On June 25, 2014, at the Center for Vietnam and ASEAN Studies of the IDV RAS in the framework of a joint study of the RGNF and the Academy of Social Sciences of Vietnam on the topic "Ways to strengthen security and cooperation in East Asia" (RGNF grant N 14 - 27- 0901 A round table was held with the participation of heads and experts of various departments of the Institute. The discussion was moderated by the Head of the Center for Vietnam and ASEAN Studies, Project Manager, Doctor of Economics V. M. Mazyrin.

Opening the discussion, he stressed that the world is experiencing a period of unprecedented instability. The geopolitical situation in Asia is also undergoing profound changes. Important factors of these changes are the powerful rise of China and a number of other developing countries, the revival of Russia's power, the" normalization " of Japan, etc. And all this is happening against the background of a noticeable weakening of the position of the United States and its allies. The unipolar world order established after the collapse of the USSR, with the United States playing the dominant role, is inevitably being replaced by a new one. What it will be is not yet known, but, according to V. Mazyrin, it is unlikely to be bipolar again (this time in the form of the hegemony of the G2 group-a kind of" big two " - the United States and China). Nor will it simply be multipolar or polycentric, as it seemed until recently, but rather more complex, multi-faceted or multi-format, involving various forms of interdependence of states and their association in various coalitions in order to protect their interests.

Although the United States will remain the main force in the international arena, it will no longer be able to build the world order in accordance with its interests and views. The United States is becoming only one of the pillars of the new world order, along with developing countries, regional forces, and alliances between old and new Powers. One of the fundamental differences in the multi - faceted world of the future is the rapid growth of the interdependence of various states.

Another reality of the modern world is the contradictions between many states. Some of the contradictions can reach a high intensity and result in conflicts. Disputes over borders and territory remain the most common cause of conflict.

All this has an active impact on the situation in East Asia. For the foreseeable future, the Asia-Pacific region in general and East Asia in particular will play an increasingly important role in the global economy and politics. It is officially announced that the national strategy of both the United States and Russia is being reoriented to this region. Along with the shift of the center of global economic and political development to the Asia-Pacific region, competition for markets, sources of investment, labor and mineral resources has noticeably increased. Konku-

competition would be good and useful if it did not turn into rivalry and confrontation. The course of events here, as the speaker noted, will have a huge impact on the level of conflict in the world, the dynamics of military rivalry between states, and the prospects for limiting and non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

Born after World War II and changed in the early 1970s, the security order in Wa was based on two pillars: the reconciliation between China and the United States that took place in 1972, and the system of bilateral military alliances created by the United States in the early 50s of the last century. Reconciliation with the outside world has provided thirty years of unprecedented continuous growth for China, which has dramatically changed the balance of power in WA. At the same time, the system of military alliances provided the United States with a stable openness to maritime space and hegemony in the western Pacific.

However, this order had many weaknesses. First, it was based on the coincidence of political interests directed against the former USSR. As soon as it collapsed, so did China's relations with the United States. China was no longer a strategic partner for them, but an ideological "alien" and a problem to be dealt with. It has taken the place of the USSR and turned into a bogey that justifies the military presence and the existence of bilateral military alliances. Secondly, the entire system of US military alliances in the Western Pacific was aimed at keeping the PRC in the position in which it was at the time of its formation in the 1950s. Third, China has long remained a purely continental power, and the United States has always been the largest maritime power in the western Pacific. And once China turned its efforts toward becoming a continental maritime Power, it was difficult to avoid a clash of interests with both the United States and other coastal states in the region.

The Chinese leadership constantly insists that the PRC is not an expansionist power, but its policy towards the disputed territories in the East China and South China Seas, according to the speaker, may indicate the opposite. The continuation of this policy in relation to the disputed territories in the South China Sea, for example, does nothing to strengthen confidence in China on the part of its neighbors. A show of force with a newly acquired aircraft carrier and skirmishes with competitors such as the Philippines, Japan, and Vietnam contesting control of the East China and South China Seas raises the level of confrontation and increases uncertainty throughout the region.

Belatedly, but nevertheless, Russia has begun to take its place in the new security system that is being formed here. Work on the" eastern " azimuth of its foreign policy has intensified despite the complications in relations with the United States and Western Europe due to the crisis in Ukraine and even under their influence. This crisis has made the eastern direction of Russian policy even more of a priority. This includes both the development of bilateral relations with all states in the region, and Russia's participation in the activities of multilateral structures such as ASEAN, APEC and others. The future of our regions-Siberia and the Far East-and with them the overall economic recovery of the country are closely linked to the well-being of this region.

