Print Email Share

• Facebook
• Twitter
• LinkedIn

The pandemic has already changed the course of world history, and its future consequences, such as how and when it finishes, remain unknown to us amidst a dynamic situation. However, it is possible and necessary to draw some conclusions based on what is now known on how the situation is unfolding in concrete arenas of international relations. One of the most significant of these is the Washington-Beijing-Moscow triangle, an inadequately studied aspect of which is the situation on the Russo-Chinese border.

From the start of the epidemic in China many analysts expected that the coronavirus would spread rapidly to the neighboring region of Russia, taking into consideration the extended shared border and the extensive, ongoing national-level cooperation. As a consequence, one could expect a worsening of relations between Moscow and Beijing, unfriendly measures toward each other, and even an end to the Russo-Chinese quasi-alliance. The reality turned out to be unexpected and quite remarkable. The coronavirus appeared earlier in Europe and the United States, and in Russia itself it spread from west to east. The pandemic aggravated the Sino-US confrontation to its limit, and on this basis Russia and China were even more motivated to draw closer to each other. True, this did not reduce the economic consequences which the coronavirus brought to the partners. If China apparently is emerging from a short recession having suffered the fewest losses, then Russia is awaiting its distinctive “Great Depression,” which will tie the country even closer to China—the main purchaser of Russian resources and supplier of high-tech equipment.

Here, I consider various aspects of the situation on the Russo-Chinese border associated with the spread of COVID-19. For a general grasp of the processes at work, a chronology makes it possible to reconstruct the events and reactions to them. Following that, I analyze the most
apparent effects for the regional economy and cross-border cooperation, after which it is important to examine the cooperation of China and Russia on a more global scale from the point of view of both geopolitics and long-term tendencies in both culture and society. Finally, I keep in mind that the eastern policies of Moscow are not limited to cooperation with China, and for the Russian Far East no less important as partners are Japan and the countries on the Korean Peninsula, before ending with some brief conclusions.

A chronology of events

January 21—in Mudanjiang, Heilongjiang, the first case of coronavirus infection was discovered

