This article was written and reported by Lauren McCombs, Jessica Elford, and Pasquale Augustine.
SAN DIEGO — Chinese president Hu Jintao went to Russia during the week of June 15 to meet with President Dmitry Medvedev and Vladimir Putin. The two countries have had an allied relationship for 60 years, although it has grown stronger over the past thirteen years. China has now become Russia’s top trading country, signing energy bills that have a value of $100 billion dollars
No surprise here that top Washington Analysts say Jintao’s visit to Russia was a strong indication of the continued steadfast support between Russia and China on key issues of national sovereignty, national security, and trade issues. The main topic of the visit were the issues of the financial and trade support between China and Russia. At the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) meeting China promised $10 billion dollars to Central Asian countries and Russia to help during this current economic turmoil. The leaders of Afghanistan, Iran, India, and Pakistan were also at the table of the SCO meeting.
In terms of history the SCO was founded in 1996 and has annual meetings. The organizations charter says that it “is not an alliance directed against other states and regions and it adheres to the principles of openness.” It is interesting to note that SCO’s goal is to pursue “joint security, energy and development goals, including enhanced cooperation against terrorism, Islamist extremism and separatism” in the Sino-Russian geographical arena. Most interestingly then, the agreement does have teeth in relation to power and can take independent action without waiting for American or UN approval.
Many intelligence analysts believe that SCO was created to counteract NATO and especially the international strength of the United States. This view is strongly reinforced by the fact that in 2005 the United States applied for Observer status in SCO and was rejected. It should be noted though that the SCO has no strict rule for admittance into the organization, expect that the main consideration for entrance into the organization is the shared border consideration. The fact that, technically, the United States and Russia share the Alaskan border via the Pacific Ocean puts questions to why the United States was rejected Observer status. It does seem to hint at strong political reasons are truly behind the rejection.
It has become clear that China and Russia have also agreed to a closer merging of economies trading directly through the Ruble and Yuan, bypassing the US dollar completely from any transaction. Recently both China and Russia have expressed anxiety about the strength of the US dollar and the effect the current recession in the US is having on world markets. China already directly passes over the dollar when trading with Brazil and Argentina. Although these are only minor markets, the decision to trade in common currencies between Russia and China is a major step forward for Russia and China and a major step backwards for the US. Overall though, this trend supports the idea of either a One World Currency or replacement of the US dollar entirely.
A very good academic question can be stated, “But why does it matter and why do we care if Russia and China pass over the dollar in their $100 million dollar energy trade?” American citizens including the large number of college graduates must understand that the US dollar will continue loosing strength and the US economy will continue to loose its influence and control in the international economic and political markets. This means, among other things, it is getting harder for Americans to find job and pay back loans. Students are the ones most at-risk for receiving this one-two punch for years, if not decades to come.
America’s control of international markets can be related to the saying “I have Good News and Bad News.” The Good News has always been the euphoria relating to America’s control of world markets. The Bad News is that American now becomes a Target for what is called “International Trade” in Washington, which is the new silent war against America and its ability to use the dollar as the basis of international trade, which China and Russia have already started to target.
In the future world, America will have a difficult time surviving as the dominant international economy if its economy continues to drag, and other countries continue to trade in bilateral currencies instead of going through the dollar. The dollar will then loose its tradability as a strong and controlling currency.
The current international financial crisis makes it easy for China and Russia to jointly replace the United States as a World Super Power. What America must face is the fact that China is a major exporter and both China and Russia have an extreme strong-hold on natural resources. Thus Russia and China have the ability when working in cooperation to move their interests forward without the United States, and without taking any US interest into consideration. That is bad for us.
Since 1941, Russia and United States have never been cozy bed partners. The last time Russia made it on to the US Media regularly was during the Cold War. The international question being discussed in the high circles of government power now though is, “What will happen when Russia enters the international political scene as a Super Power supported by one of the largest exporters in the world, China?” What will that mean for the United States and the “Quality of Life in America.”
