#35 event report: Closing the ranks against the West? China-Russia, an emerging Eurasian Pole
April 2oth, 2014, Bridge Café (Wudaokou)
Chen Yurong (陈玉荣) Senior Research Fellow and Director
Department for European-Central Asian Studies at CIIS, Secretary-General of the Chinese Centre for SCO Studies
Professor Chen began her speech by reminding the audience that Russian President, Vladimir Putin, had arrived in Shanghai that very day for an international summit and talks with China. The professor pointed out that Putin’s visit has drawn a great deal of attention as his first international visit after the Ukraine incident. So what is his intention – to close the gap and align with China against the West? Or something else?
Professor Chen, as a long-time observer of the Sino-Russian relationship, explained that this is actually a regular visit, planned a long time ago as the return visit for Xi Jinping’s first visit as President in 2013, which was to Russia. The intention is mainly to focus on developing a better relationship between the two countries, and sign some treaties to this end. Furthermore, the Shanghai forum is being attended by ten world leaders, so one of Putin’s main goals is simply to attend this.
Having discussed the current context, the professor went on to introduce the main part of her speech. ‘Today, my main purpose is to talk about the past, present and future of the S-R relationship’, she explained. ‘To cover this subject would take a week, but I only have 20 minutes. So here are the main points!’
Point number one on the Professor’s list: China and Russia’s relationship is a long one. The two have been neighbours for years. Throughout history, throughout the period of the Republic of China, they have always had a relationship. Before 1949, Russia supported China a great deal. After 1950, Chairman Mao and Stalin signed a very famous treaty – the Sino-Soviet Treaty of Friendship, Alliance, and Mutual Assistance. According to Professor Chen, the key is that in the name was the word ‘alliance’. The USSR and PRC were of course Communist countries. But this relationship was as big brother to little brother, rather than a true alliance of equals, and didn’t last long. By the early 60s, the Sino-Soviet relationship had started to cool off. Then came the Cold War. During the Cold War, the border between the two countries was quite tense. On the USSR side, they had 1,000,000 soldiers. This tension lasted a long time throughout the Cold War, and cooperation between the two countries was brought to a halt.
In 1989, Gorbachev visited China, and had an important conversation with Deng Xiaoping, concerning the history between the two countries. Their conclusion – ‘the past is the past, now we must start a new beginning’. Then, after the USSR era, their relationship improved yet more. The professor sums it up as such: from 1992-6, the relationship went up in three stages – first, they were friendly, then they became constructive, then finally they had a strategic partnership. In 2001, China signed another historic treaty with Russia – the 2001 Sino-Russian Treaty of Friendship, which has laid a good foundation for their future relationship. The professor pointed out that this treaty is intrinsically different from the treaty of the 50s. In the 50s, the two were an alliance. The new treaty means the two countries neither join as an alliance, but nor do they act as antagonists, and they do not interfere with a 3rd country. Since 2001, the Sino-Russian relationship in terms of economy, politics, and many other areas has developed rapidly. In terms of politics, the two countries have created a strategic partnership. And the leaders of both nations have devised this scheme of reciprocal visits, which has led to Putin’s presence in Shanghai today.
According to Professor Chen, all this means that China and Russia’s relationship has never been better. Politically, there is trust. And each treats the other as a priority when creating diplomatic relationships with other nations. Economically, China and Russia have been very good partners in terms of economic strategy. China is Russia’s biggest trading partner. Back in 2001,the revenue of this trade was 101 billion USD. Last year, it had reached $900 billion. With numbers alone, the development of their relationship is clear. The professor pointed out that although between two huge nations, these trading numbers are relatively small, what this means is that there is much potential for further development, with plans in place to reach 1000 billion USD by 2015, and 2000 billion by 2020. Many scholars who talk about their relationship say that in terms of politics it’s hot, in terms of economics, it’s cold. But the professor believes that over the next ten years the economic relationship will change dramatically.
