'Curiously, for an officially atheist state, China was ready to associate itself with what was obviously a Russian-drafted paragraph condemning the dismantlement and desecration of religious objects and monuments, and promoting “traditional spiritual and moral values.”'
True China is officially atheist; however some 25 years ago after a decade of opening to the US, the Chinese noticed a significant erosion in moral values and increase in criminality, particularly financial crimes. To address this issue a school initiated a program for teaching Confucianism and associated values. The program was successful and was expanded, and subsequently adopted by the CPC.
It was realized by the CPC that civilizational heritage is the immune system of a society and nation, and is critical for social harmony. Accordingly Confucianism has been revived and President Xi marked Confucius 2,565th anniversary in 2014. https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/883309.shtml
Furthermore, Xi has gone out of his to emphasize importance of spirituality as a counter to materialism.
Thus the paragraph on religion and "traditional spiritual and moral values" was not a nod to Russia rather it is a deep conviction of both civilizational states of the importance of civilizational heritage in which religion, morality and spirituality is a most important aspect.
fadi, that's a very interesting point about china's approach to spirituality and morality. it's clear that while officially atheist, the government recognizes the value of traditional values in maintaining social harmony. reviving confucianism to address moral erosion and financial crimes shows a pragmatic approach. xi’s emphasis on spirituality counters materialism and underscores the importance of cultural heritage and it’s fascinating how both china and russia see civilizational heritage as crucial for their societies. thanks for sharing this perspective indeed.
It is very obvious from my perch in the U.S. that the collective West is in decline. Skilled manufacturing and labor has become the province of the East. The highest quality research will get done in Chinese and Russian universities. This in itself is not a threat as there are other areas important to human existence that the West could make valuable contributions to like in areas of sustainable agriculture and public health.
But in a hyper profit driven capitalistic society championed by the West, public good as a goal is spurned. Thus the beating of drums for a war that will not be won. However the costs of the coming defeat will be socialized while the last bits of wealth extracted are privatized.
We in the West need to disengage the sense of value attributed to wealth. The true value lies in clean air and water, not in stocks and bonds, nor in seaside villas.
The campus protests are a ray of hope that the newest generation of “adults” will repudiate the notion that the costs of defeat must be socialized by the masses. I’m planning to be in the pitchfork business asap - business should be brisk! 🤓
I think it is worth noting, that in the listing of 9 technical areas of cooperation, the first on the list was "civil aviation manufacturing". There is stalled project for a wide body jet CR929, mainly because Russia insists on not including Western components to make it sanctions proof. Also Russia is not willing to gift design of the PD35 jet engine it has developed for this plane.
The fact that civil aviation manufacturing was first on list, could be indicative that leaders have decided to get this project off the ground. Commercial planes produced by Russia and China, would eliminate dependence on Airbus and the dangerous Boeing planes.
"In spite of the talk of “democratising” the international system, there is no suggestion that the system itself will change. No new organisations or procedures are being proposed; rather, what is being suggested is that existing arrangements have been corrupted and politicised, and that it is now time to return to some (unspecified) time in the past, when they worked better. Thus, the present system will continue, but Russia and China will have a larger collective influence in it. There’s no question, for example, of wider membership, let alone permanent membership, of the Security Council. In that sense, the Declaration is conservative, if not actually reactionary."
My reading here is the oposite than Aurelien's (living the life in Orleans?). Democratization of the international system, if actually implemented, as was originally intended when the UN Charter has been brought to life, would be revolutionary, and not a conservative, reactionary stance.
People in the west talk so much about democracy, the actual meaning of it being long forgotten (Canadians blast at every talk on the radio, press or TV about their democracy, forgetting that theirs is a constitutional monarchy polity, with a parliamentary system employing the most primitive form of democratic process, first past the post elections - this doesn't make it a democracy; never mind the UK, where one would be hard press to find a Constitution to guide the demos, hoi polloi, and only with the Charter of the City of London, which in fact is the precursor of the rules based order...empowering a psychotic oligarchy totally out of control). So Russia and China don't want to return to a golden past, but to the original ideas embodied in the UN Charter, which were never actually implemented.
Thus, I think that the citation from Aurelien is in fact unbecoming of his otherwise high professionalism and integrity. Almost like you can take the Englishman out of England but you cannot take England out of the Englishman problem.
You translated and interpreted this document quite accurately. I didn't notice any inaccuracies. But I think that Europe was not mentioned in this document due to some disagreements. The Russian position is much more radical than the Chinese one. To spoil such an important document with a showdown about the fate of the European Union is too inappropriate in this case. There are many other important things to do.
> In such cases, you have to engage in what literary critics call “close reading” of texts, paying attention to every nuance. (If there’s interest, I may try that with a text in English on future occasion.)
