JU ORLINDU African Direction in the Foreign Policy of the Russian Federation

DOI 10.35775/PSI.2019.32.2.012

JU ORLINDU Post-graduate student working for the Master’s Degree at the Chair of theory and history of international relations, Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia, Guinea-Bissau

AFRICAN DIRECTION IN THE FOREIGN POLICY OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

In his article, the author attempts to scientifically analyze and understand the problems of cooperation between Russia and the countries of the African continent in the diplomatic, economic, trade, ideological and other areas of cooperation. The construction of relations between the USSR and the countries of the African continent began after the end of the WW2 and was caused, first of all, by the need to find allies in various parts of the planet. In the postwar years and until 1990, cooperation developed most actively, in several directions at once. Specialists from the USSR were engaged in the training of the local people, building of factories and the economy as a whole, social security and resolution of the regional disputes, etc. But, unfortunately, since the collapse of the Soviet Union and to the present day, cooperation has not been restored to the previous level, primarily due to the fact that the vacant niches were occupied by the Western countries.

Key words: African countries, USSR, Russian Federation, education, cooperation, economy, ideology.

Until the mid-1950s, Africa occupied no place in the USSR foreign affairs agenda. First of all, this was due to the fact that previously the Soviet Union was engaged in the post-war reconstruction of the country, the development of the nuclear project and other defense projects, which significantly limited its financial and other resources. In addition, until the 50s, many African countries remained colonies.

The growing cold war between the USSR and the USA, the two major powers, forced the Soviet Union to expand its spheres of influence primarily due to the need to have allies in different parts of the world, as well as to spread its own ideology in different regions of the world [1].

The destruction of the colonial system in Africa was considered by the USSR as a transformation of these countries from colonies into a vulnerable place of the world imperialism. In the 1950s, this trend forced the USSR leadership to deploy national liberation movements in the African countries and turn them into a part of the world revolutionary process. The leaders of these countries were perceived by the leadership of the USSR as allies in the struggle against imperialism, regardless of their political orientation and attitude to the Marxist-Leninist ideology.

K. Nkrumah wrote that “the Soviet Union supports the independence of African countries by virtue of the very nature of its state and constitution.”

It was very logical, since the USSR had no colonial past and its constituting republics, first of all, the Central Asian republics were its full members and in fact were in many ways subsidized from Moscow. The USSR pursued in its Asian republics a policy of industrialization, built enterprises, schools and hospitals, and engaged in the development of these territories and their unification into a single industrial complex of the Soviet state [3. P. 54-69].

Western countries, on the contrary, largely pursued a policy of genocide in the colonies that belonged to them, engaged in blatant robbery, organized internecine wars, took out available resources, etc. In addition, the people of Africa remembered the slave trade, when people were loaded into ships and transported to the metropolises as a free labor force, kept in inhuman conditions.

In view of the above factors, cooperation and interaction with the USSR seemed to many of them to be a logical choice on the road to freedom, democracy and industrial development of their countries with the help of powerful technological support and assistance from the USSR. The leaders of the Soviet state were opponents of neocolonialism.

The USSR did not seek any special privileges or rights in African countries or in other parts of the world, did not claim the wealth of the African countries and did not attempt to appropriate the minerals or hydrocarbons, which were later found and developed in such countries as Egypt, Sudan, Angola and others. That is why the policy of the Soviet Union met with complete understanding and response from the local population, as well as from many government leaders.

The rapid post-war economic growth of the USSR, as well as the socio-economic basis that was laid by the leaders of the Soviet state at home have become very attractive for the African countries, that have just gained independence from their metropolises.

Consequently, the USSR declared that its main slogan in Africa was anti-imperialist direction based on decolonization, as well as the need to recognize the rights of African peoples to national liberation and their struggle against the fascist aggression, carried out in the 30s of XX century. The main factor in the formation of the liberation movements in African countries was the end of the Second World War and the defeat of the fascist Germany by the USSR by. This led to a sharp weakening of the “imperialist forces” on the African continent [4. P. 37-43].

After the establishment of the United Nations - the UN, at the initiative of the USSR, the foreign affairs agencies from the UN tribunes lobbied the draft UN Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. To this end, for the development of the Declaration, a Committee of Ten was established, comprising India, Indonesia, Japan, Lebanon, Iraq, Ghana, Guinea, the United Arab Republic (UAR), Morocco and Ethiopia.