Professor Chen then moved on to talk about the economy in more depth, calling it the main area for a breakthrough in Sino-Russian relations. The main focus in the future will be industry and investment, instead of trading. The professor noted a few potential growing points. One is energy. Another is basic facility development. A third is regional development. The professor talked about energy in particular, which will be a main focus of Putin’s current visit to China. Plans are underway to construct channels for Russia to export natural gas to China, both on the East line via the Volga, and the West line via Serbia. Though talks concerning this project have been in place for some time, the reason no agreement has yet been signed is simply price. Russia wants the same price it receives from its European clients; China however has been buying gas from many countries and wants a competitive offer. However, the professor’s prognosis is that even if no agreement is reached this time, it is inevitable in the near future, due to historical trends between the two nations. China needs a large quantity of natural resources. In particular, the government needs to access cleaner energy, as the pollution crisis is becoming worse by the day. Natural gas would largely replace traditional coal heating. For Russia’s part, exporting natural resources is one of the main pillars of its economy, but as it is currently facing sanctions from Europe in the wake of the Ukraine debacle, it is realising the need to diversify its market and look towards Asia. As such, the contract and collaboration between China and Russia is, in the professor’s view, mutually beneficial.
One final goal for Putin’s visit is maritime cooperation between China and Russia. Currently, they are having joint naval manoeuvres that will last until the 25th of May. Despite alarmist voices saying that ‘China and Russia right now are re-forming a military alliance’, Professor Chen notes that these drills have been going on for quite a few years now, with the purpose of building trust and familiarity so as to be prepared for future crises, creating a foundation for regional stability. Although this collaboration is relatively significant, a Sino-Russian military alliance is, in the Professor’s view, impossible, because of the prior treaty of 2001 stating that they will neither align nor oppose each other.
A recurring theme in this month’s Q&A was the Ukraine crisis. The first question referred to Russia’s actions in the Ukraine, comparing them to previous actions in Georgia, and historically in China, where territory seemed to be a primary goal – did the professor think Russia would ever demand territory in exchange for its new relationship with China? In answering, Professor Chen acknowledged the troubling existence of the Unequal Treaties in Russia and China’s past, but was firm in stating that looking forward is the foundation of world peace. This has been the attitude of both countries since Deng Xiaoping. As for the Crimean situation, the Professor did note that it was more complex than Georgia, which could be more simply laid at Russia’s feet.
The second questioner wondered how Russia’s support for independence movements in China’s outlying regions affected their current cooperation, and how the ability to accept an independent Outer Mongolia gels with China’s refusal to accept separatism from other regions. Professor Chen responded by stating that the very foundation for the current Sino-Russian relationship is to respect each other, be independent, and exist as complete, separate entities. Russia as such will recognise China as an independent, full and complete country, and not interfere in domestic issues.
The third question also addressed Russia’s actions in the Ukraine, wondering whether this could set a precedent for China regarding Tibet; a follow-up question was also posed as to how the growing competition for natural resources in Central Asia will affect Sino-Russian friendship. The professor answered similarly that the issue between Ukraine and Russia is an issue between two countries, or indeed an international issue, whereas Xinjiang and Tibet are domestic problems. As for the competiton for resources, the professor pointed out that many western countries built the BTC channel in order to bypass Russia. China’s intentions are not to oppose Russia but simply to pursue its own economic development.
Another question asked about the causes of the Sino-Soviet split in the 60s. Professor Chen answered that this was because Russia was acting as the parent, when China wanted equality between the two nations.
In response to an audience member who asked whether Sino-Russian military manoeuvres do in fact have a message to Japan, the U.S., and maybe even to Ukraine and Europe, the professor replied saying that these manoeuvres are taking place against a background of a still existing Ukraine situation, with media and scholars saying that it’s a message. Another background is that more hotspots are arising in the Asian theatre, including Japan’s plans. From this latter perspective, Japan feels that a message is being sent to them. Professor Chen likened this to an example given by a professor from Tsinghua, who has said that the psychology of the Japanese government is like a thief watching the police trying to catch them.
The final question asked whether China and Russia’s trade reaching the levels of Russia and the EU prior to the Ukraine will make sanctions less effective. The professor answered that while she cannot predict when trade between the two will reach that level, currently Europe is one of China’s largest trading partners, as is the USA – for Russia to catch up will take a long time.
Report by: Cloirle Magee
#34 event report: XI’S NEW LOOK TOWARDS THE U.S.
