The Eurasian Space in Chinese Official and Academic Discourses
https://doi.org/10.24833/2071-8160-2024-3-96-73-99
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.
Keywords
China,
Eurasia,
PRC foreign policy,
spatial concepts,
Eurasian order,
Eurasian space,
academic discussions,
"Belt and Road",
post-Soviet space
Supporting agencies: The research is funded by MGIMO University, Institute for International Studies Project № 2025-04-04.
About the Authors
I. E. Denisov
MGIMO University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Igor E. Denisov – Senior Research Fellow, Institute for International Studies
76 Prospect Vernadskogo, Moscow, Russia, 119454
I. A. Safranchuk
MGIMO University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Ivan A. Safranchuk – leading research fellow Institute for International Studies
76 Prospect Vernadskogo, Moscow, Russia, 119454
References
1. Baik J. 2019. One Belt One Road” and the geopolitics of empire. InterAsia Cultural Studies. 20(3). P.358-376, DOI: 10.1080/14649373.2019.1649013
2. Callahan W. 2016. China’s Belt and Road Initiative and the New Eurasian Order. Policy Brief. Norwegian Institute for International Affairs.22/2016. 4 p.
3. Deyermond R. 2009. Matrioshka hegemony? Multi-levelled hegemonic competition and security in post-Soviet Central Asia. Review of International Studies. 35 (1). P. 151 – 173. DOI: 10.1017/S0260210509008365
4. Harper T. 2019. China’s Eurasia: the Belt and Road Initiative and the creation of a new Eurasian power. The Chinese Journal of Global Governance. 5.2. P. 99-121. DOI: 10.1163/23525207-12340039
5. Fairclough, N. (2013). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. Routledge. 608 p. DOI: 10.4324/9781315834368
6. Kuhn T.S. 1996. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 3rd ed. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press. 212 p.
7. Levenson J. 1968. Confucian China and its modern fate A TRILOGY. Volume one: The problem of intellectual continuity. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. 218 p.
8. Mastro O. 2014. Why Chinese assertiveness is here to stay. The Washington Quarterly 37.4 P.151-170. DOI: 10.1080/0163660X.2014.1002161
9. Miura K. 2023. Strongman politics and China's foreign policy actors: maritime assertiveness under Xi Jinping. International Affairs. 99(5). P. 2101-2118. DOI:10.1093/ia/iiad178
10. Novikov D., Bocharova A. 2024. Eurasia in Russian and Chinese political expertise: A comparative analysis. Journal of Eurasian Studies. 15(1). P. 55-69. DOI: 10.1177/18793665231163888
11. Scobell A., Harold S. W. 2013. An “assertive” China? Insights from interviews. Asian Security. 9(2). P.111-131. DOI: 10.1080/14799855.2013.795549
12. Stevens F. 2014. What happened to Deng’s maxim ‘Tao Guang Yang Hui’? Atlantisch Perspectief. 38(2). P. 24-28.
13. Yang C. 2015. The Eurasian moment in global politics: a comparative analysis of great power strategies for regional integration. In Dutkiewicz P. and Sakwa R. (eds.) Eurasian Integration - The View from Within. P. 274-289. Abingdon and New York: Routledge. DOI: 10.4324/9781315738154
14. Feng S. 2019. Eurasian Space in World History——Origins, Construction and Decay [世界历史中的欧亚空间——源起、建构与衰朽]. Russian Studies. 219 (05). P. 28-72. (In Chinese).
15. Gu W. 2023. Differentiated Competition and Cooperation between China, the US, Russia and the EU in Eurasia and Its Impact [中美俄欧在欧亚地区的差异化竞合及其影响]. Academic Journal of Russian Studies. 13(02). P. 37-59. (In Chinese).
16. He Z. 2023. The Adjustment of EU’s Regional View in the Context of the Ukraine Crisis and Its Impact on the Eurasian Order [乌克兰危机背景下欧盟区域观调整及对欧亚秩序的影响]. Russian, Central Asian & East European Studies. 02. P.102-121,157. DOI:10.20018/j.cnki.reecas.2023.02.006 (In Chinese).