The position of the USSR and its intransigence with colonialism had a significant impact on the position of “neutral countries.” This served as a powerful incentive for African leaders to reject the original draft resolution, which contained only the general principles of decolonization, without any substantial specifics. On November 28, 1960, the leaders of African countries introduced for the UN discussion a more radical draft declaration on the independence of colonial countries and peoples, which, by its principles and essence was very close to a similar project proposed by the USSR. As a result of the vote, the project proposed by the Afro-Asian side was adopted without specifying dates for granting independence.

The USSR was building its policy in Africa on the principle of equality, both in the political and in the socio-economic spheres. The Soviet Union opposed the attempts of the imperialist countries to transform the African continent into a region of military-political confrontation. The USSR proclaimed the principles of the absence of racism, fight against backwardness, poverty and apartheid on the continent. It was also declared that the imperialist countries were trying to justify the killing of Africans by the struggle with the Soviet Union [5. P. 157-186].

The year 1960 went down in history as the “Year of Africa”, because in that year 17 independent states appeared on the world map. But the “cold war” imposed by the countries of the West and, above all, the USA, left its imprint on the cooperation with the newly formed states.

The split of the world community into two opposing camps forced the leadership of the USSR and the USA to build not only defense policy inside their countries, but also to acquire as many allies as possible all over the planet. It can be concluded that the interaction with the African countries was built primarily on an allianment basis. The USSR developed long-term programs of interaction with the African countries and formed the necessary regulatory framework.

The USSR established cultural and scientific cooperation with the countries of Africa and provided for the exchange of experience in the field of science and technology, interaction between scientists, students, researchers, specialists, etc. Under the programs of scientific exchange, African scientists were invited to improve their skills at the Soviet research centers. Substantial assistance was given in the preparation of students, contacts were established between research libraries and other research institutions, there was mutual recognition of diplomas of higher educational, scientific degrees, etc. [6].

After some time, such cooperation became an integrated and streamlined mechanism based on the development of appropriate programs and regulatory support. This led to the mutual understanding between peoples and the development of cultural interaction, which allowed to reduce internal tensions between African countries, a remnant of the colonial past.

In those historical conditions, there was an urgent need to train qualified specialists in all branches of scientific knowledge, with which educational programs and universities of the USSR successfully coped, taking African students to study, and also sending their teachers to various countries to work there.

The Soviet representatives also actively studied in African countries. First of all, they studied local history, languages, mentality, peculiarities of the past political system, traditions and customs, culture, etc. It was necessary, first of all, to help specialists from the Soviet Union to adapt favorably in the local environment and level out possible misunderstandings and conflicts with the local population [9. P. 613-622].

At that time, such branch as “Soviet African studies” was developed, which is still one of the important components of modern historical science. African studies examines the issues associated with the peculiarities of the socio-economic development of the African countries, specifics of their political organization, the consequences of colonialism, the formation of national policies, etc. Soviet specialists obtained an invaluable experience of cooperation and interaction, which can be used at present.

The Soviet Union had a significant influence on the formation of the modern intelligentsia in African countries, who were supposed to be supporters of socialist ideology in these territories. These people received a really high-quality Soviet education, allowing them to bring benefits to their homeland. Many of those students still have fond memories of the USSR, retaining them throughout their lives.

From 1957 to 1990, the USSR helped to train more than 400,000 qualified specialists from African countries. 15 African countries received significant assistance in building their own educational systems, as well as in the direct construction of secondary special and higher educational institutions [11].

Thus, it can be said that the USSR made a decisive contribution to the development of the African countries, primarily by defeating fascist Germany, which made it possible to remove the shackles of colonialism.

Later, until 1990, the policy of the USSR towards African states was, by and large, stable, but during the period of perestroika and further on, from the moment of the collapse of the Soviet Union, the situation began to change dramatically. In the first half of the 90s, there was a collapse of relations with African states. The Russian Federation not only withdrew its troops from the GDR, but also left the countries with which it was connected by the warmest friendly relations that had previously been the scene of confrontation between the two superpowers, the USSR and the USA.

Curtailing interests around the world was presented as a lack of further need for confrontation with the United States and Western countries. With the destruction of the USSR, the leadership of Russia pinned hopes on the fact that the new Russia will join the world capitalist community on the principles of equal membership and mutually beneficial cooperation. But in reality, everything turned out differently. NATO began an active policy of moving eastward, right up to the borders of Russia, as well as destabilizing the political situation in the North Caucasus.