April 15th, 2014, Bridge Café (Wudaokou)
Prof.DA Wei, Director,
Istitute of American Studies, Chinese Institutes of Contemporary International Relations
In the context of President Obama’s upcoming visit to Beijing, President Da introduced his talk on President Xi Ji-Ping’s new approach towards foreign strategy with a basic framework of understanding current China-US relations from 2012 onwards (after the 8th Party Congress.) He delineated two approaches to foreign policy: the first is known as taoguangyanghui which describes the approach China has certainly adopted in the past of keeping a low profile, while the second – towards which President Xi is increasingly leading China towards, argued our speaker – is known as fenfayouwei and involves a much more pro-active approach towards policy making and strategic planning.
Professor Da argued that President Xi and his government are progressing from a chaotic decision making process to a more coordinated process with top-down strategic planning (for instance with setting the agenda for issues such as the Air Defence Identification Zone.) For a long time, China’s foreign policy was one of avoiding crises – leadership tended to readily compromise in order to solve crises. However, our speaker asserted that now – partly as a direct result of Xi’s strong leadership — they are beginning to accept them, face them and manage them; from crisis aversion to crisis management (不惹事不怕事 – do not provoke trouble and yet do not fear getting involved with trouble.)
Prof. Da went on to describe how the Chinese government is moving away from a US-centric approach to foreign policy towards something that takes into account a new model of major power relations in the world with, for instance, the recent conference on periphery diplomacy (focusing on neighbouring powers, not the US,) indicating that China is less content simply to appease the US now. Instead, in recent years, it was described how China has moved towards a more morality, value-based diplomacy particularly with regards to China’s role in Africa (though Prof. Da paid heed to questions in the West over China’s role in Africa, he went on to argue that without providing aid and supporting countries regardless of corruption, how were they ever to progress to a place in which a better system could develop?)
What hasn’t changed, it was argued, is the framework of this policy-making: it is still within an international, highly-globalised environment, in a multi-power world in which a modernised China is now taking her place. Xi’s style can be summed-up as ‘hard realism’ argued Prof. Da. An approach still based on the state rather than multilateralism or regionalism, with an emphasis on sovereignty and territory and the expansion of the military (though Dr Da argues this is a defensive move.)
China, it was argued, is part of a new model for a major power relationship that revolves around bottom-line ideas, not small conflicts and confrontation. Working on a basis of ‘mutual respect,’ China recognises the US as important but not the centre – recognising also the roles of Russia and Africa. With balanced and strong military capabilities from either side achieving peace rather than causing war through the concept of deterrents, an interest-based cooperation that remains emotionally neutral (Xi neither likes nor dislikes the US asserted Prof. Da,) the major powers can coexist peacefully the professor cheeringly asserted.
Meanwhile, while China is redressing the balance in its foreign policy away from the US， the US itself is rebalancing in the Asia Pacific with a ‘hard liberalist’ line: it is the only place in which the US is enlarging its presence, implementing an ‘aggressive’ and proactive regional strategy which involves supporting alliances that will put pressure on China (for instance, with Japan, the Philippines and Vietnam.) Prof. Da asked the attention-grabbing question: Is the US trying to contain, encircle or undermine China and its development and stability in the Pacific area? Is China indeed trying to write the status quo in the region? Because of course there are many of those who’d argue that China’s newly-assertive behaviour globally and within the region will change the norms of the world in an inevitable challenge to the US.
We can only hope, in that case, that China’s more proactive approach to foreign strategy is indeed as peaceful and balanced as Prof. Da believes it to be.The concise nature of the professor’s talk allowed for plenty of time afterwards for questions – with the presentation clearly having excited many thoughts among the audience as question after question was asked, covering all areas.
We began with a topic hot on many’s lips for the last month: The Crimea, with one audience member asking if our speaker felt that Xi Jin-Ping feared Russia in the way that Mao did (despite America’s fear of that relationship)?Da Wei stated his belief that Russia is no threat for China, claiming that the only thing Russians are strong on is nuclear power, but this will never be used against China. Instead, China didn’t vote with the US or Russia on Crimea, because China and Russia have a strategic cooperation partnership and will support each other on major issues. It is felt in China that the West squandered opportunities for friendship with Russia during the Yeltsin years and China understands the geopolitical pressure from the US bloc that Russia is facing so, while it doesn’t support the invasion of Crimea, it understands that the Ukraine’s move towards the EU was symptomatic of the current difficulties Russia is facing in relation to the West and with these – argued Dr Da – China can sympathise.