Media coverage of territorial disputes has ignited a huge bonfire of hatred and hostility in WA. The deliberately inflated wave of nationalism in all the countries of the region involved in disputes is increasingly becoming one of the main obstacles to any meaningful negotiations between the parties concerned.

In conclusion, V. Mazyrin stressed that East Asia lacks full-fledged security mechanisms that would enjoy the support of all regional actors. The most realistic prevention path in the region.-

In order to prevent a military conflict and preserve stability, this means adopting general and binding principles (rules) of conduct and forming pan - Asian security mechanisms, starting with the creation of appropriate sub-regional mechanisms. All these questions are the subject of this joint study by Russian and Vietnamese scientists.

Then the report was made by the Deputy Director of the Institute of Internal Affairs of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Editor-in-Chief of the journal "Problems of the Far East", Doctor of Economics, Professor V. Ya. Portikov. He noted that since the fifth-generation leaders led by Xi Jinping came to power in the People's Republic of China and the CPC, the traditional priority attention of the Chinese leadership to the problems of ensuring national security has not only been preserved, but also strengthened. The national idea put forward by the new leader-the " Chinese Dream "is aimed at" reviving the nation " and ensuring it a worthy place in the world community.

According to the speaker, China faces one global challenge to its security interests and several regional challenges. The global challenge comes from the United States and consists in Washington's desire to contain China and prevent it from becoming a subject of global politics equal to the United States in terms of global power and international influence. China's relations with the United States in general and on security issues remain quite complex and contradictory. The Chinese leadership highlights the task of building a new type of relations between the great powers based on mutual consideration of interests, interaction and cooperation, rather than on confrontation. The United States, for its part, shows a generally negative attitude to the strengthening of the armed forces of the PRC and to its increasingly active defense of its claims to disputed territories in the East and South China Seas. The mechanism of constructive interaction in the sphere of ensuring mutual security has not yet been debugged. And the main problem, the speaker believes, is the US policy of strengthening the existing system of military alliances with obvious anti-Chinese tasks. This was clearly shown during the visit to B. President Barack Obama of Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Philippines and Malaysia in April 2014.

Tensions over the territorial dispute over the ownership of the Diaoyu-Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea have generally declined slightly. But in late 2013, a new wave of controversy erupted on both sides over China's creation of an air defense identification zone in the VCM, which included islands disputed by Japan. Beijing's position was that this action "does not contradict international law and international practice." Moreover, according to the representative of the Chinese Foreign Ministry, China's actions are just its symmetrical response to the United States and Japan, which created their own similar zones decades ago. China has called on the United States and Japan to abandon the cold war mentality. http://russian/people.com.cn/31521/8610484.html. Accessed 26.04.2014).

China's conflict with a number of ASEAN member countries, primarily the Philippines and Vietnam, over sovereignty over the South China Sea islands, periodically escalates. If in 2013 relations with the Philippines were more tense, then in May 2014 an acute conflict broke out with Vietnam due to the search for oil by the Chinese side in the area of the Paracel Islands. To prove its case, Beijing referred, first, to its "long-standing sovereignty over the Xisha Islands" (the name of the Paracel Islands in Chinese) and to the fact that "the drilling site is located only 17 nautical miles from the Chinese island of Zhongjian and 130-150 nautical miles from the coast of Vietnam "(Vietnam bears full responsibility for the latest confrontation with China / / Xinhua News Agency. 16.05.2014). But a month before the announced deadline, the drilling platform, along with numerous civilian, paramilitary and military escort ships from an exceptional

Vietnam's economic zone has gone to the Chinese island of Hainan, which does not mean that the conflict is resolved.

