Dominant powers have often run relay races among each other throughout history. Today, globalization and technology can increase the speed of those races, which, in the past, would take centuries to be finished.
We are told that a third of the world population lives in China and India and that a demographic explosion is feared. Actually, it’s not the number of people what matters but their actions. In a Marxist economy, a numerous population necessarily leads to famine, while in a market economy, a numerous population is a positive thing since it makes up a great internal market.
In today’s world, Europe is a declining power which preserves its prosperity to the detriment of its defense expenses and respecting democracy. Europe may recover or, on the contrary, get stagnant and become a simple destination for U.S. and Asian tourists. Nobody knows yet what’s going to happen to the United States, but we seem to enjoy the Asian vitality respecting democracy and freedom as Europe does. Knowing how China and India will evolve is something that we must do in the future.
They are very different countries. India is a nuclear power that respects democracy and speaks English. An alliance should be established with India and we must succeed in getting it to take a permanent seat in the UN Security Council. On the other hand, China is turning into a Soviet-like power. Currently, China uses North Korea against the United States and Japan. China’s behavior is much worse than that of the U.S. but China’s breaches of the Human Rights are not published in big headlines due to a mixture of third-world backwardness, anti-Americanism and Chinese-fright.
By the time China becomes a threat, a defenseless Europe might be likely to turn again to the United States and find there much better quality than today.

From a long time ago, China has assumed the great power condition and is ready to defy the United States, even on a global level. This is also due to the fact that, after the downfall of communism, Confucianism remains the only model for state development, capable of representing an alternative for the Western values. Many of the military strategy changes that have recently taken place in the Far East are not only made against Korea, but, as Washington likes to say, also against China.
Most of the wars waged by the Americans lately have been against militarily weaker opponents, whose regimes were fragile and demoralized. Afterwards, they would let others do the work as was the case with the Atlantic Alliance in Afghanistan. In Korea, however, the thing turns more complicated because the Americans haven’t found any allies in the region.
China is carrying out a whole schedule of military programs. The United States, on its side, is restructuring its forces, particularly its navy. It wants to readjust its anti-missile defense system. Today, the nuclear weapon has grown so lethal that one has no time to dodge the attack, only return it. In the end, it results in two dead bodies or one dead and another seriously wounded - a risk that Washington won’t chance. The Chinese are developing missiles that can evade the shield, so they can keep the status quo and the political-strategic role of the nuclear weapon. In our days, the idea of a “global nuclear war” has a greater meaning for people. The theories about the global nuclear winter and of the anti-globalization theoreticians are having their effect and the atomic weapon is not any longer only a means to wage war but a powerful instrument for pressure too. The financial aspect must also be taken into account in case that the Chinese military techniques are as sophisticated as ours.
North Korea, from the American point of view, of course, continues to be one of the first countries on the terrorist list, but their system is not so feeble as to crumble. There are also South Korea and Japan, supported by the United States. But on the other hand are the Russians and the Chinese. Let’s think that if the Americans should station themselves by the north border of our country and close any sea access, that would mean such a hard blow as it is their presence in the Middle East. They may make their way to Sverdlovsk and to the European side of the country, because our system had not foreseen that the United States could ever use Bichkek as a military base.

