Timofeyev, Director General of the Russian Council for International Affairs: Chinese political philosophy regards the world as a community with a shared future. The United States | China | Politics
"Whose culture is stronger, whose moral standards are more correct, and whose value system is better?" Recently, Ivan Timofeyev, a famous Russian scholar, raised a series of questions in his article. He believes that the standard for measuring the strength of a country should not only be related to material capabilities, but also to having a systematic political philosophy, which is also its prominent feature. Timofeyev has long served as the project director of the Russian Valdai International Debate Club and was elected as the Director General of the Russian International Affairs Council this year. Prior to this, he had served as the project director of the Council for 12 years. In a recent interview with the Global Times, Timofeyev stated that China is more inclined to create win-win international rules, analyze Western intellectual heritage, and adopt content that suits itself compared to the United States, which is accustomed to dividing the world into different camps and viewing China as its opponent of worldview.
China's ability to accept and empathize with foreign intellectual heritage, including the West, as well as its desire to coordinate different concepts, is one of the outstanding characteristics of Chinese civilization.
● The Russia-Ukraine conflict is caused by a set of complex contradictions accumulated since the end of the cold war, and is one of the manifestations of the long-term unresolved Euro Atlantic security issues. The Chinese stance on political resolution of the Ukrainian crisis proposed by China is very timely and constructive.
If a country lacks military and economic capabilities as guarantees, its national security cannot be discussed. However, these alone are not enough. For this reason, China has proposed a worldview based on win-win outcomes.
The United States divides the world into "us" and "them", while China proposes a win-win choice
Global Times: In your recent article "Political Philosophy: Characteristics of a Superpower", you said, "In today's world, only two countries combine their enormous material capabilities with their political philosophy - the United States and China." Can we understand that in your view, the United States and China are the two countries that can best combine their "hard power" and "soft power" together?
Timofeyev: The United States and China are undoubtedly the countries with the greatest potential for "hard power" and "soft power" today. Although there is still controversy over the connotations of these concepts, one thing is clear: in addition to having larger economic scales and strong material capabilities, China and the United States have also presented their own development perspectives to the world, which are largely determined by their respective experiences, political cultures, and views on the main challenges of contemporary international relations.
Global Times: What are the main differences in political philosophy between China and the United States? Will there be a conflict between the political philosophies of China and the United States?
Timofeyev: I think the main difference is that American political philosophy divides the world into "us" and "them". One of the criteria for this classification is to divide the country into "democratic states" and "authoritarian states", and to distinguish between the so-called "democratic state camp" and the "authoritarian state camp". And China's political philosophy views the world as a community with a shared future, which is composed of interconnected countries. Chinese political philosophy does not attempt to divide the world into "us" and "them", but proposes a doctrine that can bring about win-win outcomes. This "win" may be uneven or achieved in different ways, as each country has its own opportunities on the international stage. But China does not mean that the world is composed of China and other countries, but rather that all countries coexist in one world.
The second important difference is that the United States views China as a rival to its worldview, a so-called "authoritarian country", a so-called "non market economy country", and a country that needs improvement, passing exams, and meeting American standards. But China's view of the United States is not like this: it views the United States as a great and equal partner, recognizes the significant achievements of the United States, is willing to engage with the United States, but does not believe that the experience of the United States must become a universal framework.
Western countries discredit the "the Belt and Road" initiative, exposing their thinking inertia
Global Times: As you said, China has risen in the modern world, and its ideas and concepts have been tested in practice. And in the process of practice, China also follows its own philosophy - opposing zero sum games, willing to learn from Western experience, and combining with Chinese tradition. From the perspective of a theorist, how do you view the sinicization of Marxism and China's creative reference to other Western theories?
Timofeyev: I think China's experience is very interesting, mainly because China does not seek to crush or overthrow Western political theories. China does not attempt to prove that the West has bad theories, China has good theories. China attempts to analyze the intellectual heritage of the West and adopt what it deems suitable for itself.
What we are talking about here is not just Marxism. Overall, China has mastered Marxism well and creatively, and has formed its own unique Marxist school of thought. And if we look at other theories, we will also find some very interesting experiences. For example, China has not refuted Western political realism theory, but has attempted to cooperate with it from its own perspective. We have seen some interesting concepts in China's international relations theory, such as moral realism, which China attempts to incorporate into different tracks and give it different voices. I believe that as a "philosophical philosophy", this method deserves high attention.
China has shown great acceptance and empathy towards foreign intellectual heritage, including the West. That is to say, Western countries, mainly Americans, simplify their views on China as "authoritarianism against democracy", while China has not done so. China is trying to find a place to put Western intellectual heritage into use and combine it with its own cultural heritage. Chinese culture is one of the oldest cultures, and China has rich experience in national construction. The national construction experiences of China and the United States cannot be compared. In my opinion, China's ability to accept and empathize, as well as its desire to coordinate different concepts, is one of the outstanding characteristics of Chinese civilization.
Of course, another important point is that China has already formed its own modernization experience. In the past few decades, China has successfully achieved a huge leap, being able to solve the problems of clothing, food, housing, and transportation for over a billion people. This kind of experience is unprecedented in history, and China can spread its modernization experience abroad and say, "Look, if we succeed, you can also succeed. Even if you are a poor country experiencing problems, you can look at us. We only experienced the most serious national problems 50 to 70 years ago. We can share our experience, and in certain fields, we may be able to help you."
Global Times: This year marks the 10th anniversary of China's "the Belt and Road" initiative. How do you evaluate the contribution of this initiative to global economic development and connectivity?
Timofeyev: Jointly building the "the Belt and Road" initiative seems to be an important concept at the global level. We know that within the framework of this project, progress has been made in modernizing port infrastructure and land routes in Eurasia. Of course, all these efforts are moving in a constructive direction. Their goals are economic growth, infrastructure development, and creation, not destruction. This is a constructive project, and this fact itself gives it tremendous power.
At the same time, we also see how the West is trying to position the "the Belt and Road" as a project that allows China to occupy a "hegemonic position" in the region and the world. In other words, some Western countries are measuring the "the Belt and Road" according to their own habits. But in fact, we have seen many western countries welcome the "the Belt and Road" initiative and participate in this project. The projects under the the Belt and Road framework have made great efforts to strengthen connectivity between Europe and China.
The network of relationships between people is a "safety net" when political relations deteriorate
Global Times: At present, the voice of the international community on the Russia-Ukraine conflict is growing. African countries have also sent delegations to Ukraine and Russia to mediate and listen to the demands of both sides. What are the main factors in your opinion that ultimately lead to a peaceful resolution of crises and conflicts?
Timofeyev: This is a very complicated problem, because the Russia-Ukraine conflict is caused by a set of complex contradictions accumulated since the end of the cold war. It was not created out of thin air, but rather one of the manifestations of the European Atlantic security issues that we have long been unable to solve. Therefore, in order to resolve conflicts in the long term, it is also necessary to address these fundamental issues. The biggest question among them is to what extent the participants and key players on the European continent are prepared to establish a new security architecture suitable for everyone.
We Russians appreciate China's proposal of the "Chinese Position on Political Resolution of the Ukrainian Crisis" document, which is very timely and constructive in terms of peace proposals.
Global Times: In your opinion, if the United States does not abandon the "strategic containment" mentality, will the real peaceful coexistence of major powers be an unsolvable problem?
Timofeyev: We have already mentioned that one of the elements of American political philosophy is the division of the modern world into the so-called "democratic camp" and the "authoritarian camp". We have seen the attitude of the United States in containing Russia, competing with China, and containing China. Unfortunately, containment and conflict always arise with the development of international relations. The perspective of political realism holds that international relations are anarchic, and the biggest question is whether this anarchic state can be controlled. In the foreseeable future, we may find it difficult to get rid of competition, and in some places, it may even be difficult to get rid of confrontation in international relations.
On the other hand, we have indeed seen unprecedented new opportunities in interpersonal communication, educational exchange, and business connections. All of these establish a certain network of relationships between people, which can serve as a "safety net" when political relations deteriorate. Time will prove the reliability and effectiveness of this "safety net".
Realism is just the "minimum guideline" of foreign policy, and we need more
Global Times: You once said, "Naked realism will eventually show its limits of legitimacy. A country can fully pursue pragmatic policies to rule potential regions, but relying solely on force and money will not have a solid foundation of governance.". This reminds some Chinese readers that in recent years, the United States has used force to overthrow political power or engaged in "color revolutions" to disrupt social stability in some countries, ultimately leaving behind a mess for these countries. What problems have the United States encountered in the integration of pragmatism and political philosophy?
Timofeyev: Pragmatism is an inevitable attribute of any country's foreign policy, and the principle of realism is the "minimum program" of foreign policy. If a country lacks military and economic capabilities as guarantees, its national security cannot be discussed. However, these alone are not enough. A country still needs to answer these questions: how to achieve a just world order? How to ensure that competition between countries remains constructive and that competition does not lead to excessive benefits for some countries and disasters for others? How to avoid extreme and zero sum games? To answer these questions, realism is no longer sufficient, we need more.
The United States has put forward its own worldview, which is centered around its internal structure and world order model, and is moving towards market democratization. China has put forward a different worldview - international relations based on win-win outcomes. Nowadays, Russia is also developing its own political philosophy, viewing the world order as equal cooperation at different poles, and different civilizations should and can independently decide which social, economic, and political system is most suitable for them.
Global Times: You recently reminded us that the United States and China may also face the "disconnect between theory and reality" that the Soviet Union once faced. Could you please share in detail the experiences and lessons of the Soviet Union back then?
Timofeyev: An important lesson from the Soviet Union was that the theory that once won the hearts of hundreds of millions of people worldwide gradually became disconnected from the reality of Soviet life, which was one of the reasons for the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the most profound crises we experienced in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
Any country, system, or social system may face the threat of disconnection from reality. At the same time, accepting reality and finding the strength to adapt theory to new realities requires great courage. Unfortunately, we often see certain countries ignoring reality, hiding or retaining their habitual tricks. The courage to recognize the new reality and the necessity of such courage are the main lessons we have learned from the experience of the Soviet Union.