I'd definitely like to see something like that—I found this article to be especially informative, even with the limitations of machine translation.
Decacitating / dearming long range strike capability refers to US Promt Global Strike program. This late 1990’s - present day program was supposed to give US capability to strike surgically any target in the world in less than 1 hour. This program gave birth to US hypersonic efforts.
Yes, it is. The American Prompt Global Strike is a very popular topic among Russian military experts. I am sure that this topic was included in this joint document by Moscow.
yes, that is indeed the main concern Russia has had since the Soviet era. The US has made no attempts to hide its ambition of circumventing the MAD dilemma and gain the ability to strike anyone by space or near spaced based weapons systems. And despite some efforts back in the Soviet times, the Russians are very much behind on this issue, the only things they have are cruise and ballistic missiles, which hypersonic or not, isn't the comprehensive system the US has been planning and building towards. So one can understand their fear here, if complete the US would be able to have the initiative to decapitate them with no fear of second strike retaliation against itself.
I think I have mentioned previously Karl Sanchez from karlof1’s Geopolitical Gymnasium substack is worth checking for every English Language output from the Kremlin. Some are very relevant to putting further flesh on the outcome of the meetings.
Your overall summary is correct, Russia and China have had enough. BRICS+ and SCO are very likely to combine in some way ( they overlap in many ways already) . SCO , BRI, EAEU, CIS all provide the 'glue' for the majority of nations across Asia and increasingly with ASEAN. Who in the West planned for Iran and the Saudis to sit together planning a future in BRICS+; or indeed Pakistan and India in SCO.
What I think most have trouble with is thinking outside the 'bloc' model of the world. The RoW is being brought together by one thing, its rejection of the continuing hegemony, But not replacing it with another based on Russia/China, which they do not seek.
Besides Europe, there's something else not mentioned in the text, just as significant and for the same reasons (unless I'm mistaken). There's no mention of western dominated global initiatives (ex. UN Social Development Goals, WEF agenda 2030, Net 0 and ESG, etc.)
They're "shaping the battlefield", a kind of West vs "the axis of resistance" (their view) / "axis of evil" (western narrative control) is emerging. It could be a prelude to an epic clash.
Aurelien thanks for this report on this document - it is indeed a declaration of their joint lack of interest in the West and in western reactions that they have not published an official version in English
The western press or gvmts did not react to VVP's Executive Order of May 7, a comprehensive 12 year plan through 2036, much less than the muted and purely formal reactions to VVP's Munich Conference Speech of 2007, with the exception of William Burn's famous 'memo'
The reactions so far to this Joint Declaration have been to trivialise it, as they did with the MSC speech
Perhaps there are memos from Burns types across various governments who are prepared serious and responsibly to analyse this
It might be worthwhile to also look at the translation of the Chinese text. Written Chinese is usually very precise and it's nature should make the machine translation accurate.
"There’s also a crack at “unilateral sanctions, not agreed by the Security Council.” Although there’s nothing in international law or practice to support the idea, some commentators in the West have argued that sanctions not approved by the Security Council are illegal."
The UN Special Rapporteur was in China at the same time May 16/17 2024, and produced both a Press Conference and a Preliminary Report stating that, indeed, the current US sanctions against China were illegal according to International Law
Alena Douhan, UN Special Rapporteur, Press Conference
« Any unlateral sanctions taken without or beyond authorization of the UN Security Council, and which cannot be qualified as retortions (unfriendly but legal under international law) or wrongfulness of which is not excluded as countermeasures in accordance with law of international responsibility, are illegal. Application of secondary sanctions to Chinese companies, civil and criminal charges for (alleged) circumvention of sanctions regimes against third countries, individuals or entities is also illegal under international law as a means of enforcement of illegal unilateral coercive measures. Secondary sanctions also constitute violation of the prohibition of punishments for acts, which did not constitute crimes at the moment of their committing. »
« Unilateral targeted sanctions as a punitive action violate, at the very least, obligations arising from universal and regional human rights instruments, many of which have a peremptory character, including procedural guarantees, the presumption of innocence, due process, access to justice and right to remedy. »
« It thus follows that unilateral sanctions against China do not conform with a broad number of international legal norms, are introduced to apply pressure on the state, cannot be justified as countermeasures under the law of international responsibility, and therefore can be qualified as unilateral coercive measures. »
Quoting text:
'Curiously, for an officially atheist state, China was ready to associate itself with what was obviously a Russian-drafted paragraph condemning the dismantlement and desecration of religious objects and monuments, and promoting “traditional spiritual and moral values.”'
True China is officially atheist; however some 25 years ago after a decade of opening to the US, the Chinese noticed a significant erosion in moral values and increase in criminality, particularly financial crimes. To address this issue a school initiated a program for teaching Confucianism and associated values. The program was successful and was expanded, and subsequently adopted by the CPC.
