Russia-China Relations with Alexander Gabuev

On March 21st, 2018, students of the Tsinghua-SAIS Dual Degree Program met with Alexander Gabuev, chair of the Russia in the Asia-Pacific Program at the Carnegie Moscow Center, for the inaugural spring session of Policy Research in a Simulated Think Tank. The Carnegie Endowment’s youngest senior fellow, Mr. Gabuev has led an impressive career, having previously served as deputy foreign editor of Kommersant and deputy editor in chief of Kommersant-Vlast, both after working as a senior diplomatic reporter and member of president Dmitry Medvedev’s press corps. As a scholar, his research has focused on the ongoing political and ideological trends within Russia and China, as well as their respective policies toward neighboring countries in the Central Asia and Asia-Pacific regions. Mr. Gabuev engaged the cohort in a frank and in-depth conversation graciously arranged and moderated by Carnegie-Tsinghua’s Government Relations and Partnership Coordinator, Thena Li.

俄中关系

2018年3月21日，清华-霍普金斯项目学者与卡内基国际和平基金会莫斯科中心亚太地区项目俄方主席Alexander Gabuev进行座谈。作为卡内基国际和平基金会最年轻的高级研究员，Gabuev先生拥有丰富的职业经历。他曾任职于前俄罗斯总统梅德韦杰夫先生的新闻团队，并担任高级外交记者。此后他又任职于Kommersant集团，并担任副总编辑。作为一名学者，他的研究集中在俄罗斯和中国的政治和思想潮流的发展以及两国对中亚地区与亚太地区邻国的外交政策。座谈会由清华-卡内基全球政策中心政府关系与合作伙伴专员李剑雅主持，Gabuev先生与大家进行了坦诚且深入的交谈。

The discussion began with an examination of think tanks, specifically the conditions that give them rise and their subsequent role within society. Mr. Gabuev argued that think tanks are a unique byproduct of western bipartisan democracies, due primarily to three coexistent characteristics within these nations’ socio-political framework. First, the nature of their democracy provides those outside government with some degree of influence in shaping the nation’s foreign policy. Although decision-making power is formally limited to an exclusive few, lawmakers and policy planners are nonetheless cognizant of the need to appeal to constituents or interest groups. Within this context, think tanks exist to inform and influence the discourse between civil society and state.

Second, such democracies tend to naturally produce an abundance of funding for foreign policy research. If nongovernment actors wield the ability to shape the decision-making calculus of the state, then the range of social sectors with a stake in this process broadens dramatically. An abundance of money is therefore devoted to developing influence, with the funding of think tanks representing one of the many avenues by which to achieve this goal. However, Mr. Gabuev noted that the efficacy of think tanks as a method of social and political persuasion is difficult to measure, and their ability to ultimately change national policy is a question that remains open.

Finally, predominantly bipartisan political systems create a revolving door through which policymakers enter and exit government as power switches hands between two major parties. Think tanks are a public platform that provide these displaced officials with the ability to continue proposing ideas related to governance, or perhaps criticize the efforts of the newly empowered opposition. For those out of office, this time can be particularly conducive to developing new ‘big picture’ concepts, as the demands of governing often mean a singular focus on unfolding crises of the moment.

The conversation then turned to Russia’s domestic political climate, foreign affairs, and relationship with China. Beginning with an analysis of the recent Russian election, Mr. Gabuev proposed that the newly reelected President Putin has secured an unprecedented degree of support from the Russian public for two reasons. First, having come to power during the tumultuous years following the Soviet Union’s collapse, Putin is credited with having helped Russia survive its dramatic political and economic transition. Second, Putin is seen as a strident champion of Russian interests and exceptionalism within an antagonistic international system dominated by the United States and its allies. As a result, sanctions against Russia have in fact galvanized support behind the president, as they have reinforced public perception of the United States as a hegemonic global policeman that seeks to undermine Russia’s status as a great power.

As Russia’s resource rich export economy provides enough capital to maintain the domestic status quo for the time being, Mr. Gabuev predicted that Putin’s upcoming term will be defined by a continued focus on foreign policy alongside a determined effort in managing regime transition. Though Putin may indeed maintain influence beyond the next six years as president, his administration has already begun the process of grooming and hand picking trusted successors for key positions. Given the likely continuation of Russia’s current policy strategy, as well as the hostile domestic political climate within the United States, U.S.-Russian relations are likely to continue to deteriorate for the foreseeable future. As such, the major task for both countries should be war avoidance amidst this increasingly bitter and protracted conflict.

In contrast, Mr. Gabuev highlighted three fundamental factors that have driven Russia and China closer together in recent years. First, the economies of the two nations are complementary; Russia has an abundance of natural resources but poorly developed infrastructure, whereas China has an abundance of capital and a rapidly upgraded infrastructure, but few natural resources. Second, the domestic political systems of the two are very different from the western style liberal democracies shared by many of the world’s major powers, most notably their peers on the United Nations Security Council. The two are therefore naturally more inclined to find a common agenda on issues of governance and less likely to challenge one another in this space. Finally, a normalization of relations gives both countries the opportunity to divert resources away from balancing against each other and into newer security priorities. Most pertinently, these security challenges generally do not conflict with one another, and the two share some areas of mutual interest.

