國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
5.5 Learning from the European Union
This final issue area departs from the basic premise of this thesis in that it is not a foreign policy issue. However, it is of such importance to Chinese European Studies scholars that it cannot be comfortably overlooked. Briefly, one of the key reasons for Chinese academic interestin the European Union – as stated by the scholars themselves – is to learn from its experiences in order to put them to use for China’s benefit. (Dai, 2008; Zhu, 2008a; Song, 2008; Zhou, 2009) As Dai (2008) writes, “To serve domestic needs has always been what the individuals engaged in European Studies are asked for and are committed to.” (p. 113)
In other words, Chinese scholars hope to draw out lessons from which China can learn, and as Dai (2008) intimates, are even expected to do so by policy practitioners hoping for inspiration. European Studies scholars pick out valuable lessons from the European experience and present them to the leadership;these lessons may be subsequently incorporated into China’s own domestic policies, or policy toward other global actors. Learning from the experiences of other countries and regions is hugely important to China. According to Tsai and Dean (2013), “It is widely understood that the CCP adopts a variety of methods to strengthenits governing ability, including studying the experience of other countries or regions.” The Chinese government has been carrying out continuous reforms for decades, and often draws upon adaptations of examples from other countries, or in the case of the European Union, other political bodies. However, the government needs academics to bridge this gap for them. In general, it is only through academic analysis and research reports that practitioners are informed of European experiences and how they can be reproduced in a Chinese context. As such, although this section of the study does not specifically relate to
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
academic opinions on China’s foreign policy towards Europe, it makes up such a significant aspect of the insights European Studies scholars pass on to policy practitioners, through the same mechanisms laid out in Chapter Four, that it is worthwhile investigating.
In the view of Chinese scholars, there are many lessons to be learned from the European Union experience. Song Xinning (2008), for instance, identifies four categories, which include regional cooperation, social and economic development, political reform, and the ‘peaceful rise’ of Europe.Zhao Huaipu (2008) corroborates, stating: “[China’s]
aim is to achieve a market economy, civil society, and political pluralism, and in all these respects the Europe Union can offer a wealth of experience for China to draw upon, including the historical experience of Europe’s welfare societies and the more recent experience of assisting regime transformation in Eastern Europe after the end of the Cold War.”
In terms of regional cooperation, the European Union makes the ideal role model.
The EU represents the most integrated regional political body ever seen in the history of the world. European Union member states have sacrificed a certain degree of national sovereignty and transferred these rights to a multilateral regional organisation in the belief that this is in their best interests. For the Chinese, who retain a firm belief in the values of national sovereignty, this is a curious phenomenon which has drawn much attention from analysts. A current trend amongst Chinese international relations scholars is the promotion of regional integration; European Studies scholars are responding to his trend by offering insights from the European experience. (Zhang, 2008; Zhu, 2009) If China wishes to be at the helm of an Asian regional integration process, then learning from the European Union may be one of the best ways to do so.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Zhu Liqun (2009) explains: “[The EU] is the world’s first successful model of regional integration, thus possessing a strong appeal. The EU became the world’s most stable and tight regional union through economic, political, and social cooperation. Its developmental model draws in neighbouring countries like a lodestone, and possesses a wealth of experience of regional cooperation for other regions to learn from.” Zhang Jian (2008) writes: “Europe has achieved long-lasting peace and common prosperity. The success of European integration has therefore had a strong demonstrative effect in many other regions of the world. The EU is also happy to promote its successful experiences of integration. This has come to constitute an important facet of the EU’s soft power.”
China’s Peaceful Rise has already been discussed in section 4.4. The concept itself has proven problematic, but the real issue lies in China’s rise itself. There is no question that the development of China has created a massive impact on practically every aspect of international life, and there are many powerful actors – especially the United States – that do not welcome this change. China meets with the opposition of the USA on many fronts, and often accuses the US of deliberately attempting to block and slow its development or create direct and indirect threats to China’s security.
After WWII, the European continent was devastated. It only really began to return to former glory after massive inputs from the Marshall Project, which enabled the embattled European economies to get back on their feet and bring themselves into a state of stability. The Marshall project, funded by the USA, also heralded the beginning of European cooperation. (Smith, 2002) To the Chinese, there are definite similarities in the rise of Europe from the ashes of the Second World War and the rise of China from the century of humiliation and the excesses of Maoism. Zhou Hong (2009): “Both new
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
China and new Europe were relatively weak to begin with. China had just cast off the shackles of colonial rule, working hard to construct a modern state; Europe had but a slight experience of integration. At that time, the principal European actors were still just nation-states attempting to recover from the wounds of war.”