The next question asked for the professor’s opinion on the role of conflicting ideologies in the in the relationship between the US and China. Dr Da agreed that – though people try to avoid the topic – ideology plays an important part in US-Sino relations. Certainly, part of the distrust between US and China comes from this difference in ideology – with the Chinese government feeling concerned about US intent in its region, and the security of China’s political institutions. Dr Da starkly stated that leaders believe US would topple CCPs legitimacy if they had the chance. On the other side of the world, in the US, ‘Communism’ still comes with almost entirely negative connotations. Though Communism in China is totally different from that of the Soviet Union, it’s still seen as scary and foreign for that reason – obviously stirring emotions left-over from the Cold War. Presumably this acts as a bar for total cooperation between the two sides in future.
Another question was asked about the extent to which President Xi himself sets policy with the confident response that he is indeed a very strong leader (in contrast to his predecessors.) Having rapidly established legitimacy since he came to power, Dr Da likened him to China’s famed president of the 80’s: Deng Xiaoping, arguing that Xi, in fact, has exceeded China’s expectations of a strong leader and is in a much better position than Obama to represent his own government’s foreign policy, having already personally impacted it so greatly.
Further questions touched upon China’s provision of no-strings attached aid to Africa – indicating that you don’t have to become a democracy to modernise and develop. Dr Da spoke in favour of this behaviour stating that fundamentally giving aid is something good for African countries. We can’t wait for democracy to give them money. If everyone waited for China to democratise, there wouldn’t have been normalisation in the sixties and seventies. Actually, it was only following all this that China did change. Can we afford to wait for corruption to totally end before helping them?
The evening finished with the question of how far Putin has to go before China openly tries to influence the course of events in the worsening situation in Crimea. Dr Da said that he and his colleagues believed that if Russia was to invade East Ukraine they would have gone too far. As already discussed, China does not wish to join Western sanctions in this area but that does not mean they support Russia and if Russia goes further — well, it’s not in their interests. The status of East Ukraine is the test.
Report by: Clio Chartres
#32 event report: A Recipe for the Future – the Rural Reconstruction Movement
February 24th, 2014, Bridge Café (Wudaokou)
Speaker: Prof. WEN Tiejun, 温铁军
Executive Dean, Institute of Advanced Studies for Sustainability, Renmin University of China
Executive Dean, Institute of Rural Reconstruction of China, Southwestern University of China
The first ThinkIN China event of 2014 took place during a week when Beijing’s air pollution reached ‘orange’ alert levels. With clouds of smog encircling Bridge café, Professor Wen Tiejun’s message of deindustrialisation, struck a particularly pertinent note. Wen argued that China’s megacity model of development is not sustainable, not merely because of the critical environmental situation, but also for reasons related to China’s economic and social structure. Throughout his talk, Professor Wen drew on global examples, making a compelling case for the rebuilding of rural China, guiding us through a history of reforms from Deng Xiaoping until the present day, and giving practical suggestions for China’s future. These included projects such as his own Rural Reconstruction volunteering organisation, China’s first free farmer’s training centre – the Yanyangchu Countryside Construction Institute in Hebei Province -, which he held up as a model for social action in China.
Professor Wen began by discussing the unique crises that have been faced by party leadership since 1978, and the effect of government responses on China’s rural/urban structure. The professor emphasised that China’s government has always intervened in the economy, and that similar policies are key to redressing the imbalance between urban and rural areas of China. Professor Wen identified the 3rd Party Congress as a point in many administrations at which challenges were faced and reforms initiated or deepened. In the era of Deng Xiaoping, 40 million educated youths returned from the countryside in need of jobs and housing. In 1989, President Zhao Ziyang faced low investment and economic depression, culminating in political unrest. In the years following 1992, Jiang Zeming faced a new challenge – China’s significant foreign reserve deficit. This was addressed by the use of the unlimited state bank loans, which carried out any demands of the state and could not be bankrupted.