Personally none of us have any desire to see what will happen within the United States if we loose our status as a superpower or even have to compete for it even more with Russia and China. We agree with Top Washington Analysts when they say that the SCO and especially Russia and China need to be watched carefully not only in economic terms but also nuclear weapons including the fact that they have targeted, San Diego, Los Angeles, Seattle and Canada, as confirmed by a Washington Analyst.
shame on you! you guys don’t even know the name of the chinese president: Hu is the last name, Jintao is the first name, therefore it is not ‘jintao’s visit to russia’ but ‘hu’s visit to russia’. Get it? Illiterate.
What an insightful comment you’ve contributed. Your english and punctuation are immaculate.
Many thanks for your comments. We will continue to submit articles and hope that you are able to read them.
Thanks for the comment. Foreign names are always a problem. We will make the correction which you recommend
I am not really sure about your analysis.
Sure, eastern countries will leverage cooperation to improve thier own geopolitical situations. Is that a moral crime? If so, why not condemn NATO, and the multitude of of “free trade” pacts arragned by US and its allies.
The United States has used its own economic and military power — aggressively — to pursue duperpower status. Why not condemn that? Is it because we, as American, stand to benefit from the US being a world power? If so, are we, as Americans, simply entitled to a higher standard of living than people who live elsewhere? This reeks of the type of excecptionalism that has blinded Americans from the faults, and crimes of its own governments for quite some time.
I am no fan of the SCO. Obviosuly, Russia and China have attrocious human rights records. But the US has been the most violent country in the world — without questions – since World War 2, at least. This violence, by design, benefits our geostrategic position, and brings more business into US-based multinational corporations, but it could hardly be something to brag about — even if it does make us wealthy.
Further, the wealth you speak of has created lowly paying service sector jobs; real wages have stagnated despite enormoues economic growth in the last 30 years. Work hours are longer, benefits have nbeen smaller, poverty has risen, inequality has risen. All, as the US has leveraged, with the help of allies, to try and be the dominant country both economically and militarily.
It is a fool’s game to fault other countries for playing the same game, and blame them for now bending over and allowing US domination of the planet – -which, has done little good for humanity, the enviroment, or even, as I alluded, most working Americans.
A more osund strategy wouldbe to advocate for a a global community that has the world’s interests in mind — the abilityof all people to live with dignity and neccecities. Faulting other countries for trying to keep up the with US empire is not quite seeing the screen from the pixels; or, worst, as I said, represent a type of US exceptionalism that is all to pervasive in US media and academia.
I would like to thank you for providing comments on our recently published article. It is always great to have feedback from interesting people like yourself
Our intent for this article and follow-on articles is stimulate interest in terms of the real world of political power. If America Superpower Status is to continue then America should become more aware of the realities of World of Power and Intrigue and not ignore the shifting sands of Political and Economic Power, which is more relevant than Military Power.
If we critically review the subject of Power then, at the present time, we can make the following comparisons, (a) American Superpower status is based on having some 5,000 nuclear weapons, which are static not dynamic assets. Being static, these weapons therefore have no direct affect on World Political or Economic Power, (b) A significant amount of Political Power can be attained by America’s ability to face, not ignore, potential advisories such as China and Russia and to counter every move that they make as one does in a chess game. Ignoring Russia, Putin, China and Jintai Hu is not a smart strategy for long term American survival. (c) Economic Power cannot be maintain if America cannot maintain a strong manufacturing base or by ignoring Putin when he clearly states that WWIV is and will be a Resource War.
Therefore what are the counter strategies
Thanks for responding. I understand your analysis is through the lens of preserving the US superpower and strategies to do this. To that end, you may be right, maybe not. I don’t know.
What I aim to do with my response is question the premise of so much writing in foreign policy scholarship: which begins with the assumption that US stategic interests are all important, rather than, say, human rights.
With that out of the wya, let me ask a question regarding one other tatements. You say that US power may be vulnerabl as a result of the economic situation facing the world over. I am on the fense on this. Consider, interestingly, that IMF has seen a revivival from the economic collapse. In Spring 2008 its loan balance had shrunk from $80 billion to $20 billion in a four-year period and now it is largely revived largely because of the crisis.
Iagree that the age of American dominance is probably waning, but I would not say China and Russia will “easily” take the mantle.
But again, my major point is this: what country is the most powerful is something that US planners can discuss if they want; I wish foreign policy scholars would look at the world through a more humane lens.
Thanks for your review. We all agree with your view as expressed in your last paragraph.