It was realized by the CPC that civilizational heritage is the immune system of a society and nation, and is critical for social harmony. Accordingly Confucianism has been revived and President Xi marked Confucius 2,565th anniversary in 2014. https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/883309.shtml
Furthermore, Xi has gone out of his to emphasize importance of spirituality as a counter to materialism.
Thus the paragraph on religion and "traditional spiritual and moral values" was not a nod to Russia rather it is a deep conviction of both civilizational states of the importance of civilizational heritage in which religion, morality and spirituality is a most important aspect.
No state can exist without acknowledgment of a Creator, some thing greater than mere mortals.
Let's watch this play out! Exciting times!
fadi, that's a very interesting point about china's approach to spirituality and morality. it's clear that while officially atheist, the government recognizes the value of traditional values in maintaining social harmony. reviving confucianism to address moral erosion and financial crimes shows a pragmatic approach. xi’s emphasis on spirituality counters materialism and underscores the importance of cultural heritage and it’s fascinating how both china and russia see civilizational heritage as crucial for their societies. thanks for sharing this perspective indeed.
I reply to Fadi’s comments: you are correct.
It is very obvious from my perch in the U.S. that the collective West is in decline. Skilled manufacturing and labor has become the province of the East. The highest quality research will get done in Chinese and Russian universities. This in itself is not a threat as there are other areas important to human existence that the West could make valuable contributions to like in areas of sustainable agriculture and public health.
But in a hyper profit driven capitalistic society championed by the West, public good as a goal is spurned. Thus the beating of drums for a war that will not be won. However the costs of the coming defeat will be socialized while the last bits of wealth extracted are privatized.
We in the West need to disengage the sense of value attributed to wealth. The true value lies in clean air and water, not in stocks and bonds, nor in seaside villas.
The campus protests are a ray of hope that the newest generation of “adults” will repudiate the notion that the costs of defeat must be socialized by the masses. I’m planning to be in the pitchfork business asap - business should be brisk! 🤓
I think it is worth noting, that in the listing of 9 technical areas of cooperation, the first on the list was "civil aviation manufacturing". There is stalled project for a wide body jet CR929, mainly because Russia insists on not including Western components to make it sanctions proof. Also Russia is not willing to gift design of the PD35 jet engine it has developed for this plane.
The fact that civil aviation manufacturing was first on list, could be indicative that leaders have decided to get this project off the ground. Commercial planes produced by Russia and China, would eliminate dependence on Airbus and the dangerous Boeing planes.
"In spite of the talk of “democratising” the international system, there is no suggestion that the system itself will change. No new organisations or procedures are being proposed; rather, what is being suggested is that existing arrangements have been corrupted and politicised, and that it is now time to return to some (unspecified) time in the past, when they worked better. Thus, the present system will continue, but Russia and China will have a larger collective influence in it. There’s no question, for example, of wider membership, let alone permanent membership, of the Security Council. In that sense, the Declaration is conservative, if not actually reactionary."
My reading here is the oposite than Aurelien's (living the life in Orleans?). Democratization of the international system, if actually implemented, as was originally intended when the UN Charter has been brought to life, would be revolutionary, and not a conservative, reactionary stance.
People in the west talk so much about democracy, the actual meaning of it being long forgotten (Canadians blast at every talk on the radio, press or TV about their democracy, forgetting that theirs is a constitutional monarchy polity, with a parliamentary system employing the most primitive form of democratic process, first past the post elections - this doesn't make it a democracy; never mind the UK, where one would be hard press to find a Constitution to guide the demos, hoi polloi, and only with the Charter of the City of London, which in fact is the precursor of the rules based order...empowering a psychotic oligarchy totally out of control). So Russia and China don't want to return to a golden past, but to the original ideas embodied in the UN Charter, which were never actually implemented.
Thus, I think that the citation from Aurelien is in fact unbecoming of his otherwise high professionalism and integrity. Almost like you can take the Englishman out of England but you cannot take England out of the Englishman problem.
My two cents for what it is worth.
You translated and interpreted this document quite accurately. I didn't notice any inaccuracies. But I think that Europe was not mentioned in this document due to some disagreements. The Russian position is much more radical than the Chinese one. To spoil such an important document with a showdown about the fate of the European Union is too inappropriate in this case. There are many other important things to do.
> In such cases, you have to engage in what literary critics call “close reading” of texts, paying attention to every nuance. (If there’s interest, I may try that with a text in English on future occasion.)
I'd definitely like to see something like that—I found this article to be especially informative, even with the limitations of machine translation.
Decacitating / dearming long range strike capability refers to US Promt Global Strike program. This late 1990’s - present day program was supposed to give US capability to strike surgically any target in the world in less than 1 hour. This program gave birth to US hypersonic efforts.