The speaker noted that China's position on disputes in the South China Sea in 2014 has generally become tougher than it was two or three years ago. He suggested that this could be caused by persistent attempts by Vietnam and the Philippines to defend their approaches to this problem in opposition to China and the desire to "internationalize" differences, including on the part of the Philippines, by filing a lawsuit in January 2014 in the International Arbitration Court in The Hague challenging China's territorial claims in the South China Sea. Beijing categorically rejected the invitation to participate in the hearings of the Arbitration Tribunal as a defendant and its very competence in considering this issue. Defending the position of official Beijing, Chinese Deputy Foreign Minister Liu Zhengmin said that " the South China Sea, which is China's lifeline, is more important for China than for other countries." At the same time, Beijing has consistently declared its desire to "promote the peaceful settlement of disputes through negotiations with the States involved." No country should doubt China's determination and will to protect peace and stability in the South China Sea , the Chinese Deputy Foreign Minister said. URL: http://russian.people.com.en/n/2014/0528/c31521 - 8733510.html. Accessed 28.05.2014).

According to the speaker, the situation on the Korean, Taiwanese and Indian "tracks" of ensuring national security is more calm for the PRC.

The events around Ukraine, according to V. Portyakov, forced Washington to redirect its main efforts to Russia and its European NATO allies. In this regard, Beijing notes, however, without too much advertising, that China has received a "strategic respite" for quite a long time. Indeed, during the next round of the China - US Strategic and Economic Dialogue in the 2*2 format (Defense and Foreign Ministers) held in Beijing on July 8-10, the parties decided to reduce the degree of tension and create a more peaceful atmosphere in bilateral relations. It is characteristic that this time the dialogue was opened by Chinese President Xi Jinping himself, who, in particular, said that in the current situation "our interests are more interconnected than ever" and that " both sides benefit from cooperation and lose a lot from confrontation "(Xinhua 09.07. 2014).

Under Xi Jinping, Beijing has become more vocal in asserting itself as an active participant in the process of strengthening international security. For example, the idea of joint construction of infrastructure along the entire sea route from China to Europe via the South China Sea and the Indian Ocean - the Maritime Silk Road (MSR), which he proposed in October 2013 in Indonesia during a tour of Southeast Asian countries, aroused great interest. It is no coincidence that this initiative was voiced at the ASEAN summit, relations with which are of particular importance for China. 2014 was marked, in particular, by the concept of security for Asia, formulated in Xi Jinping's speech at the 4th summit of the Conference on Interaction and Confidence-building Measures in Asia (CICA) in Shanghai on May 21, 2014. Asia as a "community of common destiny", according to him, should be inclusive, equal and inclusive, that is, based on respect for the choice of a particular state of its social system and path of development. He called for the creation of a "new regional architecture of security cooperation" and suggested that the CICA should become a "platform for dialogue on security and cooperation" for the whole of Asia. He also indicated that China is ready to take the lead in trying to develop a "code of conduct for regional security and an Asian security partnership program." At the same time, he sharply criticized all military alliances in Asia. He linked them to outdated Cold War thinking. You can't provide security for one or more countries,

by depriving other countries of security, he said. Instead, a system should be created that includes everyone, rather than individual alliances with non-regional players such as the United States. (Xi Jinping. Actively approve the concept of Asian security, jointly create a new situation of cooperation in the field of security: Speech at the 4th Summit of the Conference on Interaction and Confidence-building Measures in Asia on May 21, 2014, Shanghai / / People's Daily. 2014. May 22).

From what has been said, it follows that China clearly relies on the CICA, which it assigns a key role in regional security issues and where it will preside over the next two years.

A number of aspects of ensuring China's national security create a difficult situation for Russia. First of all, this concerns the issue of territorial disputes in the South China Sea, given Russia's strategic partnership with both China and Vietnam. However, in general, Beijing's security policy, the speaker concluded, does not contradict Moscow's interests and, moreover, is actually assessed by the Russian leadership as a factor conducive to the development of bilateral cooperation, preserving peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region and the Asia-Pacific region as a whole.

The report sparked a heated discussion, in which speakers also noted some contradictions between words and deeds in China's foreign policy. First of all, this applies to the latest actions of the PRC in the South China Sea, which caused a clearly negative reaction in public opinion not only in its neighbors in Southeast Asia, but also in many other countries of the world. A number of panelists disagreed with the speaker's view on the reasons that caused a new round of tension in the region. They stressed the need for a more objective analysis, taking into account the positions of not only the PRC, but also its opponents, especially Vietnam, which has serious historical and legal grounds for protecting its legitimate interests and rights arising from the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which was signed and ratified by the PRC. To better understand the opponent, Chinese folk wisdom advises "getting into his shoes." And from the point of view of current international law, the South China Sea is a common heritage of mankind and cannot be turned into a "Chinese lake"in any way. The panelists noted that the tightening of China's position in the region contradicts the fundamental interests of China itself, which has become the main trading partner of the ASEAN countries and has significantly strengthened its position in Southeast Asia. He is once again pushing these countries to seek security guarantees in strengthening military alliances with the United States.