The relationship between the United States and China is based on ambiguity. In the United States, both parties almost completely agree on having good relations with Beijing. Washington clings to the policy of only one China and George W. Bush, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice make all efforts so that their relations with China are as good as possible. However, some media and a few in Congress toughen their position with regards to China. For many people, the Chinese development is the main threat for US security.
We see how the center of gravity moves from the Atlantic to the Pacific. People often compare China’s rise with that of imperial Germany in crucial moments of the 19th and 20th centuries, but this is not the most accurate analysis. The difference between that model and what now happens in China is what separates Clausewitz from Sun Tzu: the military imperial dominance against the ideological control of the adversary. Unlike what happened in Europe early in the 20th century, nobody thinks he can defeat his rival in six months without suffering significant losses. In a globalized world - with nuclear weapons all around - nobody believes that there can be a winner if a war begins.
It is not possible to compare China and the Soviet Union either. The latter had a Russian tradition and had inherited the czars’ ambitions to dominate Europe. China has a history of 2000 years and does not want to dominate its neighbors. The containment policy used against the USSR during the Cold War does not apply in this reality. We should neither be obsessed with Chinese defense military spending. It is true that their military budget increases but it only represents 20% compared with that of the United States. It is also true that the situation of Taiwan could deteriorate but we must make efforts to keep this issue in the field of negotiations.
The best way to avoid China’s hegemony in Asia is cooperating with China. A hostile stance would lead China to trying to get Asia out of the US’s influence. In addition, China wants to cooperate with the United States to develop its economy. We would win nothing if we declare a Cold War against China and we would have the support of only a few countries. Nowadays, the behavior of countries is essential. Things could deteriorate if China seems to be trying to expel the United States from Asia or if the United States shows an imperial behavior.

One of the paradoxes of our time is that regionalism is gaining strength along with globalization. Europe has already abandoned its traditional frontiers. The Americas also follow the path of unification with free trade agreements. Globalization and regionalism are the two sides of a coin created by market forces. After the fall of communism there is no other sustainable alternative for that market. The tendency of regionalism prevails, with less strength in East Asia. Its definite shape will depend on political decisions and strategic choices made today. In my opinion, this is something decisive as macroeconomic issues in the 21st century depend on the relations among the Americas, Europe and East Asia. If our region does not join forces, it will lose to Europe and the Americas. The Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) agreed on creating a common market before 2020 and its share in the Asian economy increased from 20% in 1980 to 40% last year. Our regionalism will be less institutionalized and will be less bureaucratic than in Europe, not to mention that it will have a multi-polar character.
The historic relations among China, India and Japan have always been complex. Beijing, Delhi and Tokyo understand the need to cooperate bur the market forces that unify the region will complicate the trend of their interests by adding new variables of competition and association. China and Japan have never been great simultaneous powers in the history of East Asia. A brief but bloody war opposed China and India in the 1960s. Currently, commercial exchanges between both countries flourish but competition to access the sources of energy will increase, which will complicate the situation of Pakistan. Relations between India and Japan are less problematic but are based on cultural insecurity. Rivalry and competition among big powers is a reality of life and the persistence of national interests that obstruct European integration prove it. However, rivalry does not necessarily lead to conflict.
When we founded the ASEAN 38 years ago we never thought that the main topic of the summit that will take place in December in Malaysia will be that of East Asian borders. Should it be limited to its traditional frontiers or should we include India, Australia and New Zealand? Anyway, these countries will participate in the meeting. The summit must include as many participants as possible and discuss several topics.
Americans should participate in the process of solving the security problems of the region. They have taken part in various wars in the region for freedom and opening. Growth has been possible thanks to the stability they brought. There are voices in the United States calling China a new strategic adversary in a new Cold War. They are those who suggest solving the Chinese problem while the country is still weak. It is a dangerous venture that would only strengthen nationalism and would turn the Chinese into our enemies. In my opinion, the presidents of the United States and China know that good relations between their countries are essential. George W. Bush made it clear that he would not support the independence of Taiwan and both countries agree on the fact that the existence of nuclear weapons in Korea would not be beneficial. In addition to this summit, we should create institutions that allow for reflection on many concrete problems. The United States does not necessarily has to be a member of each institution but it has to be an indissoluble part of the general architecture.