In the new realities, the main task of the country's leadership was to prevent the “parade of sovereignties” and the break of Russia as a patchwork quilt to smaller states, contrary to the policies of many “appanage princes" eager to separate their territories from Russia, as the sole owners. This might have led to the final elimination of the Russian statehood and the establishment of a unipolar world.

The countries of Africa took the collapse of the USSR extremely negatively. First of all because they had lost a single center that ensured peace, tranquility and prosperity in their land. In addition, African countries were losing a source of material and military-political assistance. Moreover, many were worried about a return to the colonial past, since it was the position of the USSR that allowed African states to free themselves from colonialism.

The withdrawal of the USSR from Africa also caused certain concerns among African government leaders about the policies of the United States and Western countries regarding their countries. And the result was not long in coming. With the tacit consent of the United States, France and Belgium provoked the genocide in Rwanda, during which from April 8 to July 14, 1994, about a million inhabitants were killed. The Belgian military planned the Hutu tribal aggression against the Tutsi tribe by inciting propaganda through the media, and also provided military and political support for the mass genocide.

The Belgium and the United Nations military left Rwanda at the height of the genocide leaving the warring tribes alone. The United States and the United Nations have chosen not to intervene in this situation. As a result of this bloodshed, at least 10,000 people died daily. After that, Rwanda for a long time plunged into chaos and destruction. Massive diseases, the HIV epidemic, etc., have left a long lasting mark on Rwanda’s history and have set back its development for several decades.

Of course, if the USSR were present on the continent and had the same influence, there could be no act of such a genocide. In connection with the above, it can be concluded that the withdrawal of the USSR from Africa turned into a tragedy for many states almost immediately in the first years after the collapse of the Soviet state.

After analyzing the 1993 foreign policy concept of the Russian Federation it can be concluded that the country's leadership was not interested in preserving and further developing relations with African states. Africa was in the ninth place out of ten in the list of interests of the Russian Federation on the world stage.

That document stated that it was necessary to develop relations with those African countries that may be sales markets for the Russian products and those that may become its suppliers of raw materials. Nothing was said about the former ideological, socio-economic or political cooperation. The foreign policy strategy has changed radically, the ideological component was not to be extended to any other country, but it was also prohibited within the Russian Federation, as is clear from its main law, the Constitution [7. P. 14-37].

The main principles of the new Russia’s foreign policy after the collapse of the USSR with regard to the African states were as follows:

– strengthening the security of the Russian Federation;

– ensuring the earliest transition of the Russian Federation to a market economy, through the development of trade relations with African countries;

– successful integration of the Russian Federation into the world community, including the development of cooperation with African countries;

– readiness of the Russian Federation to maintain stability at the global level, preventing and resolving both internal and external conflicts.

In fact, there has been a shift in the vector of interaction with the countries of the West and the United States in the ideological, political, trade and economic spheres. As a result, the countries of the West and the United States received significant levers of influence on the countries of Africa, which previously carried out close cooperation with the USSR.

Upon the collapse of the Soviet Union, the end of the cold war and the arms race, there was no need to spend huge sums on military budgets. And the countries of Africa hoped that in view of this, even greater funds would be allocated for their development. However, this did not happen, since the reduction of the military budget occurred only in the new Russia and the former Soviet republics. The United States did not reduce its military budget and only increased it in all the following years [8. P. 8-25].

But the countries of the West and the USA, nevertheless, changed their attitude towards some African countries. Many regimes that were considered authoritarian were burdensome in the new realities and the ideals of democracy declared by the Western countries were contrary to the political attitudes of the authoritarian African leaders. Therefore, due to the lack of inter-bloc confrontation, these regimes have lost their relevance and their financing has ceased to be justified. As a result, the leaders of authoritarian states were invited to join the democratization process, especially given that in many African states all the necessary conditions have already matured.

However, in the second half of the 90s, the leadership of the new Russia came to realize and understand the fact that a unipolar world poses a danger to all human development. The ruling elites have an understanding that the loss of allies around the world has led to the fact that Russia has lost its ability to influence the world situation.

The first direction on the path of reorientation to a multipolar world structure and its own national interests, different from the interests of the Western countries and the United States, was the 1994 Concept of Russian policy in Africa. That Concept emphasized that Russia was objectively interested in cooperation with African countries in the framework of joint strengthening of global security. The development of political contacts and interaction at various levels was envisaged to implement such strategy [10. P. 54-59].