The head of the Center for Policy Research and Forecasts, Doctor of Political Science A.V. Vinogradov, devoted his report to the analysis of US policy in East Asia. The US ' alliance agreements with Japan, Australia, South Korea, the Philippines and Thailand, he stressed, remain the cornerstone of their strategic positioning in the Asia-Pacific region. Unsurprisingly, this chain of alliances is seen by China as a tool to contain it and is adding to tensions in the region. The creation of China's ocean-going fleet and increased defense capabilities are met with great suspicion in the United States, which sees this as a threat to its long-term dominance in the western Pacific seas. Many observers sensed the growing likelihood of a conflict between the emerging continental superpower and the long-established maritime superpower, which is the United States. The Obama administration's response to the changing balance of power in East Asia and the challenges associated with it can be summed up in its "pivot" to Asia, or "rebalancing", by which the United States tries to balance China's growing influence in Asia while maintaining its relations with it.

Modern theories of international relations, the speaker noted, claim that only great powers can determine the world and regional order. The US has returned to East Asia in response to China's challenge, so the relationship between the two countries is growing.

They are central to the region by definition, and their leaders are increasingly talking about this. Their main characteristic is their economic interdependence, which, despite the existing contradictions between them, condemns them to search for new forms of interaction and confrontation, which are somewhere between strategic cooperation and the cold war.

But even in this fragile balance, according to A. Vinogradov, changes may occur. At this stage, the aggravation of contradictions between them is held back by China's technological dependence on the United States, but this period is coming to an end. China is confidently approaching the position of a medium-developed power. It can only get out of the trap of an average level of development by relying on its own scientific and technical potential. Even now, its attempts to ease its dependence are straining Sino-American relations. Their prospects will increasingly be determined by different understandings of leadership. Neither China, nor India, nor any other country in the world will be able to take on the burden of global responsibility that the United States had, and surpass everyone else in the economic, military, scientific, technical and other spheres. Under these circumstances, a growing China does not need to become a global power, but rather a regional power in one of the main regions of the world. Therefore, China seeks to become a regional Power in terms of responsibility and a global power in terms of status, and only a multipolar world can provide such an opportunity.

From this point of view, the PRC's position in the South China Sea conflict is conditioned by the need to ensure the security of trade routes, which is vital for the largest industrial and commercial power, as the United Kingdom and the United States were before it. According to the speaker, for the United States, regional dominance is only a mandatory attribute of global leadership, ideologically motivated and far from direct economic benefits and the so-called "real policy".

For the United States, the loss of global leadership is still unacceptable, so they are constantly increasing the scale of the confrontation with China. They want to create a Trans-Pacific Partnership( TPP), expanding the region to a size in which China will not be able to claim leadership. They are ready to use Japan and India to contain China regionally, but at the same time they are afraid of strengthening these Asian states at the global level. Perhaps, according to the speaker, the civilizational distrust of the United States towards its Asian partners explains the absence of multilateral military-political blocs in Asia and the existence of only bilateral ones that are less binding. "Rebalancing" also aims, among other things, to strengthen the US system of military alliances in East Asia, strengthen and expand security partnerships with India, Singapore, Vietnam and Indonesia, join and actively participate in multilateral regional forums to strengthen its political presence, and promote the formation of a trade bloc in the form of a CCI. designed to spur U.S.-led economic integration in the region and isolate China.

The difficulty with this "rebalancing" is how to combine the policy of balancing the power of the PRC with the increasing demand for its cooperation with the United States in global and regional issues. How can the United States reconcile its growing responsibility for security in East Asia with the reduction in its military spending that it is forced to carry out? How do they balance their global responsibilities with their commitments in East Asia, without allowing their junior partners to drag the United States into a serious conflict with China over a few islands or coral reefs in the South China Sea? And how do you balance balancing your relations with China with your commitments to your allies? The answers to these and other questions are not yet visible.

The second major security challenge in East Asia after the US-China relationship is the regional rivalry for Chinese leadership

and Japan, which has been the economic leader and engine of development in the region since the 1960s. Head of the Center for Japanese Studies, Doctor of Historical Sciences V. O. Kistanov made a detailed analysis of Japan's national security policy.