17. Hu J. 2022. Time and Space of the “Eurasian Phenomenon”[“欧亚现象”的时间与空间].
18. Journal of Sichuan University (Philosophy and Social Science Edition). 04. P. 14–24. (In Chinese). Luo Y., Xu X. 2022. Eurasia in the Post-Cold War Era: Interest Restructuring and Governance Challenges [“后冷战”时代欧亚大陆空间：利益重组与治理挑战]. Area Studies and Global Development. 06. P. 85-106,157-158. (In Chinese).
19. Ren J. 2023. Change of Coordinates: A Compound Understanding of “Great Changes Unseen in a Century” [变动坐标：“百年未有之大变局”的复式理解]. Journal of Shanghai Jiaotong University (Philosophy and Social Sciences). 31 (02). P.97-111. DOI: 10.13806/j.cnki.issn10087095.2023.02.007 (In Chinese).
20. Wan Q. 2016. The Eurasian Moment in Great Power Politics: The Evolution and Implications of "Eurasia" Perception from a Geopolitical Economic Perspective [大国政治的欧亚时刻——地缘政治经济视域下“欧亚”认知的演进及其寓意]. Russian Studies. 197 (01). P. 3-52. (In Chinese).
21. Yang C. 2022. “Eurasia” will not come to an end [“欧亚”不会走向终结]. World Affairs. 14. P. 13-15. (In Chinese).
22. Yuan J. 2023. "Thinking Space" and the Boundary Zone of Civilizations. A humanistic - frontier perspective in regional and country studies [“思考空间”与文明交界带——区域国别研究的人文—边疆视角]. Thinking. 49(02). P. 49-56. (In Chinese).
23. Zeng X. 2019. The Matrioshka Order in Eurasia: Regional Differentiation and Its Influences
24. 欧亚秩序的套娃模式:地区分化及其影响]. World Economics and Politics. 05. P. 22-52, 156-157. (In Chinese).
25. Adamova D.L., Denisov I.E. 2022. Period strategicheskikh vozmozhnostei: opyt kitaiskogo forsaĭta i perspektivy vneshnei politiki Pekina ["Period of Strategic Opportunities": the Chinese Foresight Experience and Beijing’s Foreign Policy Perspectives]. Orientalistica. 5(4). P. 839-856. DOI:10.31696/2618-7043-2022-5-4-839-856 (In Russian).
26. Bordachev T.V., Pyatachkova A.S. 2018. Kontseptsiya Bol'shoi Evrazii v povorote Rossii na Vostok [The Concept of Greater Eurasia in the Turn of Russia to the East]. International Organisations Research Journal. № 13(3). P. 33–51. DOI: 10.17323/1996-7845-2018-03-02 (In Russian).
27. Busygina I. et al. 2020. Modeli regional'nogo liderstva v Evrazii: k novoi issledovatel'skoi povestke. Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya [Models of regional leadership in Eurasia: to the new research agenda]. World Economy and International Relations. 64(11). P. 114123. DOI: 10.20542/0131-2227-2020-64-11-114-123 (In Russian).
28. Guan G., Dai V. 2018. "Evraziya" v osmyslenii kitaiskikh politikov i uchenykh ["Eurasia" in the understanding of Chinese politicians and scholars]. The Great Game: Politics, Business, and Security in Central Asia. 3-4. P. 42-48. (In Russian).
29. Lukin A.V. 2020. Rossiya i Kitai v Bol'shoi Evrazii [Russia and China in Greater Eurasia]. Polis. Political Studies. №5. P. 46-59. DOI:10.17976/jpps/2020.05.04 (In Russian).
30. Makarov I.A., Sokolova A.K. 2016. Sopryazhenie evraziiskoi integratsii i Ekonomicheskogo poiasa Shelkovogo puti: vozmozhnosti dlya Rossii [Coordination of the Eurasian Economic Union and the Silk Road Economic Belt: Opportunities for Russia].
31. International Organisations Research Journal. №11(2). P.40-57. DOI: 10.17323/1996-7845-2016-02-40 (In Russian)
Review
For citations:
Denisov I.E., Safranchuk I.A. The Eurasian Space in Chinese Official and Academic Discourses. MGIMO Review of International Relations. 2024;17(3):73-99. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24833/2071-8160-2024-3-96-73-99
Views:
906
Email this article 