1. Introduction
1.5. Literature Review
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
4
1.4. Research Questions
The purpose of the study is to identify relations between politics and economics in the relationship between the Czech Republic and the PRC after 1989. More specifically, these questions will be addressed:
1. What is the relations between the economic and diplomatic sphere between the Czech Republic and the PRC?
2. What factors influence the relationship between the Czech Republic and the PRC?
1.5. Literature Review
In terms of a language division, sources used in this thesis may see as unbalanced. The English written literature in majority of cases deals only with the relationship between the PRC or ROC and the EU (or Europe generally). Sources in Chinese dedicated specifically to the topic of Sino-Czech relations, are even scarcer. Hence, they were used mainly to trace the PRC or ROC view on specific events or topics. In contrast, literature written in Czech language is, as one would expect, the most plentiful. Slovak sources on the other hand, in many instances provide a very useful insight into the question of Sino-Czech relations, usually by means of a comparing between approaches of the Czech and Slovak Republic to various issues related to the PRC.
Generally speaking, five groups of literature can be identified in terms of their themes – literature on the PRC/ROC relations with Europe/EU, sources on relationship between the Czech Republic and PRC/ROC, literature concerning the position of a small state in today's international
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
5
relations, literature on the topic of economization and finally, literature concerning power dependence.
PRC Relations with Europe/EU
There is an abundant literature regarding relations between Europe/EU and the PRC. Yet, a great majority of it does not give the Czech Republic equal space as to the other European states or members of the EU. Sources used in this research are hence those which either gave the Czech Republic equivalent space as to the other states1 or which provided a new insight into the Sino-European or Sino-EU relationship.
One of the common themes that frequently appears in the literature on the PRC/ROC relations with the EU/Europe is the topic of misunderstanding. Uli Brückner, for example, points out misunderstanding and different perceptions as the underlying characteristic of the EU-PRC relationship. He even goes as far as stating that in Europe, feelings about the PRC are a "mix of admiration and fear" (Brückner 14). Chong-ko Peter Tzou when characterizing the EU-ROC relations used almost the same argument and claimed that the relation can be characterized by misunderstanding which is based mainly on different perceptions of the PRC. Michael Yahuda identifies misunderstanding between the PRC and Europe as one of the two major influences on the EU-PRC relations; the second being the trade (29-30).
1see for example China-Europe Relations: Perceptions, policies and prospects by David Shambaugh, Ebergard Sandshneider and Zhou Hong (eds) or EU Foreign Policy in a Globalized World: Normative power and social preferences by Zaki Laïdi (ed) or NGOs in China and Europe: Comparisons and Contrasts by Yuwen Li (ed).
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
6
Question of trade and the overall economic dimension of the EU-PRC relations is, by no surprise, another re-occurrent topic. Yahuda believes that trade was the main substance of relations between the PRC and Europe for almost two thousand years (13-14). Some of the scholars2 however downplay the influence the PRC had or could potentially have on the EU market. Particularly interesting in this regards is the argument of Lovering who claims that market force in response to the PRC will generate a new pattern of Ricardian specialization that will leave sufficient jobs in the former advantaged countries (72).3
The third re-occurring topic is the issue of human rights. Richard Balme states that “in the absence of a major crisis, European public is less sensitive to the human rights situations in China than to the trade issue” (153). The reason for such a tension lies in his view in a different conception of human rights claimed by the PRC authorities, which is enlarged to social and economic well-being and tends to minimize the importance of political and civil rights. Franco Algieri goes as far as to claim that in the field of human rights, coherence and credibility of European PRC policy is threatened (77-78). On the other hand, authors of the EU-China:
Political and Economic Relations Handbook seem to suggest that EU-PRC human rights dialogues are working. Fox and Godement view the EU's strategy towards the PRC as based on an anachronistic belief that the PRC, under the influence of European engagement, will liberalize its economy, improve the role of law and democratize its politics. They claim that the underlying
2see for example essays by Ivan Turok, John Lovering or Friedmann in China and Europe: The Implications of the rise of China for European space
3As quoted in Samuelson, P. (2004) "Where Ricardo and Mill rebut and Confirm Arguments of Mainstream Economists Supporting Globalization", Journal of Economic Perspectives 18: 135-46.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
7
idea of this unconditional engagement of the EU is that the engagement with the PRC is positive in itself and hence should not be conditional on any specific PRC behavior (1).