Under increasing pressure from China since the beginning of the 21st century. Japan, as the speaker noted, was forced to cede many of its positions to him. But in the last years of the new decade, it has significantly stepped up its efforts to build up political influence. This can be seen at least in the example of its attempts to become a permanent member of the UN Security Council, which was stalled by China. As China continues to grow economically, its hostility towards Japan will increase, and this could undermine the entire security system in East Asia, as the motives for the confrontation go deep into history and are fueled, among other things, by rivalry on the seas.

In the context of the current aggravation of the international situation in the Asia-Pacific region, the countries of East Asia are forced to radically revise their fundamental approaches to ensuring their own security, update relevant documents or create new ones. A typical example in this regard is Japan, which, when Prime Minister Shinzo Abe came to power at the end of 2012, took a course to increase the country's role and importance in international affairs and strengthen the military component in the national security system. This, in particular, is evidenced by the intention of the Japanese Prime Minister to revise the interpretation of the country's peaceful constitution in order to allow the Japanese armed forces to participate in combat operations together with other countries and, above all, with the United States in situations not directly related to the defense of the Japanese Islands. At the beginning of this year, the Japanese government canceled its voluntary refusal to export weapons. In December 2013, the Government of Japan adopted a number of policy documents defining the State policy in the field of ensuring national security. Among them - "Main directions of the national Defense program" and "Defense Program for 2014-2018". The essence of the documents is to increase the country's military power in quantitative and qualitative terms.

Also, at the direction of Shinzo Abe, the "National Security Strategy"was adopted for the first time. This basic document outlines Japan's national interests and goals on the world stage, identifies the challenges that the country faces, and describes a set of military, diplomatic, economic, technological, and other measures in a wide variety of areas aimed at ensuring Japan's interests in the field of international security. The strategy will be implemented under the leadership of the National Security Council , a new structure created at the initiative of the Prime Minister, albeit according to American patterns, in December 2013. It will be implemented under the slogan "active contribution to peace".

It is obvious that the slogan of "active pacifism" was put forward by the current Japanese prime minister, not least in order to ease the concern of other countries, mainly their neighbors in East Asia, that Abe's course is to revise the assessments of World War II, get rid of the restrictions of the post-war " peaceful constitution "and turn Japan into a"normal state" in fact, it means the revival of Japanese militarism. Although Abe himself, apparently, believes that he is working to eliminate the burdensome legacy of the past war for Japan. This is the goal of his policy of "getting the country out of the post-war regime".

It is clear, however, that despite the desire for greater independence in the foreign policy of the current leadership and despite the increasingly visible differences with Washington on a number of important international issues, regional realities make it inevitable that Japan will bet on a military alliance in the Asia-Pacific region with the United States in the security sphere. As the new Japanese Strategy states, for further development-

With the establishment of the Japan-US alliance, Japan will pursue the following two goals. First, it is necessary to fully strengthen Japanese-American security cooperation in a wide range of areas, including missile defense, maritime activities, space, cyberspace, etc. Secondly, to ensure a stable presence of the US armed forces in Japan.

In the item titled "Building a stable relationship with China" The strategy aims to build and strengthen mutually beneficial relations with China based on common strategic interests in all areas, ranging from medium to long-term prospects. The goal is to "inspire China to play a responsible and constructive role in ensuring regional peace, stability and prosperity" and encourage it to exercise restraint. Japan itself will continue to respond in a firm but calm manner to Chinese attempts to change the status quo in the East and South China Seas by force. It is also planned to develop measures to create a mechanism for preventing unforeseen situations.

At the same time, the speaker noted the increased attempts of Japan to organize "containment of China" on a collective basis with the involvement of Australia, India and Southeast Asian countries, especially the Philippines and Vietnam.

Thus, the new "National Security Strategy" of Japan is aimed at a comprehensive solution of urgent problems and challenges facing the country in the Asia-Pacific region, in the context of the policy of "active pacifism" proclaimed by Shinzo Abe. However, according to the speaker, it will not be easy for the Japanese Prime Minister to implement this policy in conditions when in key neighboring countries such as China and South Korea (not to mention the DPRK) he is considered a foreign policy hawk, nationalist and revanchist. And their leaders flatly refuse to meet with him and discuss anything.

