RAND Corporation explains why the West is hard on Russia and soft on China

G7 meeting in Tokyo:  Primary security challenge comes from Russia

• G7 Foreign Ministers’ meeting in Tokyo on November 8, identified Russia as the principal security threat and not China

Russia is a more immediate and more proximate military threat to US national security than China is. But that can 
be countered 

For the G7 countries, the primary security challenge comes from Russia rather than China, the Joint Statement issued after their Foreign Ministers met in Tokyo on November 8 shows. The G7 comprises Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, the US, and the European Union.  A note published by the US think tank RAND Corporation explains why the West is getting harder on Russia and softer on China.   
The Joint Statement of the G7 Foreign Ministers severely criticised the Russian invasion of Ukraine and threatened to impose harsh sanctions on Russia. But it was softer and accommodative in its approach to China. 
On Russia, the statement said that the G7’s “steadfast commitment to supporting Ukraine’s fight for its independence would never waver”. The G7 committed itself to standing by Ukraine “for as long as it would take” while increasing economic pressure and imposing “robust sanctions and other restrictions on Russia.”   
The G7 would reinforce its coordination on sanctions to restrict Russia’s access to critical goods and technology. It would take further action to prevent the evasion and circumvention of measures taken 
against Russia.   
In order to reduce the revenues that Russia extracts from its exports, the G7 would accelerate mutual consultations on energy, metals, and all non-industrial diamonds, including those mined, processed or produced in Russia. The G7 pledged to reduce its reliance on Russian energy so that Russia is no longer able to weaponise its 
energy resources.   
The G7 reiterated its call to third parties to “immediately cease providing material support to Russia’s aggression, or face severe costs.” It said that any use of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons by Russia “would be met with severe consequences.”   
The statement further said that Russia must cease its aggression and bear the legal consequences of all its internationally wrongful acts, including compensation for the damage caused to Ukraine.   

The G7 reiterated its commitment to holding those responsible to account under international law. It would support the efforts of international mechanisms, such as the International Criminal Court, in 
bringing the accused to book.   

Accommodate China

In sharp contrast to the line on Russia, the G7 took a softer and more accommodative line on China. The Joint statement said: “We stand prepared to build constructive and stable relations with China, recognizing the importance of engaging candidly and expressing our concerns directly to China.”   
“ We act in our national interests. We acknowledge the need to work together with China on global challenges as well as areas of common interest, and call on China to engage with us on these issues.”   
“Our policy approaches are not designed to harm China nor do we seek to thwart China’s economic progress and development. We are not decoupling or turning inwards.”   
But at the same time, the G7 said that it recognizes that economic resilience requires de-risking and diversifying.   
“With a view to enabling sustainable economic relations with China, and strengthening the international trading system, we will continue to push for a level playing field for our workers and companies,” the statement said.   
The G7 said that it would address the challenges posed by China’s non-market policies and practices which distort the global economy. It will counter “malign practices, such as illegitimate technology transfer or data disclosure.”   
The G7 pledged to protect certain advanced technologies that could be used to threaten its security, but “without unduly limiting trade and investment.”   
The G7 expressed “serious concern” about the situation in the East and South China Seas. It strongly opposed any unilateral attempts by China to change the status quo by force or coercion or disregard of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).   

On Taiwan, the G7 called for a peaceful resolution of cross-Strait issues. But it reaffirmed its commitment to the “One China” policy, which is a major concession to China. However, it sought support for Taiwan’s “meaningful participation in international organizations, including in the World Health Assembly and WHO technical meetings.”
Not to forget human rights issues in China such as the treatment of Uyghur Muslims and Tibetans, the G7 called upon China to uphold human rights and respect the Sino-British Joint Declaration and the Basic Law, which enshrine rights and freedoms and a high degree of autonomy for Hong Kong.
The G7 also called on China “to act in accordance with its obligations under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and not to conduct interference activities, aimed at undermining the security and safety of our communities, the integrity of our democratic institutions, and our economic prosperity.” 

 
RAND Corporation Explains 

A piece written by James Dobbins, Howard J. Shatz, Ali Wyne for the US think tank RAND Corporation explained why the US looks at Russia as a greater menace than China.   
The authors describe Russia as a “well-armed rogue state that seeks to subvert an international order it can never hope to dominate.” In contrast, China is portrayed as “a peer competitor that wants to shape an international order that it can aspire 
to dominate.”   
“Only Russia has attacked neighbouring states, annexed conquered territory, and supported insurgent forces seeking to detach yet more territory. Russia assassinates its opponents at home and abroad, interferes in foreign elections, subverts foreign democracies, and works to undermine European and Atlantic institutions,” the authors say.
In contrast, China’s growing influence is based largely on positive measures such as trade, investment, and development assistance, the authors point out.   
“These attributes make China a less immediate threat but a much greater long-term challenge,” the authors say.   

“In the military realm, Russia can be contained, but China cannot. China’s military predominance in East Asia will grow over time, compelling the US to accept greater costs and risks just to secure existing commitments.” 

 
Real Challenge is  Geo-economic 

But the real challenge for the US is in the field of geo-economics, rather than geopolitics, the authors say. It is in geo-economics that the contest for world leadership will play out. And “It is in the domain of geo-economics that the balance of global influence between the United States and China has begun shifting in China’s favour,” they add.   
As of 2017, China’s economy was the second largest in the world, behind only that of the United States. Russia’s was 11th.   
Russia’s military expenditure is lower than China’s, and that gap is likely to grow. Russia has poorer economic prospects, and is less likely to dramatically increase its military power in the long term, the authors say.   
However, Russia is a more immediate and more proximate military threat to US national security than China is. But that can be countered.   
The authors recommend that in the security sphere, the US should continue to hold the line in East and South East Asia against China. And in the economic realm, the US should compete more effectively in foreign markets, persevere and strengthen international norms for trade and investment, and incentivize China to operate within those norms. 

“Given China’s efforts to take technological leadership in the long term and the potential advantages that such leadership brings, the United States also needs to improve its innovation environment. Measures could include greater funding for research, retention of US-educated foreign scientists and technologists, and regulatory reforms that ease the introduction of product and process improvements into businesses and the market,” the authors suggest.   
In response to the challenge from China’s Belt and Road Initiative, they say that the US “should move to secure its own preferential access to the world’s largest markets, the industrialized countries of Europe and Asia; assist nations in increasing connectivity with the world economy; work with partners to ensure more transparency in China’s Belt and Road projects; and increase support to U.S. exporters and investors.”