國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
comprehensive analysis of all research output relating to Europe in some way.The first issue area concerns Europe and China on the world stage; the second discusses the problems in China-EU relations; and the third section considers China’s opportunities to learn from the European Union. Although this final section admittedly does not demonstrate the influence of academics on foreign policy formulation, it does illustrate how foreign affairs scholars can convert their insights from abroad into domestic policy decisions. What’s more, this is one of the most important and commonly raised issue areas debated by academics with regard to the European Union, and as such, is worthy of inclusion in this analysis.
5.1 China’s Policy towards the European Union
Many Chinese scholars believe that the Sino-EU relationship is the most successful and robust of all China’s foreign relations: “EU-China relations are regarded by many Chinese international relations specialists as the best bilateral relationship in all of China’s foreign relations.” (Song, 2008: 184) One clear sign of this is the release on October 13th 2003 of China’s European Union policy paper (中国对欧盟政策文件, Zhongguo dui Oumeng zhengce wenjian). Not only is this China’s first policy paper concerning the European Union; in fact, it is still the first and only foreign policy paper that China has ever published. (Feng, 2006) This in itself speaks volumes for the official stance of the Chinese authorities in terms of the importance of relations with the European Union.
Nevertheless, since this time China has not released any subsequent policy papers, neither towards the European Union nor towards any other actor or state. The
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
2003 policy paper remains China’s sole foreign policy paper. This may be because China’s first foray into foreign policy making did not yield the expected results, but it is also likely thatas the outline of the policy decisions has not changed over time, China’s practitioners have seen no real incentive to release a new version. It is also possible that updates to the policy paper have been halted in response to the lack of progress on certain issues hampering China-EU relations (notably Europe’s refusal to grant China Market Economy Status, as well as the ultimate failure to lift Europe’s arms ban sale to China despite a significant move to do so in 2005). As such, the 2003 policy paper remains the clearest indicator of China’s policy towards the European Union in practice.
The content of the paper (MoFA) outlines China’s plans for the subsequent five years of relations between the two powers, but has not since been updated and therefore remains the best indication of China’s current policy stance. The paper states that China’s EU policy objectives are:
“To promote a sound and steady development of China-EU political relations under the principles of mutual respect, mutual trust and seeking common ground while reserving differences, and contribute to world peace and stability;
To deepen China-EU economic cooperation and trade under the principles of mutual benefit, reciprocity and consultation on an equal basis, and promote common development;
To expand China-EU cultural and people-to-people exchanges under the principle of mutual emulation, common prosperity and complementarity, and
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
promote cultural harmony and progress between the East and the West.” (pp.
491-2)
These policy principles are broad and on a macro level, setting the background for the many micro policy decisions which are made under this framework. The positive language of benefit and mutuality demonstrates the constructive approach of Chinese leaders towards relations with the EU. In addition, many notable key words are used which reflect not only China’s hopes for the European Union, but its definition of positive foreign relations in general, in particularly the regular references to mutuality, seeking common ground while reserving differences, common development, and harmony. These terms are common in China’s general foreign policy rhetoric, which emphasises that although other nations may have cultural, political, or historical differences with China, it is more important to find points of similarity. Each of China’s leaders have generated an overarching approach to foreign policy, beginning (and still continuing) with Mao’s Five Principles of Peaceful Co-existence, and followed up by the contributions of Deng Xiaoping’s Building a Cooperative Pattern and Peaceful Development, Jiang Zemin’s Harmony but not Sameness, and Hu Jintao’s Peaceful Rise and Harmonious Society. These concepts are different mutations of the same basic idea:
it is in everybody’s benefit to co-exist peacefully and harmoniously even in the face of differences. (Vang, 2008)
This long-standing approach to international relations is one of the key reasons why China-EU relations are looked upon so favourably by Chinese scholars. The EU, itself originally an economic construct, tends to favour the pursuit of mutual economic benefit in its international relations, and tends not to intervene in states’ internal affairs.
(Smith, 2002) Unlike the United States, the European Union is considered by many
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
scholars to not take an ideological stance towards relations with China. In other words, the EU and China share a commitment to pragmatic relations despite certain key divergences, such as regime type, ideology, and negative historical legacies. As China’s EU policy states: “There is no fundamental conflict of interest between China and the EU and neither side poses a threat to the other. However, given their differences in historical background, cultural heritage, political system and economic development level, it is natural that the two sides have different views or even disagree on some issues. Nevertheless China-EU relations of mutual trust and mutual benefit cannot and will not be affected if the two sides address their disagreements in a spirit of equality and mutual respect… The common ground between China and the EU far outweighs their disagreements.” (Ministry of Foreign Affairs)
China breaks down its policy towards the EU into five broad sectors: political;
economic; education, science and technology, culture, and health; and social, judicial and administrative; and military. In terms of the education, science and technology, culture, and health aspect, the emphasis is on cooperation. China calls for ‘multi-level and all-dimensional’ cultural exchange, between both governmental and civilian actors, stating its aim to build cultural centres in Europe to spread word of China’s culture;
cooperation in education, including student exchange, language teaching, and scholarships; and cooperation on the R&D of technologies and equipment, as well as support for non-governmental actors engaged in the science and technology industry. In addition, personnel exchange between Europeans and Chinese citizens, both people-to-people and non-governmental, with China poised to actively encourage Chinese people-to-people to choose Europe as a tourist destination – if the EU relaxes visa impediments on Chinese nationals. The policy paper also outlines China’s aims for greater health and
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
medical cooperation, especially for establishing a mechanism of mutual notification and support in the case of emergent hazards. Finally, China wishes to advance press exchange, stating: “Chinese and EU media agencies should be encouraged to enhance mutual understanding and give comprehensive and unbiased reports of each other.”