The state of the nuclear problem on the Korean peninsula, possible ways and approaches to its solution were shown by the head of the Center for Korean Studies, Candidate of Political Science A. Z. Zhebin. He stressed that this problem is primarily related to the loss of security guarantees of the regime in the DPRK after the collapse of the USSR, with the bombing of Yugoslavia, the US intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama's attempts to cause the collapse of the DPRK by refusing to negotiate, according to the speaker, do not yield any results and only lead this issue to a deep impasse. The US needs an enemy to justify its military presence in South Korea.

The UN Security Council, Zhebin recalled, adopted several resolutions supported by the Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China, condemning the DPRK's nuclear weapons tests and imposed tough sanctions against it. Nevertheless, the DPRK still claims the status of a nuclear power, which no one in the world is going to recognize yet, and fixed it in amendments to the country's constitution in 2013. The six - party talks on this issue held in 2003-2008 with the participation of the United States, China, Russia, Japan, the DPRK and the Republic of Korea did not achieve their goals. Attempts by the PRC and the Russian Federation to achieve the resumption of the negotiation process have not yet yielded results.

The United States and its allies insist that North Korea fulfill the preconditions-practical steps towards nuclear disarmament-while at the same time avoiding specifying their response steps towards Pyongyang, which supports negotiations without preconditions. Moscow continues to believe that the six-Party talks represent the only effective way to resolve the problem. This position, which is shared by China, was once again confirmed during the visit of Russian President Vladimir Putin to China on May 20-21, 2014.

The DPRK's reaction to the last two UN Security Council resolutions - on the launch of a satellite and the third nuclear test-indicates that in the foreseeable future, in my opinion,-

I think we will all have to deal with a de facto nuclear-armed North Korea. The realities of modern international relations are unlikely to encourage the leadership of this country to abandon its nuclear missile deterrent forces.

At a minimum, the United States benefits from maintaining a controlled level of tension on the peninsula to justify its military presence in the region. The program is a maximum in light of the goals of the current "return" of the United States to the Asia - Pacific region - the elimination of the DPRK in one way or another, which would allow the Americans to establish control over the entire Korean Peninsula-a unique area at the junction of the borders of the Russian Federation and China from a military and strategic point of view. To achieve this goal, since coming to power, the Obama administration has been pursuing a line of so-called "strategic patience" with the DPRK, which amounts to refusing to negotiate, trying to isolate the regime and cause its collapse. For the PRC, both for military-strategic and prestige-political reasons, the elimination of the DPRK, especially by force, is completely unacceptable.

According to formal geographical features, India does not belong to the Asia-Pacific region, being a classic country of the Indian Ocean basin. However, from the point of view of practical politics, New Delhi's involvement is quite noticeable in East Asian affairs, including in the context of regional security. Therefore, the factor of India-a country demonstrating global interests and claiming a significant role at least in the western and southern segments of the Asia-Pacific region-is very relevant when analyzing the regional situation. This was discussed in the report of the Deputy Head of the Center for the Study and Forecasting of Russian-Chinese Relations, Ph. D. S. V. Uyanaev.

New Delhi's course in East Asia, he believes, has historically developed as part of the "eastern policy" that started in the early 1990s and is aimed at ensuring India's economic interests, as well as strengthening its security. It is of a complex nature, including both participation in international structures (ASEAN) and the development of cooperation on a bilateral basis. India's goal is to actively develop economic and political ties with the countries of East Asia (both NEA and Southeast Asia), participate in multilateral structures of the Asia-Pacific region, and strive to ensure a "reasonable balance of regional forces". Moreover, many in India do not hide the fact that the main object of the "balance policy" is the "main historical competitor" - the rising China.

According to the speaker, India's policy towards China in the current century clearly shows two trends: on the one hand, the desire to establish a good-neighborly dialogue with a powerful neighbor, and on the other - measures aimed at "balancing, objectively speaking, 'restraining' its dynamic growth", since there are great fears in India on China's potential aggressiveness and expansion in the Indian and Pacific Oceans.

Serious problems and contradictions remain between India and China. These are, first of all, territorial (the parties dispute a total of more than 135 thousand square kilometers of land) and Tibetan (the presence of the Dalai Lama and his supporters in India) problems, relations in the India-China-Pakistan and India-China-USA triangles, economic tensions and a number of other issues. The systemic cause of the problems is obviously a lack of strategic trust, which is generated both by historical reasons and by objective competition during the parallel rise of both countries. In general, especially at the official level, the first positive trend prevails in the current relations, which, in particular, was reiterated during the first contacts of the new Prime Minister of India, N. Modi, with the Chinese leadership. But according to the speaker, we should not expect a quick solution to the problems.