In addition, the Concept encouraged cooperation of certain regions of the Russian Federation with the African continent. Various non-state forms of cooperation, such as the development of entrepreneurship and private business, received encouragement.

Further on, the Foreign Policy Concept adopted in the 2000s mentioned cooperation with the African countries on the periphery, ahead of only Latin American countries. Only a few sentences in the whole Concept were devoted to the cooperation with African countries, stressing the necessity to develop cooperation in the sphere of settling military conflicts, as well as connecting the Russian Federation to economic processes on the African continent.

The document also drew attention to the economic backwardness of the African continent, having large economic potential, rich in natural resources, it also pointed to the possibility of influencing the outcome of the UN vote when solving international issues.

The next concept of the Russian foreign policy was approved by decree of the President D.A. Medvedev on July 15, 2008. In it, Africa was still in the penultimate place, being ahead of only the countries of Latin America. The document noted that the Russian Federation and African countries need to develop cooperation in the settlement of regional conflicts, as well as developing political interaction in order to connect the Russian Federation withg the economic processes in the region.

The 2013 Concept of the Russian foreign policy puts Africa on the last place in the list of national foreign policy interests, even after the Latin American countries. The concept proposes to focus on “improving political dialogue and promoting mutually beneficial trade and economic cooperation, the assistance to the settlement and prevention of regional conflicts and crisis situations in Africa. An important part of this direction is the development of partnership relations with the African Union and subregional organizations [2].”

Such foreign policy in respect of the African states has several causes. First, the leadership of the Russian Federation is fully aware that since the collapse of the USSR, more than 20 years ago, other countries, primarily the United States, the EU member states, China and others have long ago gained influence on the African continent. It is quite difficult for the Russian Federation in its present economic and political realities to push them off the African political arena. Secondly, the Russian Federation does not receive proposals on mutually beneficial cooperation from the African states.

But, in recent years, the government of the Russian Federation began to pay more and more attention to the African countries. There was a dialogue between the BRIC group and the Republic of South Africa. Russia is looking for new partners from the non-Western countries to develop mutually beneficial trade cooperation and is ready to allow products from certain African countries into its market. In 2009, when the President of the Russian Federation D.А. Medvedev toured Africa (Nigeria, Angola, Egypt and Namibia), he voiced the thesis that the cooperation with the African countries was overdue. The relations of the Russian Federation with many African states have not been interrupted since the collapse of the USSR and have decades of active interaction in various fields.

At present, the Russian Federation is attempting to regain its lost influence, if not in all, then at least in some African countries that was lost after the collapse of the USSR. First of all, this is cooperation in the development of important sectors of the economy in which the Russian Federation has a competitive advantage over leading world powers. For this end, debts of some African states, worth more than US$ 20 billion were written off.

The countries of Africa and the Russian Federation have objective prerequisites for the development of a multilateral cooperation. First of all, their positions on strengthening global security, expanding economic cooperation, providing humanitarian assistance and other issues coincide. The leaders of African countries realize that the modern world order should be multipolar and without an active participation of the Russian Federation the stability of the regional system in terms of economy and security will be incomplete.

Thus, it can be stated that in real geopolitical and economic realities the Russian Federation is building a foreign policy strategy in Africa with the account for historical and economic realities. The relationships on the continent have shifted from ideological confrontation to the mutually beneficial cooperation in various fields.

REFERENCES:

1. Aziya i Afrika v sovremennoy mirovoy politike. Sbornik statey / Otv. red. D.B. Malysheva, A.A. Rogozhin [Asia and Africa in modern world politics. Collection of articles / Edited by. D.B. Malysheva, A.A. Rogozhin]. M.: IMEMO RAN, 2012.

2. Afrika: okruzhayushchaya sreda i chelovek (narastaniye sotsio-ekologicheskogo krizisa) / Otv. red. i ruk. avtorskogo kollektiva V.I. Gusarov [Africa: the environment and the man (increase of socio-ecological crisis) / Executive editor and head of the group of authors V.I. Gusarov]. Moscow: Institute of African Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences, 2013.

3. Bogaturov A.D. Tri pokoleniya vneshnepoliticheskikh doktrin Rossii [Three generations of foreign policy doctrines of Russia] // International processes. 2007. Vol. 5. No. 13.