While some of the scholars (Turok, Lovering or Friedmann) seem to claim that there is no need to fear the PRC, Franziska Brantner and Richard Gowan claim that in 20 years, it will be harder to convince giants like China, India and others that a rule-based international system is in their interest (83). Generally, scholars are rather critical of the EU's approach to the PRC. Yet, they reasons range from the overemphasis on the trade aspect of the relations, marginalization of human rights or lack of understanding between the two sides. There are a few exceptions to this division. Probably the most interesting argument provided Jean-Pierre Cabestan as he claims that the ROC has proven to be more an irritation that leverage for the EU in its relations with the PRC and moreover, that the EU policy towards the PRC has been over time afflicted by the EU-ROC relations (99-100).
Scholars also differ in how optimistically (or pessimistically) they look at the development of the PRC-EU relations. Taneja Pradeep represents the "optimistic group". He believes that "although the differences over norms and values constitute a serious obstacle to the realization of a genuine strategic partnership, the growing interdependence between the two sides and the multidimensional nature of the relationship will, in the long run, overshadow these differences, thus allowing each side more leverage over the other in dealing with complex bilateral and global issues" (Taneja 372). Jonathan Holslag, on the other hand, represents a pessimistic group. He argues that a strategic relationship between the EU and the PRC is not materializing – either in paper, or in practice. Reasons for this failure are, in his view, the stubborn belief of the EU that it can socialize the PRC. He even concludes by saying that "[t]he cases of Africa and the UN have showed that Europe can at best act as a go-between or a cushion
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
8
against American pressure" (Holslag 310). Another representatives of the pessimistic camp are Bernadette Andresso-O'Callaghan and Francoise Nicolas. They emphasize the great asymmetry between the PRC and Europe in their trade relationship. Although they believe that there are certain areas of complementarity, they see the EU enlargement as potentially dangerous because it increases the competition. As a solution to this challenge, Andresso-O'Callaghan and Nicolas suggest multilateralism and cooperation on energy issues as the recommended for improving PRC-EU relations. It is interesting to note that although Andresso-O'Callaghan and Nicolas similarly to Holslag share a gloomy view on the cooperation between the EU and the PRC, they radically differ in their opinion on multilateralism – for Holslag it is a source of problems, whereas for Andresso-O'Callaghan and Nicolas it is the answer to problems of the EU-PRC relationship (33).
Relationship between the Czech Republic and the PRC
The main difference between scholars when analyzing the relationship between the PRC and the Czech Republic is the extent to which they believe the relationship is marked by human rights and other “touchy issues”. It is interesting that while Czech scholars (e.g. Fürst and Pleschová) seem to refuse the idea that human rights would ever constitute a mainstream issue in the Czech Republic foreign policy towards the PRC and moreover claim, that human rights support has a minimal influence on the business with the PRC, the non-Czech scholars see the Czech Republic as the main supporter of human rights, Tibet and the ROC in Europe. Fox and Godement, for example, categorize the Czech Republic approach to the PRC as an “Assertive Industrialist” approach, stating that the Czech Republic is “willing to stand up to China
‧
vigorously on both political and economic issue” (Fox and Godement 5). David Shambaugh also expresses belief that out of European countries, it is particularly the Czech Republic which the most harbors sympathies for the ROC or Tibet (Shambaugh 133).
Writings of Rober Fürst, one of the top Czech scholars researching the PRC and ROC, created the base for my research. In his book Čína ve XX. století: období 1998 – 2005 he shares his belief in a very small amount of dependence between the sphere of economy and politics (in the context of relations between the Czech Republic and the PRC).4 In “Čína na cestě od izolacionismu k plíživé demokracii”, Fürst describes some tragic examples of Sino-Czech joint-ventures and surveys how the PRC approaches countries with which it has common economic interests. These examples contrast sharply with those provides by Zhang Zuqian in his essay in China-Europe Relations, in which he provided a great number of cases of successful European joint ventures in the PRC (Zhang, "China's commercial relations with Europe"). Fürst is generally very critical of the Czech Republic approach to the PRC which he believes is based on a lack of concrete knowledge of the PRC reality, experience and self-esteem ("Politické vnímání Číny v Čechách" 39).