Yes, it is. The American Prompt Global Strike is a very popular topic among Russian military experts. I am sure that this topic was included in this joint document by Moscow.
yes, that is indeed the main concern Russia has had since the Soviet era. The US has made no attempts to hide its ambition of circumventing the MAD dilemma and gain the ability to strike anyone by space or near spaced based weapons systems. And despite some efforts back in the Soviet times, the Russians are very much behind on this issue, the only things they have are cruise and ballistic missiles, which hypersonic or not, isn't the comprehensive system the US has been planning and building towards. So one can understand their fear here, if complete the US would be able to have the initiative to decapitate them with no fear of second strike retaliation against itself.
I think I have mentioned previously Karl Sanchez from karlof1’s Geopolitical Gymnasium substack is worth checking for every English Language output from the Kremlin. Some are very relevant to putting further flesh on the outcome of the meetings.
Your overall summary is correct, Russia and China have had enough. BRICS+ and SCO are very likely to combine in some way ( they overlap in many ways already) . SCO , BRI, EAEU, CIS all provide the 'glue' for the majority of nations across Asia and increasingly with ASEAN. Who in the West planned for Iran and the Saudis to sit together planning a future in BRICS+; or indeed Pakistan and India in SCO.
What I think most have trouble with is thinking outside the 'bloc' model of the world. The RoW is being brought together by one thing, its rejection of the continuing hegemony, But not replacing it with another based on Russia/China, which they do not seek.
Ben Norton provided a translation from the Chinese (mostly machine generated) and a discussion on his Geopolitical Economy podcast.
Sorry for the delay...
An Italian translation here:
https://trying2understandw.blogspot.com/2024/06/cina-e-russia-si-incontrano-in-una.html
Nice recap essay of the declaration 👍🏼
Besides Europe, there's something else not mentioned in the text, just as significant and for the same reasons (unless I'm mistaken). There's no mention of western dominated global initiatives (ex. UN Social Development Goals, WEF agenda 2030, Net 0 and ESG, etc.)
They're "shaping the battlefield", a kind of West vs "the axis of resistance" (their view) / "axis of evil" (western narrative control) is emerging. It could be a prelude to an epic clash.
Aurelien thanks for this report on this document - it is indeed a declaration of their joint lack of interest in the West and in western reactions that they have not published an official version in English
The western press or gvmts did not react to VVP's Executive Order of May 7, a comprehensive 12 year plan through 2036, much less than the muted and purely formal reactions to VVP's Munich Conference Speech of 2007, with the exception of William Burn's famous 'memo'
The reactions so far to this Joint Declaration have been to trivialise it, as they did with the MSC speech
Perhaps there are memos from Burns types across various governments who are prepared serious and responsibly to analyse this
It might be worthwhile to also look at the translation of the Chinese text. Written Chinese is usually very precise and it's nature should make the machine translation accurate.
Yes, I only realized that after I had posted the link. The Kremlin usually takes its time in preparing official translations — no rush jobs!
Media statement following Russia-China talks
May 16, 2024, 09:55 Beijing
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/74049?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Thanks. I had linked to that already.
"There’s also a crack at “unilateral sanctions, not agreed by the Security Council.” Although there’s nothing in international law or practice to support the idea, some commentators in the West have argued that sanctions not approved by the Security Council are illegal."
The UN Special Rapporteur was in China at the same time May 16/17 2024, and produced both a Press Conference and a Preliminary Report stating that, indeed, the current US sanctions against China were illegal according to International Law
https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202405/1312519.shtml
https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/05/china-un-expert-says-unilateral-sanctions-must-not-be-used-foreign-policy
Alena Douhan, UN Special Rapporteur, Press Conference
« Any unlateral sanctions taken without or beyond authorization of the UN Security Council, and which cannot be qualified as retortions (unfriendly but legal under international law) or wrongfulness of which is not excluded as countermeasures in accordance with law of international responsibility, are illegal. Application of secondary sanctions to Chinese companies, civil and criminal charges for (alleged) circumvention of sanctions regimes against third countries, individuals or entities is also illegal under international law as a means of enforcement of illegal unilateral coercive measures. Secondary sanctions also constitute violation of the prohibition of punishments for acts, which did not constitute crimes at the moment of their committing. »
« Unilateral targeted sanctions as a punitive action violate, at the very least, obligations arising from universal and regional human rights instruments, many of which have a peremptory character, including procedural guarantees, the presumption of innocence, due process, access to justice and right to remedy. »
« It thus follows that unilateral sanctions against China do not conform with a broad number of international legal norms, are introduced to apply pressure on the state, cannot be justified as countermeasures under the law of international responsibility, and therefore can be qualified as unilateral coercive measures. »