The 1997 Asian Financial Crisis struck, bringing with it a new set of challenges. Overseas demand decreased, and China faced overproduction. Professor Wen compared this to the Great Depression of 1929-1933. Where in that instance, the depression contributed ultimately to the Second World War, China managed to avoid this outcome and continue to increase its growth. In Professor Wen’s view, this was achieved based on think tank policy analysis, which concluded that the answer was not to turn to free market reforms, but to policies based on Roosevelt’s New Deal. They should close down the market, turn over the surplus industrial capacity into internal demands, and look inwards to focus on China. At this stage, China could very much be described as an investment-driven economy, not one driven by domestic or foreign demand.
This trend of increasing investments continued under Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao leadership. One of the major challenges faced by Hu and Wen was that of how to rebalance between poor, inland China, and wealthy, coastal China. Between 1999 – 2009, trillions of RMB were invested in the development of areas of China, with considerable success in delivering key infrastructural goals, such as electricity, roads, telephone, internet and water. The effects of this investment were appreciable in the wake of the 2008 global financial crisis. As foreign consumption dropped sharply, 2.5 million workers were made redundant in Chinese coastal areas. However, China avoided the violence and protest seen in several areas of Europe. These workers returned to the countryside – and the newly built up rural infrastructure meant the countryside could absorb them.
For the new leadership under Xi Jinping, Professor Wen predicts a continuation of these well-tested policies. At his 3rd party congress, Xi addressed more than 60 items for reform, among them the assets bubble, “townisation”, the debt crisis, and de-industrialisation.
It is Professor Wen’s view that China now faces an era of necessary de-industrialisation, and de-urbanisation. This process began in western countries in the 70s when idustry was relocated to the developing world. It is this step that China must now take. Next, “townisation”, a term describing towns becoming the standard unit of settlements, bridging the sharp divide between urban and rural, which began in the West in the 1980s. In China, this would allow people to find work locally, rather than families being broken apart by the need to travel east for work. In developed countries, typically there are few megacities, and no slums. While China has so far avoided slum formation, according to Wen’s assessment based on experience in India and South America, liberalism ineluctably forces rural people into slums in the cities. Living conditions in China’s cities are already sub-optimal: a third of developed China is heavily polluted. This is a problem faced by megacities worldwide, suggesting that this pollution is a problem particular not to China, but to this mode of urbanised development.
Following on from this, Professor Wen went on to discuss China’s economic and social structure. Economically, the professor explained that one of China’s greatest strengths is that its natural resources, financial assets and debts form a pyramid structure, with natural resources by far the largest and debts the smallest. In his assessment, this is far healthier than the structure of western economies. In terms of social structure, one important particularity is that 90% of China’s lower classes may be counted as petty bourgeoisie, rather than proletariat, as virtually all became landowners following land redistribution post-1949. This stabilised the country, meaning that until recently the vast majority of Chinese people lived on their own land in the countryside, with only 11-12% of the population remaining in cities. This stalled the challenges of urbanisation for some decades.
Overall, 60% of Chinese society consists of a rural petty bourgeoisie, 30% of the decentralised middle class, and the remaining 10% forms the higher class, which tends to control and manage state assets through the State owned enterprises (SOEs). Recently, however, the new era of financial capital has reached China and the biggest disruptions are caused by the middle classes. Until recently, such heavy investment in state enterprises meant there was little room for a private sector. Now, however, there are 30 million private enterprises, whose leaders see the advantage in setting up private banks to finance them – a change to the state bank system that has been so crucial in allowing China’s development.
To conclude his speech, Professor Wen spoke about his own Rural Reconstruction organisation, in which he aims to continue with the historic rural reconstruction movement through the training of the new generation, and the mobilization of volunteers. Their projects include eco-architecture, recycling materials, and turning peasant organisations into cooperatives. The result is that citizens participate in eco-agriculture, rural areas gain much needed infrastructure, and the organisation has become one of the largest voluntary networks in China, with branches in hundreds of cities and universities.
The first question posed by an audience member asked what obstacles de-urbanisation and rural reconstruction face. Wen emphasised the numerical and ideological strength of the Rural Reorganisation network, with more than 200,000 students mobilised and hundreds of peasants’ organisations. He stated that faced with opponents, he does not argue, merely waits for the strength of his convictions and the reality of the situation (which not even the staunchest opponents can ignore) to do the convincing for him.