4. Borisov I.S. Evolyutsiya vneshney politiki SSSR i RF na afrikanskom napravlenii v kontse 80-kh – nachale 90-kh godov // Novaya rol' Rossii v mire i Afrike (po materialam mezhdunarodnoy konferentsii na temu «Rossiya i novoye mezhdunarodnoye partnerstvo dlya Afriki», aprel' 1994 g.) [The evolution of the foreign policy of the USSR and the Russian Federation in the African direction in the late 80s - early 90s // New role of Russia in the world and Africa (according to the materials of the international conference "Russia and a new international partnership for Africa", April 1994)]. M.: In-t of Africa, 1995.

5. Vysotskaya N.I. Raspad SSSR i yego vliyaniye na Afriku // Novaya rol' Rossii v mire i Afrike (po materialam mezhdunarodnoy konferentsii na temu «Rossiya i novoye mezhdunarodnoye partnerstvo dlya Afriki», aprel' 1994 g.) [The collapse of the USSR and its impact on Africa // New role of Russia in the world and Africa (according to the materials of the international conference “Russia and a new international partnership for Africa”, April 1994)]. M.: In-t of Africa, 1995.

6. Gromyko An.A. Vneshnepoliticheskiy kurs Sovetskogo Soyuza i Afrika. Doklad na sovetsko-afrikanskoy nauchno-politicheskoy konferentsii «Za mir i sotsial'nyy progress». Moskva, 13-16 oktyabrya 1981 g. [Foreign policy of the Soviet Union and Africa. Report at the Soviet-African scientific and political conference “For peace and social progress.” Moscow, October 13-16, 1981]. M.: INION, 1981.

7. Egorov V.V. Osnovaniya identichnosti postsovetskikh politicheskikh rezhimov [Foundations of the identity of the post-Soviet political regimes] // Obosrevatel – Observer. 2013. No. 11.

8. Linetsky A.I. Raznoobraziye politicheskikh sistem kak sledstviye razlichiy v povedenii lyudey [A variety of political systems as a result of differences in the behavior of people] // Policy. Political studies. 2013. No. 6.

9. Mazov S.V. Kvame Frensis Nvia Kofi Nkruma // Istoriya Afriki v biografiyakh / Pod obshch. red. A. Davidsona [Kwame Francis Nvia Kofi Nkrumah // The History of Africa in Biographies / Edited by A. Davidson]. M.: Russian State Humanities University, 2012.

10. Sokova Z.N. Byurokratiya Zapadnoy Afriki v postkolonial'nyy period: ideyno-politicheskiye oriyentatsii [West African bureaucracy in the postcolonial period: ideological and political orientations] // Bulletin of Tyumen State University. 2012. No. 2.

11. Shvedov A.A. Nezavisimaya Afrika: vneshnepoliticheskiye problemy, diplomaticheskaya bor'ba / Pod obshch. red. i s predisl. An.A. Gromyko [Independent Africa: foreign policy problems, diplomatic struggle / Edited by and with the foreword of An.A. Gromyko]. M.: Politizdat, 1983.

KONG DEKUN The Concept of Greater Eurasian Partnership and “One Belt and One Road” Initiative

DOI 10.35775/PSI.2019.32.2.011

KONG DEKUN Post-graduate student at the Chair of political sciences of the Far Eastern Federal University, Vladivostok, Russiа

THE CONCEPT OF GREATER EURASIAN PARTNERSHIP AND “ONE BELT AND ONE ROAD”INITIATIVE

Today, the world is in the midst of a tremendous change. The concept of the “Great Eurasian Partnership” is an attempt by Russia to go beyond the framework of traditional foreign policy thinking focused on the USA and the West, the result of a breakthrough, as well as a diplomatic direction, a strategy of economic development in the new conditions. Connecting the concept with the initiative of international cooperation “One Belt and One Road” is one of the key factors for its implementation.

Key words: “Great Eurasian Partnership”, “One Belt and One Road”, conjugation of strategies, Sino-Russian relations.

Today the world is in the midst of colossal changes: the rise of China, the recovering economy of Russia, the depletion of the potential of the liberal model of development of the West, the imbalance and inequality in development. All this leads to the establishment of relations between the major powers and the reorganization of the world order. Developed countries need new and more favorable rules for themselves, since the old global economic rules can no longer meet the needs of developed countries.The globalization participants demand a fairer and more rational trade order and are actively involved in creating a new global economic order. Competition between developed countries, the United States and Europe, as well as new powers, such as China and Russia, are inevitable. Countries and regions have their own plans for responding to the current situation. The concept of the “Great Eurasian Partnership” and “One Belt and One Road” are the initiatives of international cooperation proposed by Russia and China to respond to changes in the international economic situation in the new environment.