This month, China and the European Union are celebrating 30 years of official relations; relations that have evolved with time and it is time to ask ourselves about their future. China is currently having an exceptional economic growth but it also causes internal turbulence. It has to manage this new wealth and to maintain its growth while it reduces poverty and inequality, and respects the environment, but it will not be able to do it alone.
Sustainable development is a challenge for China and Europe. The decisive question for our children and grandchildren is if the natural ecosystems of the world will survive the pressure imposed by modern civilization. A recent UN report indicated that we have already entered the danger zone. The accelerated Chinese growth has a significant impact on the world energy consumption. China is rapidly becoming one of the biggest world importers of oil and gas. The 2004 World Energy Outlook report of the International Energy Organization foresees that the world demand for energy will increase in almost 60% by 2030 with China and India being responsible for two thirds of the increase. Massive investments will be necessary in order to satisfy the world energy demand. In addition, it will increase the emission of CO2. If there is no cooperation, the boost of Chinese energy consumption will contribute to further increasing climatic warming.
China must sell its policies to a world public. Most of the Europeans think that China wants to mold, and not to challenge, a balanced world order, a stringer United Nations and an effective multilateral system. But, in a global village, wrong perceptions may come up very easily and cause significant damage. The international community counts on Beijing to help solving the North Korean crisis. Likewise, China can play a constructive role in other regions of the world. As it signed a ten-year energy agreement with Iran, China is in a very favorable position to support the European Union efforts as to prevention of nuclear proliferation. Europe and the world have also watched China’s handling of its national problems in the field of human rights. China must urgently pay attention to the issue of freedom of belief.
It is time to substitute the old cooperation agreement between the Union and China that dates back from 1985. Our relationship has evolved, moving from a merely economic relationship to a relationship that involves the fight against terrorism, piracy and organized crime, as well as many other problems.
The political regulations of the European Union are strict but the fruit of cooperation are sweet. If we face our common problems together, China and Europe will significantly contribute to make the 21st century a century of hope.

The unilateral military policy of George W. Bush has led to the creation of new geo-strategic alliances. The most interesting one is that of China, Iran and Russia.
The increasing ties between Moscow and Beijing are one of the most important events of the last 18 months but it has gone unnoticed. This new close relationship has even included a joint military exercise in 2005. Weapon sales between both countries flourish and develop along with non-military exchanges, particularly in the energy field. The cancellation of the construction of the pipeline that would unite the oil reserves of Siberia and China may have looked like a setback but the Russian pipeline will now reach, as asked by Japan that financed the pipeline, until the harbor of Najodka. This port is located some 40 miles away from the Chinese borders and extending it will not cost much. In that case, Tokyo would have paid for the work. In addition, China carries out important investments in Russian oil companies and has contributed to the re-nationalization of Yukos.
China is also making significant investments in Iranian gas. Thus, Beijing is violating the commercial restrictions imposed on Tehran by the United States. Russia and China also help Iran in developing its military program. The United States is convinced that the purpose of that program is making nuclear weapons.
Currently, Iran and China support the policy of Vladimir Putin in regards to Chechnya; Russia and Iran support China in regards to Taiwan; and Russia and China support Iran’s nuclear policy. This alliance aims at opposing the United States and its “democratization” policy. It aims at serving as a counterbalance in the face of the US’s global ambitions.

We intend to establish an association with Gazprom and Rosneft and we signed a mutual memorandum of understanding regarding the common exploitation of four oilfields located in Russia and China. Over the last six years we have received deliveries from Yukos and, in the last two years, from Lukoil. Transportation difficulties have significantly affected this source of supply and we hope the Russian and Chinese governments can soon solve the issue of the construction of the pipeline between Russia and China.
Thus far, Sinopec has no intentions of buying shares of Rosneft but I know other Chinese companies are doing it. I am also aware of the interest of some companies in buying the petrochemical company Angarskaya that Yukos will soon have to sell. In order to know which they are, it is necessary to get in touch with the Development and Reforms State Committee of the People’s Republic of China. Sinopec established an association with Shell in Sajalin linked to gas. We are willing to expand that cooperation for the ‘Sakalin 2’ project for gas exploitation. We are talking about one billion cubic meters per year as part of this operation. We are willing to invest in infrastructure and to participate in construction.