However, this is not to say the China-Russia relationship will be without challenges. Mr. Gabuev pointed to the increasingly asymmetric power dynamic between the two as a particularly problematic development. This is reflected quite dramatically in the economic sphere, as China constitutes a growing segment of Russian trade and financing, whereas Russia’s stake within China remains flat. Similarly, while Russia is currently China’s number one oil supplier, China can easily switch to another energy source. Ultimately, China’s economy is simply far more diversified. And so, while the overall potential for cooperation between the two nations suggests that a progressively isolated Russia will deepen its relationship with China, a budding dependency may make the arrangement a tenuous one.

With that, Mr. Gabuev’s presentation came to a close. The Tsinghua-SAIS cohort would like to reiterate its gratitude to both Alexander Gabuev and Thena Li for the illuminating discussion.

座谈会以智库的发展条件及其社会角色与责任为话题切入。 Gabuev先生认为，智库的产生是西方两党制民主制度下的特殊现象。践行这一制度的国家社会政治结构存在三个共同特征。首先，这一制度的民主本质导致了政府官员以外的人士在一定程度上可以影响政府外交政策的制定。虽然决策权最终掌握在少数人手中，但立法者和政策制定者仍然意识到政策吸引选民和其他相关利益集团的需要。在这种情况下，智库便扮演了沟通国家与社会公众的桥梁角色，发挥着反映民意解释政策的作用。

其次，在这一民主制度下，国家倾向于为外交政策研究提供丰富的资金支持。如果非政府组织拥有且能运用影响国家政策制定的能力，那么在这一过程中提供资助或支持的社会主体的数量及范围将大大扩展。不过，Gabuev先生也指出，智库作为游说社会和政治决策的主体其作用效果是难以衡量的，它们最终改变国家政策的能力仍然是一个有待讨论的问题。

最后，以两党制为载体的民主政治制度形成了一个旋转门，政策制定者会随着政党更替而进入或者退出政府。智库作为一个公共平台，为离开政府的工作人员提供了继续为国家治理建言献策以及对新执政政党提出批评的机会。对于那些不再担任公职的人来说，这段时间将十分有助于他们发展新的执政理念。

随后的话题涉及到了俄罗斯外交，其国内政治环境以及与中美的关系。Gabuev先生首先分析了刚刚结束的俄罗斯总统选举。他指出有两个原因使得现任俄罗斯总统普京再次当选并获得了俄罗斯公众前所未有的支持。首先，普京执政始于苏联解体后的动荡时期，在任内他帮助俄罗斯社会度过并完成了深刻的政治经济转型，因此获得了公众的信任。其次，普京被视为俄罗斯国家利益的坚定捍卫者和一个在以美国及其盟友为主导的国际体系中的叛逆者。因此，近年来国际社会对俄罗斯的制裁则更加激起了民众对普京的支持，制裁已经强化了俄公众对美国态度，使得俄民众普遍认为美国是一个追求霸权的世界警察，同时还致力于削弱俄罗斯的大国地位。

得益于国内丰富的资源储量，俄罗斯的资源出口经济为其提供了足够的资金来维持目前国内的发展。根据Gabuev先生的预测，普京即将到来的任期将继续致力于外交政策的制定以及努力实现国家的转型。虽然在接下来的六年中，普京作为总统可以保持自己的影响力，但他的政府已经开始梳理各层级并为重要职位选择值得信赖的继任者。鉴于俄罗斯目前的战略政策可能会得到延续，以及美国国内对俄怀有敌意的政治氛围，美俄关系在可预见的未来可能继续恶化。因此，这两个国家的主要任务应该是在这场日益激烈和持久的冲突中规避战争。

至于中俄关系，Gabuev先生总结了促成近年来俄罗斯与中国高水平双边关系的三个基本因素。首先，两个国家的经济结构高度互补：俄罗斯拥有丰富的自然资源，但基础设施的建设水平有待提高，相反地，中国拥有充足的资本和不断完善的基础设施建设技术，但自然资源储备有限。其次，两国的国内政治制度与世界其他主要国家采纳的西方式自由民主制度截然不同，这一点仅通过比较联合国安理会成员国之间的政治制度便可见一斑。因此，两国自然更倾向于在治理问题上寻求共识，而不太可能在这一领域相互挑战。最后，中俄关系的紧密化使得两国有机会将各自的资源从相互制衡转移到新时期国家面临的安全问题上来。具体来讲，中俄面临的安全问题通常不会相互冲突，有很多领域是双方可以共同关注，共同合作的。

但这并不代表中俄关系不会面临任何挑战。Gabuev先生指出，两国之间日益不对称的国家实力对比将成为中俄关系深入发展的潜在威胁。这一问题在经济领域已经得到明显的反映，中国在俄罗斯国际贸易和国际投资中所占的份额日益增长，而俄罗斯在中国相应领域内所扮演的角色则没有发生明显变化。同样，虽然目前俄罗斯是中国最大的石油供应国，但中国可以很容易地转变其能源的来源渠道。最后，相较俄罗斯，中国的经济更加多元化。两国之间的合作潜力意味着遭到国际社会孤立的俄罗斯将加深其与中国的关系，然而不断加深的依赖关系也可能会使这一双边关系变得更加脆弱。

经过将近两个小时的交流，座谈会在大家意犹未尽的讨论中圆满地结束了。清华-霍普金斯项目学者再次感谢Alexander Gabuev先生的分享和清华-卡内基全球政策中心对本次活动的顺利举行提供的帮助。