"Sinification" of Russian, Iranian, or Pakistani foreign policy in the 1990s or post-2000

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
China under Mao had a global ideological agenda, spewed hostility at the US for being arch-capitalist and hostility at the USSR for corrupting communism into capitalism, and supported armed revolutionary movements in neighboring countries, other parts of Asia, Africa, and South America, and even had a "satellite" regime in Europe, Enver Hoxha's Albania.

Although China's ability to make a truly significant impact was weak outside of Indochina and Korea and its Indian frontier, it tried, at considerable risk to itself.

Despite its poverty that meant it could not match the superpowers, it was meddlesome.

But Dang Xiaoping largely transformed China from a ideologically and proxy meddlesome country into a more limited "mind it's own business", "focus on it's own material self-interest" type of country, between 1978 and 1989.

In 1978-1979, Deng very rapidly, but quietly and without any public disavowals or reconsiderations, cut or reduced support to communist groups fighting for power in pro-US states like Thailand and the Philippines.

Deng held on to support for groups that opposed the Soviet Union (the Afghan Mujhadeen) and Vietnam (the Khmer Rouge) for longer, until after their respective withdrawal from Afghanistan and Cambodia. But even there, they did not stick with one-sided support of any particular faction for long. They didn't really do much side-picking in Afghanistan at all after Soviet withdrawal, and in Cambodia, after Hun Sen, originally a Vietnamese puppet, ended an experiment in multiparty elected government, Beijing woo'ed him rather than sponsoring a Khmer Rouge overthrow of him.

What this all adds up to is that despite the lip service China still pays to being against hegemony, against superpower arrogance and for a multipolar world, China hardly invest its national ego in allies or proxies abroad.

China retains irredentist claims against Taiwan, the Senkakus and Spratlys, but scarely undertakes lethal action to support its claims. It is vocally sensitive about diplomatic slights related to those areas, but is not placing deadlines or making ultimatums to fully resolve all the claims in its own favor and crush all defiance of its claims in any hurry whatsoever.



----This is in contrast to Russia, which has sent an expeditionary force to Syria, seized Crimea in a thinly disguised invasion, occupied eastern Ukraine with a proxy army, invaded Georgia. This was preceded earlier on by supporting breakaway statelets in Abkhazia and Ossetia and Transnistria. Russia complains about western international initiatives with much greater shrillness than China.

What would need to happen for Russian interventionism and rhetorical profile to shrink down to Chinese size? Where it perhaps has some irredentist goals or aims to revise the world order but is much more patient and risk averse about doing so, like China.

----China is also a contrast to Iran, which is involved in proxy struggles all over the Middle East.
What would need to happen for the Islamic Republic of Iran, without formally abandoning any of its ideology or ever questioning the propriety of its past actions, to basically disengage itself from proxy struggles? Iran's activities involve a degree of risk and cost, what could make them decide, as the Chinese did, that it's not worth it.

---Same question for the Pakistanis. What could make them stop playing poke the elephant with terrorism/insurgency against India, their larger nuclear-armed neighbor, and meddling against Afghanistan, even if they never drop their political stance that Kashmir is their business?
 
----This is in contrast to Russia, which has sent an expeditionary force to Syria, seized Crimea in a thinly disguised invasion, occupied eastern Ukraine with a proxy army, invaded Georgia. This was preceded earlier on by supporting breakaway statelets in Abkhazia and Ossetia and Transnistria. Russia complains about western international initiatives with much greater shrillness than China.

Everything goes "right" for Russia post 1991. Certain events go differently leading to a strong liberal democracy there.

What would need to happen for the Islamic Republic of Iran, without formally abandoning any of its ideology or ever questioning the propriety of its past actions, to basically disengage itself from proxy struggles? Iran's activities involve a degree of risk and cost, what could make them decide, as the Chinese did, that it's not worth it.

America and Iran go to war with each other. America eventually disengages after a long and bloody insurgency, and the Khomeinists take back control, but they are so damaged by the war that they focus on rebuilding rather than funding proxies.

---Same question for the Pakistanis. What could make them stop playing poke the elephant with terrorism/insurgency against India, their larger nuclear-armed neighbor, and meddling against Afghanistan, even if they never drop their political stance that Kashmir is their business?