In addition to the task of balancing China, the goals of Indian policy in the region are to demonstrate the role of India as a major regional player, and to prevent arms shipments to anti-government elites passing through the Bay of Bengal.-

cops in the Indian northeast, showing the Navy's ability to operate far from its shores.

The policy of" turning to the East " was based on the active development of comprehensive cooperation with ASEAN. Currently, the India-ASEAN format is a mechanism of 25 negotiation tracks. In ASEAN, India fully participates in the activities of all available structures, has an increased interest in regional transport and infrastructure projects, shares the ideas of liberalizing regional trade and other forms of economic cooperation, and supports other integration projects, including those aimed at strengthening regional security and stability.

There is a Free trade Area between India and ASEAN. India's trade with ASEAN countries in the 2013-2014 Indian fiscal year was over $ 75 billion. The amount of $ 43 billion is measured by direct investment from ASEAN to India and back. Recently, New Delhi has actively supported the idea of creating a Comprehensive Regional Economic Partnership (RCEP) system in the region - a project of integrated trade and economic integration for the ASEAN + 6 group. In this way, India expects to strengthen not only its economic position, but also (according to the formula "security through economic integration") its position in the political and defense-economic spheres.strategic plan. In addition, due to RCEP, India is believed to compensate for the country's non-participation in APEC and the lack of an invitation from the United States to join the CCI project promoted by them.

Disputes over maritime sovereignty pose a serious security challenge in East Asia. There are many conflicts between the countries of the region, and among them, along with the Sino-Japanese disputes over the Diaoyu-Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea, China's disputes with Vietnam and the Philippines in the South China Sea entered a new phase of tension in 2014. In this situation, the lack of an effective mechanism in the region that can ensure the prevention and resolution of conflicts through peaceful diplomatic means is particularly dangerous. The formation of such a mechanism was initiated by the ASEAN countries. G. M. Lokshin, Ph. D., Senior Researcher at the Center for Vietnam and ASEAN Studies, devoted his report to this issue.

He stressed that the way out of the current impasse in which the Southeast Asian states are trying to find a long-term solution to sovereignty disputes that is acceptable to all cannot be found on the tracks of consolidating existing military alliances in Southeast Asia and "pumping" new and increasingly modern weapons into this Asia-Pacific sub-region. This is possible only through the formation of reliable international legal mechanisms for peace, security and mutually beneficial cooperation, which would be one of the components of the new security architecture of East Asia and the Asia-Pacific region as a whole.

Despite all the obstacles, the sharply complicated situation in the South China Sea (SCM) region is not hopeless, the speaker believes. Slowly and with great difficulty, a security architecture is gradually being formed here, creating opportunities for cooperation in solving the most complex problems and contradictions inherited from history and escalated recently. The growing economic interdependence of China, the United States, Japan, and the ASEAN countries provides opportunities to overcome mutual strategic distrust and establish security cooperation.

On December 31, 2015, the establishment of the ASEAN Community, based on the "three pillars" of security, economic and socio - cultural communities, will be completed with more or less implementation of the tasks set. The discussion around the new post-2015 vision of ASEAN has already begun. Public and academic circles are discussing projects to educate East Asian and Pacific communities based on time-tested ASEAN principles, commonly known as the " ASEAN Method

(ASEAN Way). There are a lot of skeptics and critics of ASEAN in the world, and we have enough of them. But for all the known weaknesses and shortcomings of this association, in a region historically torn apart by conflicts, ASEAN, according to the speaker, is better than any other alternative. It is enough to ask what would have become of Southeast Asia if it had not been for many years of patient efforts by ASEAN leaders to preserve peace and stability in the region. If the Governments of such different member States can reach even a modest common denominator, the more often they do so, the better. The ASEAN leaders are wisely guided by the principle that the process is more important than the outcome. At the same time, informal contacts of leaders and influential representatives of political elites play a special role.