However, the response of other countries in the world appears markedly different. Chinese European Studies scholars debate the differences in the development of China and the EU, and consider what they can learn from these experiences. Mostly, academics have identified the importance of maintaining a positive relationship with the status quo hegemon through the formation of a bond of key interests and economic interdependence. In addition, the European Union participated actively in international, multilateral organisations. This added to the credibility and trustworthiness of the EU as a responsible global actor. In addition, the European Union has offered a great deal of assistance to former colonies; although China cannot directly imitate this approach, the importance of engaging with the developing world, as opposed to constricting its development, would bring about greater support for a growing power. Finally, the European Union is seen to possess great soft power. Rather than rising through military strength or domination, the European Union took an economic route, and brought with it a blend of culture, technology, and flourishing social models which inspire rather than coerce on the path to power.
Song Xinning (2004) argues:“It can be said that the European Union achieved a peaceful rise, both in terms of economics and politics, but it did not threaten the USA’s hegemonic status, nor lead to drastic change in the international system. Europe’s peaceful rise is based on its careful handling of three types of relations: 1) relations with neighbours and other regions. Europe’s integration bound together many of the
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
continent’s countries into one actor, allowing Europe to achieve peaceful development within its own borders. 2) The relationship with the ruling hegemon – the USA. Europe was able to bandwagon on security and economic fields by entering into an alliance with the USA. 3) Relations with the rest of the world, in particular developing countries, playing an important role in bridging the world’s North-South division. The European Union’s peaceful rise offers us a good model of experience.” Zhu Liqun (2008b)adds:
“The European Union’s growth into the world’s biggest soft power has had an irreplaceable constructive effect on the world system. Europe has contributed to the world the fundamental concept of effective multilateralism and the culture of consultative cooperation, which emphasises common benefit and power-sharing, on the condition of cooperation and adherence to binding regulations.”
Chinese scholars also consider the social, economic, and political development in Europe. Firstly, it is widely concluded that the European Union presents subtly, but in fact vastly different models of social, economic, and political development than the United States. (Zhang Jianhua, 2001; Zhang Jianxiong, 2001; Tian, 2005; Zhou, 2006) The European Union not only ties together its twenty eight member states, but also gives space to elected representatives from the many different political parties present within these states. The entire union is thus made up of members with varying political beliefs, and yet manages to function nevertheless, through complex collective decision making systems. For the Chinese, with a one Party regime, this political harmony is of interest. European Studies scholars consider how the European Union’s political experience and decision making mechanisms could provide models for successful political reform within China itself. What’s more, the European Union guarantees basic social welfare to its citizens that goes far beyond the safety nets offered by the United
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
States. (Song, 2008) China is a country sorely lacking in social welfare, but as a rapidly developing country, this is one of the next steps to be taken. China’s authorities must provide for over 1.3 billion citizens; an unviable system is not an option. The European Union also offers infrastructure investment. For instance, Zhang Jianxiong (2001) claims that: “It is worthwhile for China’s Western regions to take many of the methods in the EU’s policy of structural funding as a model in their quest for large-scale development.”
Studying the experiences of different countries can offer China some models to adapt – and the European model is considered to be one of the most successful models in the world.
Signs of these ‘lessons’ can already be seen in Chinese policy. Although there is no way to know whether Chinese policy decisions have been made purely on the recommendations of scholars learning from the European system, there is no doubt that China has begun pursuing policies of engagement with developing countries, strengthening of soft power, increased regional cooperation and integration, and effective participation with multilateral organisations. (Hu Jintao’s Political Reports to the 17th and 18th NCCPC) The European Studies field is also continuing to grow and is well-funded, largely in the hope that analysts of Europe can offer insights which will benefit China itself in the long run. (Dai, 2008)
This chapter has firstly discussed China’s official policy towards the European Union, as outlined in its 2003 policy paper. Next, the chapter moved on to consider the state of European Studies in China today. By taking into account the mechanisms of influence examined in Chapter Four, the most influential institutes and individual academics, as well as the key journals for European Studies, were identified. The chapter then
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
revealed the general views of Chinese scholars with regard to three different major issue areas, namely China and the EU on the global stage, problems in China-EU relations, and the possibilities for China to learn from the EU.
Comparing China’s policy with the work of academics reveals clear similarities.
For example, much of the literature on the European Union refers to its growing importance in the world and the possibility that the European Union will become one pole in a new multipolar order. China’s own rise is much-discussed and generally accepted as a concrete fact by Chinese academics. Academics regularly moot the idea that China and Europe can become two constructive poles in this world order. This is emphasised by their identified similarities with regard to multilateralism and dialogue.
The statement in the policy paper declaring that the ASEM (Asia-Europe Meeting) should become “a driving force behind the establishment of a new international political and economic order” are signs of this way of thinking in action.
Secondly, there is a great deal of work on the problems in the China-EU relationship, including the ongoing arms embargo, China’s Market Economy Status, and clashes in the human rights dialogue. Although scholars discuss these issues at length, they conclude that the problem is with the European side, notably its lack of empathy and fairness, notwithstanding the issues with internal disagreement amongst member states. Regardless of whether this has any element of truth, the approach of academics does not appear to provide any concrete solutions or measures that the Chinese leadership could take to directly address these issues. This standpoint is mirrored in the statements given in the policy paper. For example, the paper simply states that “it is important to… grant China a full market economy status at an early date.” No reasoning is given as to why, and nor are any policies outlined to detail how the Chinese can earn
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Europe’s understanding in the matter. In another example, on 28th January 2010, Foreign Ministry spokesman Ma Zhouxu (马朝旭) informed a press conference that:
“The EU’s arms embargo, in nature, is political prejudice against China, which runs counter to world tides and China-EU all-round strategic partnership.” This is an almost word-for-word reflection of the arguments of Chinese scholars, and once again engages in blame and criticism without any nod to constructive resolutions.
