will play a role in helping Russia participate in Asia-Pacific affairs and achieve a balance of global power �. Therefore, Russia realized the potential in cooperation with China in regional affairs, and the participation in Asia- Pacific enhanced the possibility of further cooperation in other regions.

In summary, the national interests and identities constituted based on the principles functioned through two approaches to achieve the consensus on the signing of the Shanghai Declaration. They promoted the political mutual trust building process between China and Russia in the 1990s, as the different political systems and values of the countries were not the threatening factor to the validity of the domestic social system. Also, as partners both sides were pushed to work together as an intrinsic requirement of the partnership culture. Besides, the dilution of ideological factors and the equality on identities and mutual interests could reduce the potential frictions between China and Russia and improved the efficiency of political communication and cooperation. All these factors can contribute to the signing of the Shanghai Declaration signed by China and Russia together with other three countries in Central Asia with the aim of border security.

Conclusion

The Sino- Russian relations in the 1990s have attracted the attention of the scholars as it marked a brand new phrase of the bilateral interaction as well as laid a solid foundation for a higher level of cooperation in the future, as what we can see today. The Shanghai Declaration is a biggest achievement in this phrase because it witnessed the breakthrough that the Sino- Russian relations stepped into a new stage with a deep political and military mutual trust. When it comes to the reasons leading to the signing of the Shanghai Declaration, it is usually considered in material terms such as the necessity of solving the historical border disputes, the demands of dealing with the challenges from domestic and global situation (for example, Russia needed to strive for the revitalization of the economic conditions, and the integrity of the state with the separatism in Chechen area). The great potential in cooperation was also a stimulus. What's more, the concern over the spreading of American influence in Central Asia was a possible explanation on what encouraged China and Russia to work together.

While the material perspective is a mainstream way to explain the reasons of the consensus on settling border security by multilateral negotiation, can the ideational factors also exert their influence in this process? How can the ideational factors play their roles in the bilateral relations? In order to answer these questions, with the help of the constructivism methodology, this research from the ideational perspective provided an explanation on how the Sino- Russian relations developed into a new stage of comparatively deep political and military mutual trust which is marked by the Shanghai Declaration. In this thesis shared ideas served as an entry point to explore how the different dynamics, national interests and identities, were constituted by the specific shared ideas and functioned in the behavior of these two countries, leading to a cooperative result as the signing of the Shanghai Declaration.

Since the definition of shared ideas remained obscure, the first part of the thesis was to provide the definition which was generalized based on Alexander Wendt's constructivism theory, 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.

As the definition of the shared ideas was concluded, the next step should be to define what the concrete shared ideas were between China and Russia so as to utilize the shared ideas as a lens to explain how national interests and identities were constituted to lead to a cooperative result.

According to the findings in this thesis, the form of the shared ideas that presented in the 1990s can be regarded as a �partnership culture�. Here the partnership culture I referred to is the culture based on the non-alignment principle and Five Principles of the Peaceful Coexistence with the recognition on to solve issues and disputes in a peaceful way, the respect on the different choices of social systems and ideologies; the importance of the comprehensive cooperation, and the willing to paying joint efforts to deal with regional and global issues. Therefore, although based on the official definition that in the early period of the 1990s, from 1992 to 1994, the Sino- Russian relations were only at a stage of �good-neighborly relations�, the requirements of a partnership culture were actually satisfied in this period.

Instead of focusing on what the national interests and identities were in details in the Sino- Russian relations, the thesis put the emphasis on the ways how the national interests and identities were constituted in the partnership culture in the 1990s, because these ways, the principles of constituting interests and identities in the thesis, demonstrate directly what the roles of shared ideas are - the roles of shared ideas are to constitute national interests and identities following the certain logics. Based on these principles, national interests and identities can be presented in different forms but the core of them remains the same and it leads to a certain consequence. As the specific form of shared ideas in the Sino- Russian relations can be defined as the partnership culture characterized with several characteristics, it can be explained that how shared ideas exert their influence on constituting the national interests and identities compared to the history of the Sino- Soviet Union. Two principles of constituting national interests and identities were concluded. Basically, in this culture the ideological differences are not longer the influential factors constituting the interests and identities. The ideological acknowledgement was neither a part of national interest nor a standard to identify countries. The second principle is that the mutual interests and identities are constituted based on equality and respect as an intrinsic requirement.

Since the national interests and identities were constituted based on these two principles, the next step was to figure out how the national interest and identities with certain features function. As the process towards the Shanghai Declaration can be divided into two tracks, the process of political mutual trust building and the process of bilateral participation in regional affairs, the task was to explain how the national interests and identities contributed to promote these two processes. As what was summarized in the final chapter, the different political systems and values of the countries in this partnership culture were not the threatening factor to the validity of the domestic social system, and it was required by their identities as partners that both sides needed to cooperate in the regional affairs. Besides, because of the dilution of ideological factors and the equality on identities and mutual interests, on the tracks to the Shanghai Declaration there would be fewer obstacles and better efficiency of political communication and cooperation. All these factors which were shaped by the shared ideas between China and Russia as the partnership culture paved the way to the Shanghai Declaration.

What needs to be highlighted is that this thesis provided an explanation on how shared ideas can lead to a cooperation preference by constituting national interests and identities with regards to the Sino- Russian relations in the 1990s after the collapse of the USSR. The characteristics of partnership culture, the ways how the national interests and identities were constituted and how these dynamics functioned in political mutual trust building and the willing of joint participation in multilateral issues were explained based on a macroscopic but not a comprehensive perspective. More exactly, this thesis only provided a possible new perspective of understanding the Sino- Russian relations by explaining how the optimistic dynamics functioned in paving the way to the Shanghai Declaration, but it did not provide an more detailed explanation on why the negative sides still existed in the partnership culture but did not impede the trend towards to cooperation. For example, why did the �yellow peril� caused by military strategic and political factors emerge in Far East again in the 1990s in the positive trend of the mutual political building? These kinds of questions still remain to be solved. Considering this point, this thesis just put forward an initial attempt to understand the bilateral relations from an ideational perspective, and more researches should be done in the future to improve the more comprehensive ideational approaches to the studies of Sino- Russian relations.

Bibliography

1.Agreement between Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and China on Confidence Building in the Military Field in the Border Area, URL: https://peacemaker.un.org/regional-confidencebuildingborders96

2.China and Russia: partnership of strategic coordination, URL https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/ziliao_665539/3602_665543/3604_665547/t18028.shtml

3.Joint Declaration by the People's Republic of China and the Russian Federation, adopted at Beijing on 25 April 1996, URL: https://www.un.org/documents/ga/docs/51/plenary/a51-127.htm

4.Wendt Alexander. Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge University Press, 1999

5.�s?�����⑊��?�n��?��?�X?���n(1992�N12��), URL: http://www.cctv.com/special/903/6/70491.html

6.�s����?�X?���n(1994�N9��), URL: http://www.cctv.com/special/903/6/70503.html

7.Gleason Gregory. Policy Dimensions of West Asian Borders after the Shanghai Accord. Asian Perspective, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 107-131. Published by: Lynne Rienner Publishers

8.Luan Jinghe. A Survey of Research on the �Causes of Rupture of the Friendly Relations Between China and the Soviet Union, Contemporary China History Studies, Vol.14 No.6, 2007

9.Lorena Di Placido. Origins, Development, and Consolidation of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization after the Bishkek Summit, Vol. 6, No. 3 (Fall 2007), pp. 62-81. Published by Partnership for Peace Consortium of Defense Academies and Security Studies Institutes.

��������� �� Allbest.ru