The relationship between such Asia-Pacific powers, as India and China, has recently become a significant factor of how regional security is being maintained and how efficient the regional multilateral cooperation can be. The two states are close neighbours, possessing a long border, and both are presented in high-profile international institutions, e. g. the BRICS. At the same time, they are involved in a long-term border controversy, which sometimes pushes the relations to the verge of war. In addition, India and China are diverged by contradictions in other areas, primarily in economic aspects, and their competition for influence at the international level and in various regions of the Global South. The aim of this paper is to trace, how the Sino-Indian conflict, on the one hand, and their cooperation, on the other hand, developed throughout the recent 20 years, and try to answer the question, how it all shaped their status for each other, namely, the one of a partner, a rival or an enemy. The author consequently studies the landmark events in border conflict since the beginning of the 21st century, the political exchanges between China and India meanwhile, and the basic trends of economic and military cooperation and competition between the two countries. In conclusion, the results of the research are presented, and the possible impact of Sino-Indian ambivalent relationship on Russian policy towards them and on the work of international institutions involving both countries, is discussed.
This paper analyzes the self-positioning of the BRICS group (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) in world politics. The author has studied BRICS multilateral documents, addressed to the rest of the world, from 2009 to 2019, the documents related to summits procedure, and the related news archives of the international mass media. By means of discourse analysis, the paper traces the collective view of the group on the international issues, the changes in the group’s self-representation, and the reasons for them. The author concludes that, in spite of legally being not an intergovernmental organization, but a forum, BRICS still has a joint and consolidated position on many international issues, which is being outlined in the group’s multilateral documents. Shared views cover such issues as the reform of international financial institutions, the reform of the United Nations Organization, the regional conflicts in Africa and in the Middle East, the need for increase in representation of the Global South in international financial institutions, the international struggle against terrorism and other security threats. In addition, since 2013, BRICS has carried out annual (except for 2019) joint meetings with non-BRICS countries during its summits. In 2013-2016, there were BRICS meetings with the representatives of the chair country’s region. In 2018, there were two meetings held: “BRICS plus” summit with the leading countries of the international institutions of the Global South, and “BRICS outreach” summit with regional leaders. In 2020, both formats were planned, too. Therefore, we can observe the group’s self-positioning as an actor of world politics, however, at the same time, this trend largely depends on the priorities of the chair country every year. Each of the member countries has its own view of the group, and each tries to fulfill its own needs. Probably, the group would be fully self-represented as a world politics actor, if the states’ foreign policies were more consolidated. Yet, they do not reach complete consensus, because of the divergent national interests. This research was supported by the Russian Science Foundation (grant № 18-18-00236)
The aim of this paper is to identify the institutions, via which Russia-Turkmenistan humanitarian cooperation (including ties in culture, education, science, sport and tourism) is carried out, as well as their types and symmetry. The analysis of such sources as diplomatic agreements, interviews, documents and news archives of state institutions and nongovernmental organizations, and Russian and Turkmen media, demonstrates that humanitarian cooperation between the two states is rather institutionalized, with state institutions prevailing in the structure of cooperation. This is an implication of mutual interest, on the one hand, and of high level of coordination and control of the states over their contacts, on the other hand. The author highlights the number of state and non-state institutions. Due to the authoritarian and closed character of Turkmen state regime, Russian expatriate community in Turkmenistan is limited in its actions, while Turkmen expatriate community in Russia demonstrates a number of culture-related initiatives. Russian state agencies and non-governmental organizations are allowed to carry out a minimum of activities in Turkmenistan. Thus, we can witness the evident asymmetry of the institutional structure of bilateral cooperation. In order to develop bilateral humanitarian cooperation, Russia and Turkmenistan will need more compromises, and the most essential aspect will be to use every opportunity of direct humanitarian exchanges in culture, sport, education or tourism, to let their international communication stay proactive.