India and Pakistan go to war, and India wins, and by "win" I mean "WIN". Pakistan is forced to either reduce their nuclear arsenal or completely do away with it, or alternatively they just give their slice of Kashmir to India. Both can't work, that would create enough revanchism in Pakistan to the point where they will never give up on funding insurgents and being obsessed with Afghanistan.

The Soviets manage to kill a certain leaders in Afghanistan during the Soviet-Afghan War. They still lose, but the loss of those leaders makes it easier for Massoud to take control. No instable Afghanistan means that Pakistan can't really meddle in its affairs.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Everything goes "right" for Russia post 1991. Certain events go differently leading to a strong liberal democracy there.



America and Iran go to war with each other. America eventually disengages after a long and bloody insurgency, and the Khomeinists take back control, but they are so damaged by the war that they focus on rebuilding rather than funding proxies.



India and Pakistan go to war, and India wins, and by "win" I mean "WIN". Pakistan is forced to either reduce their nuclear arsenal or completely do away with it, or alternatively they just give their slice of Kashmir to India. Both can't work, that would create enough revanchism in Pakistan to the point where they will never give up on funding insurgents and being obsessed with Afghanistan.

The Soviets manage to kill a certain leaders in Afghanistan during the Soviet-Afghan War. They still lose, but the loss of those leaders makes it easier for Massoud to take control. No instable Afghanistan means that Pakistan can't really meddle in its affairs.

So for Russia, the need a lucky and blessed post 1991 period, but for Iran and Pakistan, only a rough beating will do?
 
What would need to happen for Russian interventionism and rhetorical profile to shrink down to Chinese size?

Respecting Russian interests, especially security interests.

That is what was done in China's case (end of alliance with the RoC, withdrawal of forces from the RoC and the Philippines, letting the PRC re-assert their SCS claims against Vietnam by force, etc.).
 
What would need to happen for Russian interventionism and rhetorical profile to shrink down to Chinese size?
Give them an economy thats strong enough for them to get Sevastopol via debt-trapping Ukraine.

What would need to happen for the Islamic Republic of Iran, without formally abandoning any of its ideology or ever questioning the propriety of its past actions, to basically disengage itself from proxy struggles?
Khamenei doesn't veto Khatami's desire to accept Bush's negotiation proposal in 2004. Bush gets a second (and more deserved) "Mission Accomplished" moment after a few months of intense negotiation.

What could make them stop playing poke the elephant with terrorism/insurgency against India
Nothing.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Khamenei doesn't veto Khatami's desire to accept Bush's negotiation proposal in 2004. Bush gets a second (and more deserved) "Mission Accomplished" moment after a few months of intense negotiation.
.

That happened? Bush proposed a thing in 2004?

What I'd heard about was the Iranians proposing a thing in 2002 but the US refusing it with the Axis of Evil speech and by refusing to trade in the MeK for Al-Qaeda.
 
Everything goes "right" for Russia post 1991. Certain events go differently leading to a strong liberal democracy there.
But “liberal democracies” like USA and France have far more interventionist streaks than post-1990 Russia.

With the exception of the Syrian deployment* Russia’s interventions were reactions to conflicts and revolutions on its borders (in case of the 2008 Georgia War — a reaction to Georgian forces shelling Russian peacekeepers!). Pretty much any country regardless of its political system will react to conflicts on its borders (see USA “War on Drugs” or the threat to invade Haiti in the 1990s). Meanwhile, “the West” has been all about interventions far and wide across the world in recent years to fight terrorism or “spread democracy” and what have you.

So no, I don’t see how a “liberal” Russia means no interventions.

* - You could bring up Transnistria, but there Moscow wanted to withdraw its troops but the general stationed in the area straight-up ignored orders given to him.
 
It's impossible for Pakistan to not be involved in Afghanistan in some way. Especially as Afghanistan itself has never recognized the Durand Line border between the two countries and even launched attacks across it throughout the 60s and 70s.

As for it's involvement in India, find a way to resolve the Kashmir issue and they would have no reason to support any groups in India.
 
Top