The works of Russian and foreign authors [1; 4; 10], published in recent years, cover a wide range of issues in this subject area.

1.1. The initiative “One Belt and One Road”: the China concept of international cooperation.

In September – October 2013, Chinese President Xi Jinping launched the “One Belt and One Road” International Cooperation Initiative. In recent years, this initiative has been adopted and supported by an increasing number of countries and international organizations. The initiative of international cooperation “One Belt and One Road” has different internal meanings not only for China, but also for international partners.

The “One Belt and One Road” Initiative is very important for China. China's reform and opening up policy has entered a new era, it is necessary to promote economic and social development with new methods. In addition, it is necessary to coordinate economic, political, cultural, social and eco-civilizational construction. Firstly, “One Belt and One Road” based on openness refers to the economic and social development of the country and the region. From the point of view of the world economy, the concept is based on the country and regions and is aimed at the resolution of social and economic problems. Secondly, after 40 years of reform and opening up, China’s economy is largely integrated into the global and regional economies, rapprochement with the global economy has been achieved, synchronous development with the regional economies and synergetic development became the main principle [9].

For the world community, “The Belt and One Road” is an initiative of international cooperation released by China. The main starting point is promotion of regional economic development by strengthening cooperation with neighboring countries and regions in the areas of construction of infrastructure, production capacities, progressive facilitation of trade and creation of development opportunities and conditions for China and its partners. The main principle of cooperation is mutual benefit, common development and common prosperity. The main method of implementing joint projects is joint consultations, joint construction and joint use.

To this end, it is necessary to strengthen political communication between the governments and close contacts between people. It is worth noting that the Chinese government, standing up for the joint construction of the “One Belt and One Road,” fully takes into account the interests of its partners and does not pursue maximization of personal interests, striving for mutual benefit. China does not unilaterally sell goods and production facilities to its partners by building “Belt and Road,” but is seeking a bilateral campaign to sell Chinese goods, technologies and capital to foreign countries, moreover, it welcomes and creates conditions for attracting foreign capital, technologies, goods and services to China. China is ready to share its development experience with the countries of the world, but will not interfere in their public affairs, will not export social systems or development models, will not impose them on others. We will promote the construction of “One Belt and One Road,” thus we will not repeat the old strategies. In this regard, “The Belt and the Road” initiative is understood, accepted and supported by an increasing number of countries, the number of participants is increasing daily.

1. The concept of the “Great Eurasian Partnership” is a new strategy for responding to the global change in Russia.

The October Revolution and the collapse of the Soviet Union were two greatest events of the 20th century. The collapse of the Soviet Union caused fundamental changes in the geopolitical situation in the world.

A prerequisite for the revival of Russia is the implementation of integration in the post-Soviet space. After many difficulties, in 2015, the Eurasian Economic Union received an official launch and achieved concrete results in the process of implementing the integration of the post-Soviet space. The world economic environment is difficult to imagine without the development of Russia and the Eurasian Economic Union within the framework of economic globalization. The developed countries stand for the development of new economic rules that are beneficial for them, but Russia is excluded from the list of drafters. As a former power, Russia cannot accept the reality of such exclusion.

A large Eurasian partnership is an important concept of cooperation put forward by Russia in the new situation, which can be called a joint initiative. This concept was first proposed by a Russian scientist Sergey Karaganov in an interview published in Rossiyskaya Gazeta under the title “Chinese wind blows into our sails” on May 31, 2015 [3]. Karaganov made it clear that China and Russia are creating a new community – Greater Eurasia, in order to define a new type of partnership between China and Russia and interpret the content of Greater Eurasia. This bold idea did not attract the attention of the scientific community at the beginning, because for Russia the most important thing is to realize an economic integration of the post-Soviet space. The so-called post-Soviet space, often called the Eurasia, can only be “Eurasia in the narrow sense.”