China’s image in Western media is a particular bugbear for its attempts at grounding a positive international reputation. (Cui, 2011a)
The focus in the social, judicial and administrative sector is also on cooperation.
The paper details China’s plans for cooperation in police affairs, in terms of information sharing and case handling, as well as UN peacekeeping work; cooperation in labour and social security, in particular regarding social insurance, and migrant workers and legal immigration; and cooperation in public administration, largely experiential knowledge exchange in terms of personnel, administrative, and human resources management, as well as the development of the civil service and governmental functions. Finally, the paper calls for the continuation and deepening of legal and judicial exchange, including a potential annual summit of judicial officials.
The policy paper handles the military aspect perfunctorily, right at the end of the document, briefly affirming the aims of continuing high-level military exchanges of experts and training, and establishing a security consultation mechanism. The final sentence of the entire policy paper reads: “The EU should lift its ban on arms sales to China at an early date so as to remove barriers to greater bilateral cooperation on defence industry and technologies.” The EU’s ban on arms sales to China in the wake of the Tiananmen Square Incident of 1989 remains one of the most contentious aspects of the China-EU relationship. This will be discussed in more detail in section 5.4.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
In terms of the major topic of economics, the paper outlines seven main concerns.
The policy paper writes of continuing transport cooperation, mainly maritime coordination for the sake of trade, as well as exchange on highways and aviation; IT cooperation, particularly EU participation in and support for China’s IT development and strengthening of exchange in intellectual property rights and industry standards;
energy cooperation, in regard to clean and renewable energy development and energy-related technological exchange; agricultural cooperation, including the intensification of exchange in the fields of sustainable development and production, as well as encouragement for European agricultural enterprises and educational institutes to invest research and funding in China’s agricultural land; and environmental cooperation, referring to the establishment of Sino-EU environmental protection cooperation, and the construction of new mechanisms to enable greater exchange in this field. The final two aspects are financial cooperation and economic cooperation and trade. In terms of the former, China states its aims of launching a ‘high-level financial dialogue mechanism’
and increasing exchange between central banks. Great emphasis is laid on encouraging EU financial services firms to enter the Chinese market, with the Chinese side promising improvements in financial regulations and supervision. The most important aspect of the economic sector is economic cooperation and trade. Here, the policy paper points to many of the key issues affecting China-EU relations: “It is important to:… properly address irrational restrictions and technical barriers, ease restrictions on high-tech exports… grant China a full market economy status at an early date, reduce and abolish anti-dumping and other discriminatory policies and practices against China… and compensate the Chinese side for its economic and trade losses which may arise due to the EU enlargement.” These issues will be discussed further in subsequent sections. This section also notes China’s hope for more European development aid and human
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
resources assistance; the importance of strengthening mutual investments; and reinforcing product safety and environmental protection in trade. Finally the 2003 paper states China’s hope to establish a China-EU customs agreement; according to the EU’s Europa website: “In 2005, the EU-China Customs Cooperation and Mutual Administrative Assistance Agreement entered into force.” (2010)
The sector of politics is of greatest interest to this study, as it represent policies created and carried out in largest part by the government, as opposed to by the military or through representative actors such as judicial, education, or public sector employees.
In addition, the section of the policy paper dealing with political aspects covers some of China’s fundamental core interests (核心利益, hexin liyi), which are emphasised in all of China’s foreign relations (Hu Jintao’s Political Reports to the 17th and 18th NCCPC): strict adherence to the one-China principle, namely total non-recognition of Taiwan in international affairs at any level, as well as promotion of the EU’s understanding of Tibet, which entails the EU avoiding contact with Tibet’s government-in-exile and the Dalai Lama, and encouragement of stronger ties with Macau and Hong Kong in accordance with the ‘one country, two systems’ (一国两制, yi guo liang zhi) principle.