It is interesting that the Czech Republic is, when it comes to its relations with the PRC, usually mentioned alongside with Poland or Slovakia. While the comparison to Slovakia is popular with Czech and Slovak scholars (Fürst and Pleschová), scholars of other nationalities seem to prefer mentioning the Czech Republic together with Poland (Jean-Pierre Cabestan, Fox and Godement). The reason for this is clear. As it was discussed earlier, many scholars outside
4 This argument can be found in many of his writings, for example in Čína ve XX. století: období 1998 – 2005 on the page 74 or in "Czech and Slovak Relations with China", which he wrote in cooperation with Gabriela Pleschová, on the page 1379.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
10
the Czech or Slovak Republic believe in the strong share of human rights in the Czech Republic's foreign policy towards the PRC, and since similar belief is connected to Polish foreign policy towards the PRC, the Czech Republic and Poland are usually classified as having very similar policies towards the PRC. The Czech or Slovak authors, on the other hand, like to compare Czech and Slovak Republics' policies usually by pointing out that the main difference lies in the Slovak Republic prioritizing economic benefits and the Czech Republic, on the other hand, attempting not only to promote its economic interests but human rights, Taiwan and Tibet question.5
Role of a Small State in the International Society
Literature on the topic of position of small states in today's international society is quite abundant and hence it was possible to analyze books which deal with the topic rather generally as well as those which approach the topic from the particular point of view of the Czech Republic.
Beneš questions motives of small states in their pursuit of international norms, human rights and foreign policy generally and concludes that their behavior is a result of calculation of a small state's interest because the international prestige and reputation which they might gain is a significant source of power in diplomatic negations with other countries. He evaluates the current approach of the Czech Republic as not emphasizing these values enough (Beneš 6).
Jana Peterková and Eliška Tomalová agree with both Beneš's conclusions and assess the Czech Republic puts too much emphasis on areas such as investment, business and tourism and lacks
5 For example Gregušová in "Vzťahy krajín Visegráskéj štvorky s Čínou."
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
11
any strategy for its public diplomacy related to Czech foreign policy goals (Peterková and Tomalová 7). Peterková in her other paper "Veřejná diplomacie malých států a realita České republiky" recommends a “gap diplomacy” as the best conduct for a small state in today's international relations, but also states that it is not clear whether the Czech Republic's foreign policy follows the lines of gap diplomacy at the moment. She concludes by saying that the public diplomacy of the Czech Republic enables the Czech Republic to be visible in the international scene. Yet, if her criteria for an ideal conduct of a small state are applied, it is disputable whether the Czech Republic is visible for the right reasons.
Economization
Çalışkan and Callon defined the process of economization as a “processes that constitute the behaviors, organizations, institutions and, more generally, the objects in a particular society which are tentatively and often controversially qualified by scholars and/or lay people as 'economic'” (Çalışkan and Callon 370). Thomas W. Dunfee and Yukimasa Nagayasu in contrast emphasize the wide scope of impact of economization. They state that economization simply means that “business nowadays plays an ever more important guiding role for the whole society life, that an “economization” of society is underway” (136).
According to Dunfee and Nagayasu, economic thinking and acting are penetrating and dominating more and more domains: large investments, research and development, mass media, politics, education, culture, and the family, for example. The degree into which the process of economization influences current affairs is very high and “[o]nly what counts economically and yield profit is relevant” (Dunfee and Nagayasu 136). Moreover, they clearly argue that even in
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
12
situations where there is a political or ethical issue at stake, economic interest will over-ride it.
Coby van der Linde tracked impacts of economization in Europe and particularly, in the EU. He warned about the danger of economization and over-emphasis on economic issues which sidetrack discussions on geopolitical issues and strategist defend security interests at the EU level.“ In many member states, the peace dividend was "sold" to the public in such a way that security forces would only be needed to put out "small human right fires" and that the economization of international relations itself, i.e. globalization, would largely guarantee the pursuit of peace and prosperity“(Linde 103).
Power Dependence
Albert Hirschman in his National Power and the Structure of Foreign Trade defined national power in terms of the capability of one nation to coerce another, which can be through peaceful or military means. By peaceful means, he refers to the manipulation of trade ties for the purpose of inducing the target state's political concessions (13), which seems to resemble to what the PRC does in case to gain political concessions in regard of its conduct towards the Czech Republic. Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye suggested “it is asymmetries in dependence that are most likely to provide source of influence for actors in their dealings with one another (Keohane and Nye 10-11). From a realist perspective, if two rivals gain unevenly from their exchanges, the state that gains less will tend to eschew or at least limit the commerce; motivation behind such an action is usually the fear that the potential economic gains could make the rival stronger.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
13