In December 2015, in his message on the situation in the country, President Vladimir Putin noted: “I propose, together with colleagues from the Eurasian Economic Union, to begin consultations with the members of the SCO and ASEAN, as well as with the states that join the SCO, on the formation of a possible economic partnership [5]. In May 2016, during the meeting of the heads of the delegations participating in the Russia-ASEAN summit, Vladimir Putin said: “it is necessary to create in perspective a common free trade zone between the Eurasian Union and ASEAN as a whole.” Another promising area of regional economic integration could be the conjunction of the Eurasian Economic Union, the ASEAN Community, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the Silk Road Economic Belt [8]. Also the Sochi Declaration, signed at the same time, clearly stated: “Consider the possibility of mutually beneficial cooperation between ASEAN, the EAEU and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO)” and “the prospects for creating a comprehensive free trade zone between the EAEU and ASEAN [6]”.

If the successful activity of the Eurasian Economic Union, headed by Russia, opens up the process of Euro-Asian integration, the proposal to create a relationship of a large Eurasian partnership indicates that the Russian economic and diplomatic strategy to “turn to the East” has already been formed. It should be noted that the so-called “turn to the East” is not just a turn to China, Japan and South Korea, it focuses on the entire Asia-Pacific region and focuses on cooperation with China, ASEAN countries and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization member countries. Russia and the Eurasian Economic Union are jointly developing cooperation with countries and regions of the Asia-Pacific region.

2. Chinese-Russian cooperation aimed at conjunction goes to a new economic partnership.

It was China that was the first to respond to the Russian initiative “The Great Eurasian Partnership.” The Joint Statement [7] noted: “Russia and China are in favor of creating a Eurasian comprehensive partnership based on the principles of openness, transparency and consideration of mutual interests, including the possible involvement of the member countries of the EAEU, SCO and ASEAN. In this regard, the heads of state instructed the governments of the two countries to work through the competent agencies and propose measures to implement this initiative in order to facilitate the deepening of integration processes in the region”.

We focus on several important principles: 1. The basis for creating the Eurasian partnership is openness, transparency and consideration for mutual interests. 2. The main participants in the initial period are China-Russia, the Eurasian Economic Union, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the ASEAN member states. 3. The goal of the Eurasian Partnership is to deepen regional integration.

Thus, both countries will seek further expansion of bilateral trade exchanges, devoting themselves to creating a fairer, more transparent and convenient trading and investment environment for joint promotion of regional economic development.

Cooperation between China and Russia in the process of building a Eurasian economic partnership determines the perspective of this process. Chinese and Russian scientists and experts reached a consensus on some basic principles in the consultation process on the Eurasian partnership (or the “Greater Eurasian Partnership” or the “Eurasian Economic Partnership”), namely: sovereign equality, non-interference in internal affairs, respect for the country's development options, respect for the national cultural traditions, tolerance, mutual learning and mutual benefit.

According to the consensus reached and the “One Belt and One Road” principle, the future Eurasian Economic Partnership will follow the rules of the multilateral trade of the World Trade Organization and will facilitate trade and investments; strengthen the construction of transport infrastructure, create regional cross-border transport corridors; strengthen energy cooperation and environmental protection; promote the development of agricultural cooperation; explore cooperation in the field of scientific and technological innovation. The construction of the Eurasian economic partnership should also be based on the principle of mutual cooperation, joint construction and joint use. The results of the consultations should ensure growth and motivation for the development of the countries and regions. Only in this way can countries achieve mutual benefit, common development and mutual prosperity.

In the process of establishing or forming an economic partnership, the development of interfacing strategies between China and Russia is a key element. China and Russia, the Eurasian Economic Union and ASEAN are three important economies. The development of a combination of strategies between China and the Eurasian Economic Union, led by Russia, will lead to the creation of a Eurasian economic partnership. This is due not only to the fact that China is more likely to negotiate and discuss partnership issues with Russia and the Eurasian Economic Union. The creation of a Eurasian economic partnership cannot go smoothly, there may be unexpected difficulties and unforeseen problems.

First, Russia is concerned that China’s vast economy will influence the integration process of the Eurasian Economic Union, the competitiveness of the Chinese goods will put an enormous economic pressure on the economy of the Eurasian Economic Union and delay the speed of cooperation between the two sides. After the expansion of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, controversies between China and India, India and Pakistan may force internal cooperation and advisory mechanisms to face the challenge. In recent years, negotiations between China and Russia, as well as between China and the member states of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization on the creation of a free trade zone have been very difficult. However, there are favorable conditions for establishing a Eurasian economic partnership between China and Russia. First, Russia recognizes the importance and indispensability of China’s participation. These two countries have sufficient aspirations and wisdom in this regard. Secondly, the economic complementarity between China and Russia is very strong, including the complementarity of resources, markets, technology, product structure, etc. This complementarity can be a huge potential for the mutually beneficial cooperation. Thirdly, China and Russia have perfect mechanisms for consultations and meetings.