(a man who had returned from a trip to Wuhan).¹
January 22—in Changchun, Jilin, another case of coronavirus infection was uncovered (also of a man who had returned from Wuhan).²
January 24—a majority of points for crossing the border were closed in connection with the lunar New Year’s celebrations.
January 27—China announced a prohibition on sending organized tourist groups abroad.³
January 28—the no-visa regime for the exchange of tourist groups between Russia and China was abolished.⁴
January 30—Russia in a unilateral manner made the decision to close its land border with the PRC.⁵ Russians seeking to return to their motherland had to cross the border on special flights through agreement by diplomats and officials of the local administrations.
January 31—Vladimir Putin sent a telegram to Xi Jinping with words of support.⁶ In Russia the virus was found in two Chinese citizens, who had returned from travel to their native country, both occurring on the periphery in Zabaikal’sk krai and Tiumen oblast’.⁷ Both patients quickly recovered, and their presence on Russian territory did not lead to further spread of the virus.
February 1—all air traffic between Russia and China was halted except charter flights and flights of Aeroflot between Moscow and Beijing, Shanghai, and Guangzhou. Russians desiring to return home were evacuated by charter flights or airplanes of the Ministry of Defense.⁸
February 2—the first case of direct infection in a border town was found in Heihe; however, by that time the border was already closed.⁹
February 3—Russia closed all railroad traffic with China.¹⁰
February 3-10—a “vegetable crisis” occurred in border regions of Russia due to the closing of truck transportation from China. In Vladivostok cucumbers and tomatoes from Iran were being sold at a price several times what was customary.
February 10—truck shipments resumed across the border, ending the “vegetable crisis.”
February 20—Russia stopped entry into the country of Chinese citizens for personal, study, and tourist objectives. It ended certification of visa documents and work permits.¹¹ Transit passengers from China through Russia continuing to other countries would still be permitted.
February 28—Russia introduced a prohibition on entry for citizens of South Korea and Iran,¹² where spikes in the coronavirus have been observed (but not Italy, where the number of people infected is not fewer!). The Japanese airline JAL opened a direct route “Tokyo-Vladivostok.”
March 1—Russia introduced restrictions on air traffic from South Korea.¹³ Russians seeking to return home will be transported on charter flights through Vladivostok. As an exception, the two companies Aeroflot and Korean Air will continue flights between Moscow and Seoul.
March 2—In Moscow there appeared the first case of infection with the coronavirus of a Russian who had returned from Italy. However, passenger traffic from Europe persisted at full throttle.
March 5—the first actions were taken by Russian authorities in the battle with the coronavirus, with the introduction of a 14-day period of self-isolation for people returning from a number of countries, including China, South Korea, and Italy.¹⁴ The regions of Russia, however, did not take any measures.
March 11—A new work week began in Russia after a holiday dedicated to the International Day in Defense of the Rights of Women. At that time Russia still had only registered 24 cases of infection, and all had brought the virus with them from Italy. The disease was beginning to spread through the regions in the European part of the country.
March 17—the first case of the coronavirus was found in the Russian Far East in Yakutia (stricken was the general director of a large company, who was returning home from Switzerland.)¹⁵
March 18—Russia stopped entry into the country of all foreigners except persons with permanent residency, diplomats, transit passengers, and transport workers.¹⁶
March 19—a telephone conversation took place between Putin and Xi Jinping.¹⁷
March 20—the first three cases of the coronavirus were found in Khabarovskii krai (all three arrived from Italy).¹⁸
March 23—air traffic with Japan was halted,¹⁹ including the new flights of a Japanese company having operated for less than a month, Russians could depart through charter flights of the company “Sibir’,” and, as an exception, the route “Moscow-Tokyo” operated by Aeroflot continued.
March 24—the first two cases of the coronavirus were uncovered in Primorskii krai (tourists arriving from Italy and Mexico.)
March 25—the general consul of the DPRK in Primorskii krai shifted to a regime of total self-isolation, in which North Korean citizens present in Russia on student visas (about 3000 persons) would receive legal permission to extend their stay abroad.
March 27—Russia cancelled all regular and charter flights abroad.²⁰
March 28—in connection with a rise in cases of “import” coronavirus from abroad, authorities in China introduced a temporary stop to issuing visas and entry of foreigners into the country, also revoking the use of visa-free transit on Chinese territory.²¹ Entry into China of citizens of the PRC returning to their homeland continued.
March 30—A stay-at-home regime was introduced throughout Russia.
April 2—the coronavirus was found in two Chinese returning from Russia, transiting through Moscow, Vladivostok, and the crossing point of Pogranichnyi-Suifenhe.²² These were the first cases of “import” of the virus at the Chinese border from a neighboring country. At that time in the province of Heilongjiang only 19 cases had been registered.
April 6—the coronavirus was confirmed in 20 more Chinese returning to China from Moscow through the Russian Far East. Unilaterally, China closed border points for truck transport. The total number of cases in Heilongjiang had climbed in less than a week from 19 to 64.²³
April 7—unilaterally, China closed the crossing point of Suifenhe for passenger trips but opened it for truck transit.²⁴
April 10—Russia introduced a ban on the export of certain agricultural products, including soybeans and rice, most of which (40 and 90 percent respectively), are produced in the Russian Far East.
April 13—Unilaterally, China closed for entry from Russia all crossing points,²⁵ having previously arranged a system of entry for returnees to China through special agreement with authorities.
April 16—a telephone conversation took place between Putin and Xi Jinping.²⁶
April 23—the number of confirmed cases of the coronavirus in the border province of Heilongjiang reached 370,²⁷ (of which 57 were “local” and the rest imported—mainly from Russia), bringing the province at that moment into first place in China in the number of infections.²⁸ In the Russian Far East the official number of infections was 906.
April 30—the number of declared cases in Russia had reached 100,000, exceeding the total known to be infected in China over the entire period.

Paradox of a world periphery

One of the main conclusions which can be drawn from the COVID-19 pandemic is that it redrew the map of the world, which at one time was drawn as the “world core” and “world periphery” in accord with the terminology of Immanuel Wallerstein. According to that older conception, Europe could be closer to China than, for example, were Central Asia or the Russian Far East. The virus originated in Wuhan in November-December 2019—a city at the juncture of the main transportation arteries of China—and spread, above all, along routes through which passed intensive economic and humanitarian contacts. Specialists calculated that in December on the order of 900 persons from Wuhan left for New York, 2200 to Sydney, and, most of all, 15,000 to Bangkok, where occurred in mid-December the first substantiated cases of infection outside of China.²⁹ Tourists and migrant workers in the global economy (in this case, mainly “white collar” ones such as English language instructors, students, and managers in trans-national companies, who are regulars at airports and train stations) were the carriers of the virus. On the sidelines of the process in the first month of the epidemic was the periphery—the less-developed countries of the “third world” and distant regions, the ties with which were much less intensive despite geographical proximity. In China itself, we can include in this category regions in which live the national minorities: Tibet, Xinjiang, Ningxia, and Qinghai. In Tibet, throughout this time, only one case of infection was registered, and fewer than 100 in the remaining designated areas. As of mid-April, only 107 cases had yet been registered in Jilin, located on the borders of Russia and the DPRK. What is happening is not only unprecedented control measures or possible falsification of statistics, for which it is not unreasonable to suspect Chinese authorities, but for the simple fact that the economic and social contacts of Central China with the outskirts are tightly limited. Indeed, Xinjiang long has been positioned in Chinese propaganda, as it is today, as a key link in the “New Silk Road,” but, it turns out, intensive contacts between China and its continental neighbors, despite all of the rhetoric of “Belt and Road,” remains incomparable to its contacts with the “world core:” North America, Europe, and Australia. The same can even be said of Northeast China and its contacts with the Russian Far East.