This was followed by a question about responses to government investment in infrastructure – did this face opposition, and what impact did the investment make? Professor Wen stated that while government investment is a significant factor, this alone cannot close the gap between rural and urban areas. Involvement from society, such as from organisations like his own, is also necessary. He reiterated the detrimental effect a capitalist system is likely to have on the countryside. Since outside markets can provide higher profits, the countryside will be marginalised as capital flows out towards the cities. However, in China, the government has invested, giving the countryside the chance to improve itself. Since 2005, almost all its items of social policy are covered in the countryside, including free education and access to healthcare.
Another audience member asked why the mainstream scholars and intellectuals still favour megacity construction, and whether or not the reason behind it was to attract large scale investment. Wen agreed that this was the main motivation: a megacity generates profit and endless business opportunites, regardless of harm to the environment. Wealthy interest groups continue to influence the media in favour of megacities because they stand to profit from this arrangement.
Taking the discussion in a different direction, one audience member asked what opportunities there are for foreign entrepreneurs in rural China. Professor Wen explained that much of the countryside consists of grey areas not covered by formal institutions. Transitional costs are higher, there is little transparency and no democracy. These areas are for small and medium local businesses. What’s more, the goal in building up these areas is to create opportunities for local businesses, not for foreigners or urban residents. Unfortunately, the mainstream has difficulty in accepting this, and keeps trying, failing and losing money in setting up modern systems in rural China.
In response to a question about civil society, the professor made it clear that, since the middle classes so recently emerged from the lower classes, he does not feel China is ready for a fully-fledged civil society. He would not try to duplicate NGOs or civil society movements within China. Rather, his organisation is trying to set up new way of organising for marginalised classes which is wholly voluntary.
Finally, Professor Wen responded to a question about the utility of rural reconstruction by noting that in the future huge numbers of people will begin returning to the countryside. Now, China is beginning to see ‘love your hometown’ movements, the first generation which is returning to the countryside. This will work only if the countryside is invested in and facilities will be readily accessible outside of megacities. Furthermore, as China begins to relocate manufacturing to other countries, urban workers will face redundancy. This is why people are reluctant to sell land. De-urbanisation is a phenomenon that will occur naturally. It is imperative that there should be adequate facilities to meet this wave of people returning to the countryside.
(Report by Coirle Magee)
CHEN Yurong 陈玉荣
Director of the Department for European-Central Asian Studies at CIIS (China Institute for International Studies)
Ms. CHEN Yurong is a senior research fellow and Director of the Department for European-Central Asian Studies at CIIS. She is also Secretary-General of the Chinese Center for SCO Studies, which is based at CIIS. Ms. Chen enjoys the special allowance granted by the State Council, the Chinese Central Government.
After graduation from the Department of Russian Language and Literature, Heilongjiang University, China in 1986, Ms. Chen joined the CIIS. She studied in the Department of International Relations, Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO) from 1989 to 1990. From 1998 to 2001, she served as a consul in the Chinese Consulate General inKhabarovsk, Russia. Ms. Chen has authored over 30 essays published on key Chinese academic journals and some 80 policy briefs and research reports for the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs and other related government institutions. Ms. Chen is also a frequent contributor of some important Chinese newspapers, including the People’s Daily, Guangming Daily and World News Journal.
Dmitry Medvedev: Russia’s National Development Issues (Chinese edition), co-translated,Beijing: World Affairs Press, 2008.Ma Zhengang (ed.): The Steadily Advancing SCO, executive editor-in-chief, Beijing: World Affairs Press, 2006.
Selected Research Articles
The Role of SCO in Central Asia”, in: Center for Russia and Central Asia Studies, China Foundation for International Studies (ed.): On Central Asia Regional Cooperation Mechanisms, Beijing: World Affairs Press, 2009.
“2006: The Rise of Russia’s Aggressive Diplomacy”, in: China Institute of International Studies: The CIIS Blue Book on International Situation and China’s Foreign Affairs 2006/2007, Beijing: World Affairs Press, 2007.
“China and Central Asia Regional Economic Cooperation”, International Studies, No.4, 2004.
