The Eurasian Space in Chinese Official and Academic Discourses

IF 0.2 Q4 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS MGIMO Review of International Relations Pub Date : 2024-07-10 DOI:10.24833/2071-8160-2024-3-96-73-99
I. Denisov, I. A. Safranchuk
{"title":"The Eurasian Space in Chinese Official and Academic Discourses","authors":"I. Denisov, I. A. Safranchuk","doi":"10.24833/2071-8160-2024-3-96-73-99","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The «Belе and Road Initiative» (BRI), proposed by China, marked a new phase in its external openness and growing desire to influence regional and global processes. However, BRI should not be viewed solely as a Chinese blueprint for restructuring Eurasia. The broad interpretative and geographical scope set by Chinese authorities allows flexibility in adapting the initiative to specific regions and countries, which is strategic for modifying or withdrawing commitments as needed. This paper examines why BRI has not become the foundation for a Chinese concept of Eurasia despite its significant impact on regional geopolitics.Our analysis begins with a critical examination of President Xi Jinping's speech at Nazarbayev University in 2013, identifying the nuanced usage of «Eurasia» that primarily refers to the post-Soviet space rather than the entire Eurasian continent. We delve into the subsequent official documents, noting the delay and ambiguity in defining the geographical and conceptual boundaries of BRI. The 2015 document, \"Vision and Actions on Jointly Building Silk Road Economic Belt and 21st-Century Maritime Silk Road,\" illustrates the initiative's extensive and vague geographical scope, indicating that China did not initially aim for a broad Eurasian strategy.By employing Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), we uncover how China's official rhetoric strategically frames BRI. The analysis reveals that Chinese discourse emphasizes bilateral rather than multilateral engagements within Eurasia, reflecting a «point-to-point» rather than a networked approach. This strategic ambiguity allows China to navigate its relationships with key regional players, notably Russia and the Central Asian states, without committing to a comprehensive Eurasian integration framework.The findings highlight the cautious and adaptive nature of China's engagement with Eurasia. The shift from a regional to a global scope in BRI discourse underscores China's pragmatic approach in balancing its regional ambitions with global aspirations.","PeriodicalId":42127,"journal":{"name":"MGIMO Review of International Relations","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"MGIMO Review of International Relations","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24833/2071-8160-2024-3-96-73-99","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The «Belе and Road Initiative» (BRI), proposed by China, marked a new phase in its external openness and growing desire to influence regional and global processes. However, BRI should not be viewed solely as a Chinese blueprint for restructuring Eurasia. The broad interpretative and geographical scope set by Chinese authorities allows flexibility in adapting the initiative to specific regions and countries, which is strategic for modifying or withdrawing commitments as needed. This paper examines why BRI has not become the foundation for a Chinese concept of Eurasia despite its significant impact on regional geopolitics.Our analysis begins with a critical examination of President Xi Jinping's speech at Nazarbayev University in 2013, identifying the nuanced usage of «Eurasia» that primarily refers to the post-Soviet space rather than the entire Eurasian continent. We delve into the subsequent official documents, noting the delay and ambiguity in defining the geographical and conceptual boundaries of BRI. The 2015 document, "Vision and Actions on Jointly Building Silk Road Economic Belt and 21st-Century Maritime Silk Road," illustrates the initiative's extensive and vague geographical scope, indicating that China did not initially aim for a broad Eurasian strategy.By employing Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), we uncover how China's official rhetoric strategically frames BRI. The analysis reveals that Chinese discourse emphasizes bilateral rather than multilateral engagements within Eurasia, reflecting a «point-to-point» rather than a networked approach. This strategic ambiguity allows China to navigate its relationships with key regional players, notably Russia and the Central Asian states, without committing to a comprehensive Eurasian integration framework.The findings highlight the cautious and adaptive nature of China's engagement with Eurasia. The shift from a regional to a global scope in BRI discourse underscores China's pragmatic approach in balancing its regional ambitions with global aspirations.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
中国官方和学术话语中的欧亚空间
中国提出的 "一带一路倡议"(BRI)标志着中国对外开放进入了一个新阶段,影响地区和全球进程的愿望日益强烈。然而,BRI 不应仅被视为中国重组欧亚大陆的蓝图。中国当局设定的广泛解释和地理范围允许根据特定地区和国家灵活调整该倡议,这对根据需要修改或撤回承诺具有战略意义。我们的分析从习近平主席 2013 年在纳扎尔巴耶夫大学的演讲开始,指出了 "欧亚大陆 "的微妙用法,即主要指后苏联空间而非整个欧亚大陆。我们深入研究了随后的官方文件,注意到在界定金砖倡议的地理和概念边界方面的延迟和模糊性。2015 年的文件《关于共建丝绸之路经济带和 21 世纪海上丝绸之路的愿景与行动》说明了该倡议广泛而模糊的地理范围,表明中国最初并不以广泛的欧亚战略为目标。分析表明,中国的话语强调欧亚大陆内的双边而非多边接触,反映了一种 "点对点 "而非网络化的方法。这种战略上的模糊性使中国能够在与主要地区参与者(尤其是俄罗斯和中亚国家)的关系中游刃有余,同时又不对全面的欧亚一体化框架做出承诺。金砖倡议 "的论述从地区范围转向全球范围,凸显了中国在平衡地区雄心与全球抱负方面的务实态度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
MGIMO Review of International Relations
MGIMO Review of International Relations INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS-
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
46
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Biopolitical Strategies in Media Discourses: Responses to the COVID-19 Pandemic in Russia, Germany, and France The Entente’s Support for the White Armies in Southern Russia (Late 1918–1919) The Eurasian Space in Chinese Official and Academic Discourses The Origins of the Idea of “Civilizational” Multipolarity in Russian Religious Thought (from 19th to First Half of 20th Century) Diplomatic Geography of Xi Jinping: What the Statistics of the Chinese Leader’s Foreign Visits Reveal
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1