The Russian Far East shares a more than 4000 km border with the PRC, and one might assume that it would be first to fall victim to the coronavirus. This did not occur although the land border with China was closed only on January 31—a month after official awareness by Chinese authorities of the epidemic in Wuhan—and the full ban on entry by Chinese citizens did not occur until later. This is proof of the thesis about the very low mobility of cross-border contacts—especially in the winter period. In winter the flow of tourists slows, and those trips that occur mainly connect nearby border cities and only formally constitute “tourism”—in fact, under the guise of tourism suitcase trade is conducted, transporting goods for personal use. These contacts did not result in an increase in infections for the simple reason that the virus from Wuhan had not reached small, border towns, by reason of their peripheral location.

Only in Heihe—opposite the Russian city of Blagoveshchensk—were several cases registered. In another important trade center Suifenhe the virus appeared only in April due to the fact that it was introduced from Russia. In Hunchun there are no official cases of infection. Cross-border business contacts are minimal. As a rule, they occur through seasonal migration connected to holidays: the New Year’s period when Russians residing in China leave for Russia, and the Lunar New Year when Chinese residing in Russia return to China. Student exchanges are similar. Those from China studying in Russia remained in Russia during the January vacation time, and those who left later in January for the lunar New Year could not return due to the beginning of the restrictions; so they could not become carriers of the infection across the border.

Paradoxically, the virus reached the Chinese border through a roundabout route: first it went from Wuhan to Europe, then from Europe to Russia (its European part), then from Russia along with the returning migrants to China. In April, Heilongjiang province rose to first place in China in the number of current cases of the coronavirus—and the dominant share of these had been introduced from Russia.

The situation in Central Asia evolved similarly. The first case of infection in Kazakhstan arrived from Germany, and in Kyrgyzstan from Saudi Arabia. There were no official cases of the virus reported in Tajikistan and Turkmenistan—the two most peripheral and closed countries of the region (and most inclined to falsify official statistics). Thus, when we speak of the impact of the virus on the Russian-Chinese border, we should not forget that we are analyzing cooperation between two peripheries of their countries, which is not distinguished by great intensity.  So, the negative effects of the downturn due to the pandemic is not so critical.

A closed border: economic effects

Effects for China

The dependence on the Russian side from transport cooperation is, on the whole, greater; therefore, the losses will be greater precisely on the Russian side. The border trading centers in China (Manzhouli, Heihe, Fuyuan, Suifenhe, Dongning, and Hunchun) have gradually reduced their dependency on Russian tourists and purchasers), beginning in 2014 when the value of the ruble fell sharply, and Chinese goods and services simply became inaccessibly expensive for Russians. All these years the urban economies were sustained through transfers from Beijing and the provincial budgets since Russian investments and workforce were absent.

It is apparent that the policy of state subsidies will be continuing; so only distinct categories of the population will suffer from the closing of the border with Russia. Among them:

• organizers of purchases of Russian products and their subsequent sale to Chinese through electronic trading platforms (Taobao, JD.com, etc.), conducting commercial transactions under the guise of tourist exchanges;
• organizers of labor migration from Chinese border villages to Russia;
• purchasers of various categories of Russian products, the export of which has temporarily been prohibited (above all, soybeans, rice, and corn);
• owners of hotels, restaurants, and entertainment establishments for Russian tourists, which over the past five years have found themselves in crisis, but today’s situation probably will finally drive them out of business;
• owners of tourist firms which are engaged in formalizing non-visa groups, since restoration of such exchanges will occur no earlier than 2021.

Loss of income by these categories of the population will not lead to notable social upheavals. This is true because the Chinese border has survived through closed borders without any special problems—especially if we consider Harbin, Changchun, Daqing, and Qiqihar, and other major cities of Northeast China, the integration of which into Russo-Chinese cooperation has been minimal. To be sure, all international projects have been put “on hold.” International activities, including the Harbin fair and the Russo-Chinese EXPO (this year it was supposed to be held in Ekaterinburg), have been postponed to 2021. (The same holds for the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok.) However, all these activities were minimally connected to real trade and economic exchanges, serving more as sacred activities for central and regional officials than as engines of cross-border economic cooperation.³⁰

Effects for Russia

The consequences for the economy of the Russian Far East need to be separated into two distinct categories: 1) for big cities, which are centers of international cooperation (Vladivostok and Blagoveshchensk); and 2) for the remaining populated points. It is necessary to realize also that there was a positive statistic for foreign trade in the first quarter of 2020 (increasing by 3.4 percent and reaching $25 billion),³¹ which is explained by an increase in the sale of crude oil and does not directly influence the economic situation in the border areas.