“China-Russia Relations Have Entered a New Period Featuring Maturity and Sound Development”, in: China Institute of International Studies: The CIIS Blue Book on International Situation and China’s Foreign Affairs 2009/2010, Beijing: World Affairs Press, 2010.
“An Analysis of the Prospects for Central Asia Geopolitical Structure after Russia-Georgia Conflict”, in: China Institute of International Studies: The CIIS Blue Book on International Situation and China’s Foreign Affairs 2008/2009, Beijing: World Affairs Press, 2009.
- 67May 20th, 2014 Closing the ranks against the West: China Russia an emerging Eurasian Pole? Supplementary Materials 陈玉荣：习近平索契之行为发展中俄关系注入全新活力 http://news.xinhuanet.com/world/2014-02/06/c_126090510_2.htm 陈玉荣谈俄罗斯总统普京访华 http://www.people.com.cn/GB/32306/54155/57487/4231469.html http://news.xinhuanet.com/world/2013-03/21/c_124486912.htm Dmitry Medvedev: Russia’s National Development Issues (Chinese edition), co-translated,Beijing: World Affairs Press, 2008. Ma Zhengang (ed.): The Steadily Advancing SCO, executive editor-in-chief, Beijing: World Affairs Press, 2006. The Role of…
DA Wei 达巍
Director, Institute of American Studies, China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations (CICIR)
DA Wei is the director of the Institute of American Studies, China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations (CICIR). Prior to current position, he was the director of the president’s office of CICIR, and CICIR’s representative at Washington D.C. Da Wei’s research interests include China-US relations, American foreign policies and security policy, China’s foreign policy. He has published dozens of academic thesis, book chapters.
Da Wei earned his B.A. (Chinese literature) and M.A. (International Relations) degrees from the University of International Relations (UIR) in Beijing, and his Ph.D (International Relations) from CICIR. He was a visiting senior fellow at the Atlantic Council of the United States from 2006 to 2007, and a visiting associate at School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), Johns Hopkins University from 2008 to 2009.
LIN Erda 林而达
Professor, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences
Professor Lin is a member of the Sub-Committee for Population, Resources and Environment, Tenth National Committee of Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference; a member of National Expert Committee for Climate Change.
Since 1988, Lin Erda has served as Deputy Director and Director-General of Agro-meteorology Institute and Agro-Environment and Sustainable Development Institute, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences for 15 years. He also is a Member of Executive Board of Chinese Agro-Environment and Ecology Protection Society, a Member of Scientific Board of Chinese Meteorology Society, a Member of Executive Board of Chinese Sustainable Development Society. Due to the achievements of him and his team, Prof Lin has got three national scientific and technologic progress awards.
Professor Lin Erda has Applied Meteorology degrees. Since 1983, he has been an associate Prof. and Professor in the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences. His current research focus is on climate change both impacts, vulnerability and GHG emission mitigation, including as a project leader of UK/China cooperation on climate change and agriculture, lead authors of National Report on Climate Change Impact and Adaptation, IPCC 1-4 assessment reports, National policy reports, and relevant 8 scientific books and 82 journal publications.
Senior Associate, Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)
Edward Luttwak is a CSIS senior associate and has served as a consultant to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the National Security Council, the U.S. Department of State, the U.S. Army, Navy, and Air Force, and a number of allied governments as well as international corporations and financial institutions. He is a frequent lecturer at universities and military colleges in the United States and abroad and has testified before several congressional committees and presidential commissions. In 2004, he was awarded an honorary degree by the University of Bath (United Kingdom).
Luttwak is the author of numerous articles and several books, including The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire (John Hopkins, 1976–2005); Turbo-Capitalism: Winners and Losers in the Global Economy (HarperCollins, 1999); The Endangered American Dream (Simon & Schuster, 1993); and Coup d’etat (Harvard, 1985), which has been published in 14 languages. His new edition of Strategy: The Logic of War and Peace (Harvard, 2001) has been published in Chinese, French, German, Hebrew, Italian, Estonian, and Turkish as well as English editions. Luttwak serves on the editorial board of the Washington Quarterly and Geopolitique (Paris). He received his Ph.D. from the Johns Hopkins University, and he speaks French, Italian, and Spanish among other languages.