The emerging complex multi-level mechanism of interaction of ASEAN members with each other and with dialogue partners opens up, in the speaker's opinion, the prospect of turning the East Asian Summits (EAS), in which Russia and the United States have been participating on an equal footing since 2011, into an effective mechanism for maintaining peace and stability in this part of the Asia-Pacific region, which It would also be the same for the entire giant region, i.e. it would become a kind of OSCE analogue for the Asia-Pacific region, taking into account all the differences between this region and Europe. So far, this is not the task of today, and the path to creating such a mechanism may take many years, but as they say, the long road begins with the first step. It is for this purpose that Russia, as the speaker noted, is gradually increasing its contribution to the work of the East Asia Summit. It is this institution, where the leaders of 18 States meet, that can and should lead the entire pyramid of various multilateral forums operating under the auspices of ASEAN and the ASEAN Forum on Peace and Security (ARF), so that the nascent regional security architecture becomes more solid and stable.

There is no need to create a new organization. A flexible multi-stakeholder mechanism based on existing structures and forms, all of which can be integrated into an expanded partnership network, seems to better serve the needs of the region. Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation SV. Lavrov calls this "network diplomacy". And we would like to see ASEAN as the main engine of the primos moto of this process, and we see this organization as an important factor in regional security and cooperation.

The goals and objectives of Russian policy in the region were discussed in detail in his report by the Senior Researcher of the Center for Vietnam and ASEAN Studies, Ph. D. E. V. Kobelev. These goals, he noted, were repeatedly confirmed by Russian President Vladimir Putin: during his three visits to Vietnam and regular meetings with the leaders of Vietnam and other countries in the region. This means improving the regional situation, maintaining a generally stable and predictable situation in the Asia-Pacific region, and ensuring dynamic and sustainable development. Our policy in this region remains open and aimed at creating a climate of trust and close cooperation with all countries, large and small. We have no ideological or other contradictions with China, nor with the traditionally friendly Vietnam, nor with any other ASEAN countries. Our bilateral relations and participation in multilateral structures are developing.

At the present stage, according to the speaker, Russian-Vietnamese relations are an important factor in ensuring peace and security both in Southeast Asia and in the Asia-Pacific region as a whole. Their international significance has increased especially since their signing in 2001. Declaration on Strategic Partnership between the Russian Federation and Vietnam. Although the establishment of strategic partnership relations is mainly aimed at more effective development of bilateral relations, at the same time, both sides attach great importance to security issues in the Southeast Asia and Asia-Pacific region. In particular, they are closely related to-

They are promoted through the ASEAN Regional Security Forum and ASEAN Defence Ministers ' Meetings with Dialogue Partners.

In an effort to further strengthen Vietnam's security, Russia has become the country's largest arms supplier. At their meeting on July 27, 2012, Presidents Truong Tan Sang and Vladimir Putin noted that military-technical cooperation and partnership between the two countries in the field of defense and security are constantly developing in accordance with the basic principles of international law, ensuring the strengthening of Vietnam's defense capability and joint resistance to new challenges to peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region. They are not directed against any third party.

Unfortunately, in recent months, the positive process of building up the Russian-Vietnamese comprehensive strategic partnership has been unexpectedly interfered with by the sharp aggravation of the situation in the South China Sea region, caused by China's unilateral actions to establish an oil platform in the area that Hanoi considers its exclusive economic zone. Russia called on both countries to show restraint and resolve the issue as soon as possible through negotiations.

Russia is not a party to the increasingly heated disputes in the South China Sea and will not be drawn into them. It proceeds, the speaker stressed, from the fact that all States involved should strictly follow the principle of non-use of force or threat of force, and continue to persistently search for ways of political and diplomatic settlement of existing problems based on the norms of international law, primarily fixed in the UN Charter and the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Consultations and negotiations on territorial issues of the South China Sea should be conducted by direct participants in disputes in the optimal format determined by them. Russia also supports the efforts of the ASEAN States to develop a legally binding Code of Conduct in the South China Sea based on the 2002 Declaration on the Conduct of the Parties, as well as the principles for its implementation agreed in 2011.

A broad exchange of views took place on all the reports, sometimes turning into a heated discussion of opponents. Summing up, the moderator of the round table, Doctor of Economics V. M. Mazyrin, thanked the participants for their comprehensive analysis of the issues raised and noted the high professional level of the discussion. He expressed confidence that all participants will continue their research on the issues raised by them, which will eventually create an interesting and useful scientific work on one of the most pressing problems of the modern world.

Permanent link to this publication: