In recent times, a video interview with India’s former Ambassador to Russia, Pankaj Saran, has been circulating online. The interview mainly discusses the relationships between the four major countries: China, Russia, India, and the United States.
Saran stated, “Currently in terms of power, China has far surpassed Russia,” and “But from a sociological and political perspective, it is impossible to make Russia subjugate to China”; “The fundamental contradiction between China and Russia is that China is friends with Russia while also engaging with Europe and America at the same time.” Undoubtedly, Saran’s words have shattered the facade of the “limitless” relationship between China and Russia.
Before Russia invaded Ukraine, although China and Russia were strengthening bilateral relations, many times it was more about mutual exploitation, and Moscow’s goodwill towards Beijing had its limits. However, since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, facing Western sanctions, Moscow has become increasingly isolated in the international community, relying more and more on economic and military support from China. It can be said that without a continuous flow of funds and military supplies from China, Russia would not be able to sustain the war, and its economy would also collapse.
A point that can be proven is that shortly after Putin’s re-election as president, he appointed Dmitry Belousov, who also serves as the chairman of the Russia-China Investment Cooperation Committee, as the Minister of Defense to quickly distribute the funds and military supplies obtained from China to the Russian military to improve efficiency.
However, as Saran mentioned, it is impossible to make Russia truly submit to China, and the Chinese Communist Party, which is unwilling to detach from Europe and America, also finds it difficult to make Moscow truly believe in its intentions. Putin’s upcoming visit to Beijing is therefore filled with uncertainty regarding how top officials in the Zhongnanhai leadership can continue to support Moscow in the face of successive sanctions from the U.S. that have been launched and are on the way.
After discussing the China-Russia relationship, Saran also mentioned India’s positioning among major powers. According to him, “A strong Russia is beneficial for India to counterbalance China and the U.S.; India has options outside of China (relating to Russia) and does not wish to see the emergence of a world dominated by China and the U.S., global power should be more decentralized, with India becoming one of the focal points.” In reality, India has been acting accordingly, and we won’t delve into that here.
Interestingly, during the interview, the interviewer made a statement saying “China has no friends,” to which Saran responded, “China only has harmful friends.” Following this, both of them burst into laughter.
Saran’s witticism may seem a bit harsh to the Chinese Communist media, but it also holds some truth. Looking around the world, from governments to individuals, how many genuine friends does the Chinese Communist Party have? Democratic governments are unwilling to be friends with the CCP, so are non-democratic governments genuinely willing to be its friends? How many of the CCP’s old friends were dictators? How many met unfortunate ends?
In 2011, Southern Weekend journalists examined articles from the People’s Daily from 1949 to 2010 and found that over the past sixty years, 601 individuals from 123 countries were deemed by the Chinese government as the “old friends of the Chinese people,” or rather “old friends of the CCP,” some of whom were dictators. This list includes overthrown rulers like Egypt’s former President Hosni Mubarak, Libya’s former President Muammar Gaddafi, Cambodia’s Pol Pot, North Korea’s Kim Jong-il and Kim Jong-un, Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe, and Prince Norodom Sihanouk of Cambodia, among others.
However, in recent years, many of the CCP’s old friends have passed away, with several dictatorial regimes being overthrown, some dictators meeting tragic fates. The surviving rational ones have observed the CCP’s increasingly erratic behavior in recent years, making it difficult for them to continue to support China. Hence, they have chosen to remain silent.
So, are the present authoritarian regimes close to the CCP, such as Russia, North Korea, and Iran genuine friends of China? At least in rhetoric, the CCP regards them as friends. The CCP’s leader once called Russian President Putin “my best bosom friend,” while Putin referred to Xi Jinping as his “dear friend.” The CCP has often described North Korea as China’s “good neighbor, friend, and comrade,” and Iran as China’s “good friend, brother, and partner.”
However, why do Indians believe that China has no friends, or only “harmful friends”? Let’s begin by understanding what harmful friends mean. Confucius said, “Three kinds of friends are beneficial, three kinds of friends are harmful. A friend who is honest, a friend who is considerate, a friend who is knowledgeable—these are beneficial. A friend who is sly, a friend who is smooth-tongued, and a flattering friend—these are harmful.”
A genuine friend is honest, speaks with integrity, and does not base the relationship on self-interest. Clearly, the duplicitous nature of the CCP cannot attract such friends. As for the three harmful friends, “a friend who is sly” refers to a fawning friend. For example, when you call a deer a horse, they would agree that it’s a horse; they agree even when you distort the truth. “A friend who is smooth-tongued” represents a two-faced friend, and “a flattering friend” pertains to someone who boasts and looks down on others.
Birds of a feather flock together, and habitual truth-twisting CCP’s surrounding governments like Russia, North Korea, and Iran—can any of them be considered honest and trustworthy? Which one is not sly or two-faced? Their flattery towards the CCP serves only to seek benefits. On one side, Russia, North Korea, and Iran hope to receive various forms of support from China in economic, military, political, and high-tech fields to maintain their rule. On the other side, the CCP uses them to disrupt the global order, spreading violence and chaos to advance its so-called “community of shared destiny for mankind.”
As for the African, Southeast Asian, South American countries, Hungary, and Serbia that praise the CCP, or those recently visited by Xi Jinping, which nation does not act out of self-interest? Which one will not stand alongside the CCP when the money doesn’t flow in? Therefore, the former Indian Ambassador’s remarks regarding China having no genuine friends are not entirely inaccurate. Friendships built on money by the CCP are unreliable, not genuine; they all seem to be harmful friends. After receiving substantial support from the CCP, these countries might not remain loyal forever; when push comes to shove, they might choose to distance themselves or even betray China.
Previously, there were rumors of a message left by Kim Jong-il to Kim Jong-un, saying “Do not trust China” and advising to “quickly establish diplomatic relations with the United States,” shedding light on the issue. Evidently, behind the long-hyped “blood-stained friendship” between China and North Korea lay periods of betrayal and distrust. As with North Korea, Russia, and Iran are no exceptions.
So, why can’t the CCP make genuine friends on the world stage? Over 70 years ago, the CCP itself provided the answer.
In a Xinhua Daily editorial dated October 9, 1944, titled “House Rules for the World Democratic Family Apply to China,” it mentioned the solemn declaration at the Tehran Conference: “We must create a peace that will win the great majority of people in the world, which has no ‘tyranny, oppression, or suffering,’ this is the lofty ideal of the ‘world family of democratic countries.’ Those who do not win the goodwill of the majority of people and attempt to strip them of their freedom will have no right to step into the ‘democratic family,’ for a sign hangs on the door of this family: ‘Fascist elements that exploit freedom of speech are not allowed inside.'”
The CCP, unable to enter the global democratic family, has not gained trust but rather alienation from the U.S., Europe, Japan, South Korea, and other democratic countries. Isn’t this a consequence of its own making? Relying on buying off a few followers and so-called friendly nations for the short term, the CCP’s time is limited. The ship of friendship can capsize at any moment because an authoritarian regime that lacks integrity, does not abide by principles, and is accustomed to distorting the truth cannot earn trust from any government or individual, leaving only the exchange of interests. In the end, the isolated CCP will not only be abandoned by the Chinese people but also by the world.