China and the possible balance in the NATO-US-Ukraine vs Russia conflict

The People’s Republic of China presented, on February 24, a text with two functions: to systematize its view on the conflict in Ukraine involving NATO and the Russian Federation and at the same time point out concrete proposals that indicate the beginning of a diplomatic exit.

As we know, China has been increasingly improving its international performance and the text it presented is really impressive.

So much so, that Ukraine’s first reaction was favorable to the platform presented by the Chinese.

The newspaper The globea well-known reproducer and spokesman for international Atlanticist agencies, therefore, unsuspecting in this matter, recorded on the 24th itself, in a headline: “Ukraine, Russia welcome China’s peace move, but NATO immediately dismisses proposal”.

By outright discarding a proposal favorably received by what would be the main interested party, NATO/USA show who is in command against Russia, with Ukraine’s opinion being absolutely secondary in such a context, if not completely irrelevant.

But that was already known. The interesting thing is that the lead of the article in the Rio de Janeiro newspaper informed that the “Ukraine is receptive, while Moscow understands that the proposal legitimizes its aggression”. How, by all the gods, does China get such a favorable reaction from two contenders who are at odds with each other?

Firstly, because China has no real interest in the continuation of hostilities, and Ukraine, and even more Russia, know this. The text presented works, dialectically, with the contradictions posed without presenting a ready model for peace, which is only possible to be achieved, according to China, through direct negotiations – and without prior requirements – between Russia and Ukraine, according to certain basic conditions that China presents as guides for starting work.

The first item of the proposals emphatically states that “sovereignty, independence and the territorial integrity of all countries must be defended effectively (emphasis mine)”. In order not to leave doubts about its position in relation to this theme, of total convergence with the Ukrainian discourse, China concludes the first point as follows: “The app egalitarian and uniform (my italics) of international law must be promoted, while the double standard, rejected”.

At the same time, in the second item, China defends, approaching the Russian position, that “the security of one country must not be sought at the expense of the security of others. The security of a region should not be achieved by strengthening or expanding military blocs. The legitimate security interests and concerns of all countries must be taken seriously and properly addressed”.

That is, very clearly, China begins its “analysis” by putting into play the central elements of the drama, which in this case are in conflict – right to territorial integrity versus right to national security and warns: “There is no simple solution to a complex problem.”. Having made this introduction, the remaining 10 items are concrete proposals: Cease hostilities, resume peace negotiations, resolve the humanitarian crisis, protect civilians and prisoners of war, maintain the security of nuclear power plants, avoid threats of using nuclear weapons, alleviate the food crisis, end sanctions that have not been approved by the UN Security Council, work to prevent the conflict from worsening the world economic crisis, and plan for the reconstruction of areas destroyed in the conflict.

Exquisite! The rights and concerns of each party are recognized, although conflicting at the moment. The complexity of the problem is admitted, full of contradictions, but it is pointed out, in the midst of the battle, what can be consensual, as a kind of roadmap for peace. An effectively balanced document, which is not definitively committed to either side, revealing the political and moral authority of those who have this balance.

It may even be that this document is not responsible for triggering effective movements in search of peace, but it will certainly influence a lot, one way or another.

Click here and read the full text with China’s proposals, which is already available on several other platforms, but it never hurts to share it because I am convinced that this example of diplomatic construction will, in the future, be studied in all international relations schools, even, who knows, at the prestigious Rio Branco Institute.