Fourthly, there are points of convergence between the development strategies of the two countries, especially in terms of developing regional strategies, such as the development of the Russian Far East and the revival of China's Dongbei.

Since the beginning of 2014, thanks to the development of energy strategies of the two countries, Russia has become the largest importer of oil to China. China has made significant progress in diversifying energy imports. Russia has successfully opened the Asia-Pacific energy market: in the area of regional cooperation, Russia was somewhat worried that the construction of the “Silk Road Economic Belt” would affect the prospects of the Siberian railway. Now Primorye-1 and Primorye-2 make the transport infrastructure of the Russian Far East an important link in the Asia-Pacific region, increase Russia's influence on the economic development of the Asia-Pacific region, and at the same time provide new ideas for the development of the Far East.

Thus, the existing political and economic relations between China and the countries of the Eurasian Economic Union, the level of business cooperation between China and the ASEAN countries, the reality of cooperation between Russia and the ASEAN countries make us believe in the prospect of the conjugation of “One Belt and One Road” with the Eurasian partnership. The implementation of the integration of the Greater Eurasian Partnership (Eurasian Partnership, Eurasian Economic Partnership) with the initiative “One Belt and One Road” is quite possible. The most important part of this process is the Sino-Russian negotiations on the Eurasian economic partnership.

REFERENCES:

1. Abramova O.D. Sotrudnichestvo Rossii i Kitaya v usloviyakh realizatsii proyekta «Ekonomicheskiy poyas Shelkovogo puti» [Cooperation of Russia and China in the implementation of the project “Economic Belt of the Silk Road”] // Eurasian Union: Issues of International Relations. 2017. No. 3 (In Russ.).

2. Buyanov V.S. BRIKS kak strategicheskiy proyekt [BRICS as a strategic project] // Eurasian Union: Issues of International Relations. 2017. No. 1 (In Russ.).

3. Kitayskiy veter duyet v nashi parusa. Kitay i Rossiya sozdayut novoye soobshchestvo – Bol'shuyu Yevraziyu [Chinese wind blows in our sails. China and Russia are creating a new community – Greater Eurasia]. 31 May 2015 // https://rg.ru/2015/05/31/evrazia-site.html (In Russ.).

4. Mikhaylenko A.N. Sopryazheniye yevraziyskoy integratsii i kitayskogo proyekta «Odin poyas – odin put'» [Conjugation of Eurasian integration and the Chinese project “One Belt - One Road”] // Eurasian Union: Issues of International Relations. 2018. No. 1 (In Russ.).

5. Poslaniye Prezidenta Rossiyskoy Federatsii [Message from the President] of the Russian Federation dated 12/03/2015, b/n. December 3, 2015 // http://www.kremlin.ru/acts/bank/40542 (In Russ.).

6. Rossiya i ASEAN: glavnyye tezisy dvukhdnevnogo dialoga [Russia and ASEAN: the main theses of the two-day dialogue]. 21 May 2016 // https://tass.ru/ekonomika/3301849 (In Russ.).

7. «Sovmestnoye zayavleniye Rossiyskoy Federatsii i Kitayskoy Narodnoy Respubliki» [“Joint Statement of the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China”]. 25 June 2016 // http://www.kremlin.ru/supplement/5100 (In Russ.).

8. Vladimir Putin prinyal uchastiye vo vstreche s predstavitelyami Delovogo foruma Rossiya – ASEAN [Vladimir Putin took part in a meeting with representatives of the Russia-ASEAN Business Forum]. 20 May 2016 // http://putinnews.ru/main/3275-Vladimir-Putin-prinjal-uchastie.html (In Russ.).

9. Vystupleniye Si TSzin'pina na sobranii 40-letiya politiki reformy i otkrytiya [Speech by Xi Jinping at the 40th anniversary meeting of the reform and opening policy]. 18 December 2018 // http://www.xinhuanet.com/politics/leaders/2018-12/18/c_1123872025.htm (In Russ.).

10. Yan Jing Sovremennoye sostoyaniye rossiysko-kitayskogo sotrudnichestva v neftegazovoy sfere [The current state of Russian-Chinese cooperation in the oil and gas sector] // Questions of national and federal relations. 2017. № 4 (In Russ.).