MA Xiaolin 马晓霖
Founder, Bo Lian She 博联社
Ma Xiaolin is the Founder, and President of the blog Bo Lian She 博联社 (blshe.com). He is also the Executive Director of China Foundation for International Studies, the Executive Director of Chinese Academy for Middle East Studies and the Director of the China-Arab Friendship Association. He is Guest Professor of Beijing Foreign Studies University and Beijing Languages and Culture University and News Commentator for CCTV and Aljazeera, after being Senior Xinhua Correspondent in Kuwait, Palestine & Iraq.
His main works are 《Survival Diary on the Land of Palestine & Israel》 (2001), 《Through the Frontier from Death to Survival》 (2002), 《The Life and Death between Tigris and Euphrates》(2004), 《Arabian Upheaval-In-Depth Observation on Turbulent West Asia and North Africa》(2011), 《China Needs Zen》(2012) and 《Arab Yellow Paper 2013-2014》(2014)
Dr. Mao Ziwei 毛紫薇
Research Analyst to Energy Programme, Word Resources Institute (China)
Mao Ziwei is a research analyst to the City Program at the World Resources Institute before she joined the Energy Program. She dedicates herself to China urban energy issues, including city-level energy consumption and carbon emissions status and trend in the context of urbanization, with a deeper dive into urban sectors. As a member of Research Center for International Energy Policy at Tsinghua University before joining WRI, her research focused on reducing sectoral carbon emissions, especially in the sectors of power and cement, by using modeling tools, like LEAP, GAMS and MATLAB. Based on her research, several academic papers have been published in English and Chinese. She developed the research interest in climate change during the visit to Potsdam Institute for Climate Change Impact for academic exchange and the study of sustainable development in Venice International University. In addition, she did some initial research in the application of LCA for the evaluation of sustainability of CDM. She used to participate in the Copenhagen Climate Conference in 2009, and contributed to the organization of International Youth Summit on Energy and Climate Change 2009 held in Beijing. She got the bachelor and master degrees from the School of Environment, Tsinghua University, majoring in environmental science and engineering.
Prof. Silvio Pons
Director, Gramsci Institute (Rome)
Silvio Pons is Professor of Contemporary History and East European History at the University of Rome «Tor Vergata» and Director of the Gramsci Institute Foundation in Rome. He is a member of the Editorial Board of the Journal of Cold War Studies (Harvard University). He has extensively written on the Cold War and the global history of communism. His main publications include Stalin and the Inevitable War (Frank Cass 2002); Reinterpreting the End of the Cold War (Frank Cass 2005); A Dictionary of Twentieth Century Communism (Princeton UP 2010); The Global Revolution. A History of International Communism (Oxford University Press 2014).
TAO Ran 陶然
Director of China Center for Public Economics and Governance, Renmin University of China
Tao Ran is a professor in School of Economics and the Director of China Center for Public Economics and Governance at Renmin University of China based in Beijing. He is also non-resident senior fellow of Brookings Institution and the Acting director of Tsinghua-Brookings Center. He graduated with a Ph.D. in economics from the University of Chicago in 2002. His research focuses on topics related to China’s unfinished economic transition, including the political economy of China’s economic transition, land and household registration reform in China’s urbanization, local governance and public finance in rural China. A specialist on Chinese economy, he has published over 30 articles on international journals and 40 articles on major Chinese social science journals.
ZHU Chunquan 朱春全
Country Representative of IUCN China Office, Council Member of Ecological Society of China & Council Member of Beijing Forestry Society.
Dr. ZHU Chunquan was the Conservation Director of WWF China from 2005 to 2012. He also was the president of the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) China Working Group (from 2007-2012), and the Ninth Council Member and Academic Committee member of Chinese Society of Forestry. Dr. Zhu Chunquan received his doctor’s degree in ecology from Northeast Forestry University in 1991, and had overseas studies as the FAO research fellowships in Canada, Belgium, UK and work experience at WWF US. He was promoted as a professor at the Chinese Academy of Forestry in 1997, and appointed as the guest researcher of Ecological Key Laboratory of Chinese Academy of Science in 2005. Dr. Zhu has 29 years of experience in research and management in scientific research departments and international organizations, mainly engaged in the research in the field of nature conservation and sustainable development, and in programme management and organization development management.