Finally, in terms of learning from Europe, in this case it is other policies which must be considered, not China’s policy towards the EU. Scholars offer many ways in which China can learn from the EU, including, for example, regional integration and rising peacefully. China is currently taking great strides towards regional integration and collective regional security with efforts targeted mainly towards the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and ASEAN +3. (Wu, 2008) With regard to Europe’s ‘peaceful rise,’ analysts such as Song (2004) and Zhou (2009) identify the ways in which Europe developed from its low point after WWII into a major world power, including by establishing good relations with different states in the world: neighbouring countries, the ruling hegemon, and developing countries. Once again this is seen in China’s foreign policies: China’s regional cooperation efforts may represent attempts to ameliorate relations with those in the Asia-Pacific. In recent years China has also made great inroads into diplomacy with the developing world, engaging in projects across Latin America and Africa. (Alden, 2007) It is considered by many that China is in a race for resources in these areas; nevertheless, China has begun to mould itself into a ‘champion’
of developing countries, consolidating their interests and wielding its own power on their behalf. (Xinhua, 2009) Finally, although Sino-US relations are beset with constant
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
problems, China and the USA are now pursuing an official Strategic and Economic Dialogue. (US Department of State)
In addition to these three major issue areas, there are in fact essentially no areas touched upon in the EU policy paper that have not been discussed by academics previously or since. China’s ‘Europe Watchers’ have covered the gamut from the role of Europe in the new world order, to the minutiae of Track II diplomacy via various industries and the importance of soft power and cultural understanding. Most importantly, with the exception of the mentioned problems, a tone of positivity runs through almost all of the academic work regarding China-EU relations, a tone which is matched in official policy statements.
In one of the more conclusive examples of the way academic research appears to have influenced policy, in July 2001 CICIR Europe analysts collectively wrote a report on China’s relations with the European Union. (CICIR EU Research Group, 2001) In addition to explicitly stating that Europe “is a major collaborator for China to push forward the move toward global multipolarity,” the paper also elaborates on the important pillars of economic, political, and strategic interests tying the EU and China ever closer together. The report recommended that China follow a long-term strategy in its engagement with the EU, as opposed to making only responsive policies when issues arise, advising the government to write a policy paper for the European Union. Finally, the report carefully detailed seven key policy suggestions for the next 5-10 years:
1) In terms of economics, China should: pay greater attention to European SMEs;
increase efforts to attract European investment in China; specifically attempt to attract technological investment and collaboration; increase the quality of
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
agricultural exports in order to increase market share in Europe; anticipate the economic consequences of Eastern enlargement and make contingency plans.
2) In terms of politics, China should: positively assess the EU’s principles of dialogue, cooperation, and assistance; support the EU’s efforts to become a global pole; communicate and work together on global issues of importance.
3) China should also strengthen cooperation over Eurasian affairs, eg. crime, migration.
4) China should set up coordination groups to handle and respond to the EU’s 60 point policy plan towards China and propose joint plans to achieve these aims.
5) China and the EU should work together actively to promote their respective cultures to one another, including through cultural exchange and culture centres.
6) Despite their differences, China and the EU should maintain positive dialogue over human rights (identified here as the largest issue in bilateral relations).
7) China and the EU should increase non-governmental exchange and Track II diplomacy.
Just two years after this report was published, China issued its first and only policy paper. The wording of the policy paper is immediately notable as being practically identical to the CICIR report, and the policy decision makers appear to have followed each and every suggestion to the letter. CICIR released an English language version of the report, but it is important to remember that CICIR is also the only research institute with several classified channels directly to the central leadership.
Undoubtedly a Chinese language version of the report, with more sensitive or explicit details included, would have been conveyed to the top foreign policy decision makers.
Although, admittedly, there remains the possibility that CICIR were instructed to write
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
this report by policy makers who had already dictated its content, to all intents and purposes, and given the evidence that academics are increasingly free of government influence, the report seems to indicate a direct link between the work of influential academics and actual policy output by decision makers.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Chapter 6
Conclusions
This thesis has analysedthe potential influence of the world of academia over China’s foreign policy making, with a preliminary case study of the field of European Studies and China’s policy toward Europe. Several conclusions can be drawn from this study.
This chapter will first address the three secondary research questions in turn, before finally drawing together the insights of this study to conclude in response to the primary research question: What is the role of academia in terms of China’s foreign policy decision making?
1) How is foreign policy formulated in China, and by whom is it decided?
1) How is foreign policy formulated in China, and by whom is it decided?