In the second category of localities all is relatively simple. Since the vast majority of population centers in the Russian Far East have scarcely depended on economic cooperation with China, the closing of the border has not caused any notable effects. However, they are suffering from the overall economic recession in Russia and the cutbacks in subsidies. Ahead, this will result in an even greater outflow of the population of the Russian Far East to European Russia and the “ghettoization” of various cities,³² which previously existed on account of factories and mines, already having closed down, and in recent years surviving only by virtue of subsidies from the federal center. The scale of the cuts in financial support from the state budget is still unknown, but it will be substantial since resources will be redirected to the battle with COVID-19 and to support for business in the most developed cities, above all Moscow.

The pandemic struck a blow to Russia against the background of a drop in demand for oil and of prices for energy, fraught with an economy falling into recession with unpredictable impact. The negative consequences for Vladivostok and Blagoveshchensk along with the overall recession will be connected to the pandemic and closed border. Already in mid-April most local hotels, restaurants, and tourist destinations were on the edge of bankruptcy, including stores selling jewelry and marine products. In Blagoveshchensk they were oriented exclusively to Chinese guests. In Vladivostok the situation was more complex since there was more dependence on Korean tourists. Chinese were more numerous but mainly used the services of Chinese businesses, while the arrival of Korean and Japanese tourists also had stopped. Owners in Vladivostok say that no more than 50 percent of existing restaurants will survive the crisis due to the pandemic. The measures the state takes to get out of the quarantine regime³³ will not make it possible to quickly restore their activities even after the borders are open, while access by local residents to restaurants will also be limited. Moreover, the restaurant business in Vladivostok was one of the engines of local economic development, an important element of the urban subculture and of the pride of local inhabitants.³⁴

Enormous losses will be suffered by owners of apartments which have been rented to foreign (above all Korean) tourists. Many of these were purchased and remodeled on credit, but they now stand empty and can expect a wave of personal bankruptcies. Distinct from legal business, these landlords, operating grey businesses, cannot count on support from the state.

At the regional scale, those who will suffer the most are companies depending on luring a Chinese workforce and having no prospect of replacing them with local residents or migrant laborers of the EEU. Among all the regions of the Russian Far East the most critical situation is in the Jewish autonomous region. Here, on account of the widespread practice of informal subleasing, Chinese business is working up to 80 percent of the cultivated land,³⁵ and local labor does not suffice. However, this is the smallest region, and the situation, on the whole, is not a cause for alarm. So too is the situation in Amurskaia oblast’, where already for several years the quota for attracting foreigners to agriculture has been lowered almost to zero,³⁶ and Chinese are present only as buyers of Russian farm products. That will be the situation seen also in Primorskii krai from 2020 since the decision was made to eliminate the quota for foreign workers in farming and logging,³⁷ even before the restrictions linked to the pandemic.³⁸

Probably, before long, this will lead to the ruin of small operations in villages short on local labor and also operations growing greenhouse vegetables, labor-intensive work typically undertaken by Chinese. Otherwise, rejection of Chinese farm labor will hardly be a fatal blow to the region. After the drop in the ruble in 2014 the flow of Chinese seeking to leave for work in Russia fell to a minimum without restrictions. China’s general consul in Vladivostok in March 2020 had approached the Primorskii government for an exception to allow 200 workers from Dongning xian in Heilongjiang to come for agricultural work; however, in light of the virus, the Chinese themselves reconsidered. In other words, 2020 will be a milestone putting the finishing touches on a more than 30-year history of active participation of the Chinese workforce in the development of the economy of the Russian Far East.³⁹

In the sphere of logging capital and workers from the PRC were, as a rule, not permitted even before the coronavirus. Construction firms from China, who have been present in the main cities of the Russian Far East, presumably, will depart from the market: business will become difficult without Chinese construction workers, and new rules for “shared construction” require leaving money on deposit in Russian banks and observing stricter legal and financial procedures. Chinese construction companies, as a rule, are not inclined to do that. However, this will not be a big loss for the region as a whole since these companies comprised only a fraction of the market.⁴⁰ Moreover, one does not count the new Chinese residents of the free ports of Vladivostok and the territories of advanced development, in which most investment comes from the European part of Russia and offshore—from the PRC comes 2-4 percent of the corresponding residences,⁴¹ meaning that the problems will not be critical.

Theworldwillneverbeasitwas: politicalandculturalconsequences

The pandemic has made more complicated problems that previously were not considered part of a positive agenda of international cooperation. The main blow of the coronavirus was to globalization and US world leadership. Accompanying the virus was a rise in xenophobia and a crisis in processes of integration:

Xenophobia