The policy paper also calls for the increase of high-level exchanges and political dialogue, including making full use of the annual China-EU summit and deepening relations with all EU members, old and new, in order to “maintain stability and continuity in the overall relationship.” This section also mentions human rights, with the disclaimer that
“There are both consensus and disagreements between China and the EU on the question of human rights.” (This will be examined in section 5.4) Nevertheless the paper asks for continued dialogue, exchange and cooperation in this area “on the basis of equality and mutual respect.” Next, China outlines its policies of reinforcing dialogue
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
between Chinese and European legislative bodies (ie. between China’s National People’s Congress and the European Parliament, as well as the parliaments of individual member states); as well as increasing exchange between the Chinese Communist Party and domestic political parties within EU member states, on the all-important conditions of equality, mutual respect, and non-interference in internal affairs. Finally, the paper turns to strengthening international cooperation, in terms of coordination on major global issues, joint reinforcement of the UN’s international role, and working together to combat terrorism and safeguard the arms control and non-proliferation global regimes.
Interestingly, the paper mentions Asia-Europe region-to-region cooperation, going so far as to state that ASEM (Asia-Europe Meeting) should become “a driving force behind the establishment of a new international political and economic order.” This statement is slipped in with little fanfare, but is certainly extremely worthy of note; more attention will be given to this issue in section 5.3.
In conclusion, China’s 2003 policy paper is the most indicative document of China’s stance towards the European Union, covering a very wide range of aspects and outlining policies of both Track I and II diplomacy. In general, the policy paper maintains a positive tone, encouraging mutual cooperation and exchange. However, some statements, when seen in the greater context of China’s foreign policy interests, reveal some of China’s concerns and greater ambitions for the trajectory of China-EU relations. These various aspects will be considered in sections 5.3 to 5.5, and summarised in section 5.6.
This study posits that China’s foreign policy is influenced to a certain degree by the work and recommendations of academics. Chinese experts abound in every foreign policy field and bilateral relationship; accordingly, the Chinese academic field boasts
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
many dedicated European Studies scholars and institutes. By considering the models of influence laid out in Chapter Four, the following section will identify which of these many actors are of particular note when analysing the policy influence of European Studies scholars.
5.2 Identifying Influential Academic Actors in the European Studies Field
Chapter Four of this thesis identified the many ways in which an academic or a research institute’s influence can be built up and identified. Firstly, there is a division between semi-official and civilian research institutes. Semi-official research institutes take much of their influence from their position within the hierarchy of the political structure; this allows for access to more comprehensive materials, enhancing the credibility of the research output, as well as direct channels by which to influence policy practitioners.
These established positions also bring embedded historical legacy, wealth, and size, contributing to the positive reputation of these institutes within policy making circles.
Academics employed by these institutes are able to draw on this source of positional influence. Civilian research institutes, conversely, tend to draw their influence from the academics themselves. Scholars in civilian institutes wield the influence of extensive personal networks and highly expert knowledge. In addition, they may have more leeway to explore topics freely, thus presenting insights that extend beyond semi-official academics’ research limits. In addition, civilian institute scholars are also less constrained in building up peer and public influence by participation in academic
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
coordination efforts and engagement with the media. Some of the most fortunate scholars are able to draw on multiple sources of influence.
This section will identify some of the key players within the European Studies field in China. By considering the positional, experiential, and expertise sources and related pathways of influence available to scholars and institutes within this field, it is possible to conjecture which wield the most influence over China’s policy towards the EU. Although it is difficult to establish the personal ties of individual academics, a combination of high positional and expert influence carries a greater likelihood of larger personal networks amongst policy practitioners and academic peers, which indicates a greater source of personal influence. By identifying the most influential institutes and academics, those wishing to better understand the relationship of academia with policy making in the European Studies field can narrow their search to the research output of those with actual sway.
5.2.1 The European Studies Field
Before going on to outline the most influential actors, this section begins by outlining the general conditions and status of the European Studies field in China. Historically the Chinese European Studies field has been largely underdeveloped when seen in relation to research on the United States and Russia. After China established diplomatic relations with the European Community, the fledgling manifestation of the European Union, in 1975, the field drew more attention, and continued to expand throughout the 1980s and 90s. Currently Chinese scholars are showing a renewed interest in the European Union, largely because it represents a never-before-seen international actor, with rich research
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
potential in terms of regional integration, economic, legal and social programmes, and multilateralism.
According to Dai Bingran (2008), 1850 articles appearing in 598 journals, as well as 285 theses and 307 books, were published on European Studies between 1994 and 2005, written by 1283 different authors. Although by Chinese standards, the European Studies field is relatively small and underdeveloped (Dai, 2008), this represents a large body of Chinese language academic output to analyse, and of these 1283 authors, 2442 published works and 598 journals, by no means will most wield any discernible policy influence. Since Dai’s study, carried out in 2008, European Studies have continued to develop. A simple search for reference to the term ‘European Union’ in the public CNKI site (China Integrated Knowledge Resources Database) revealed 22,336 hits with a massive emphasis towards economics: 7204 articles registered on the subject of economics and trade, 4642 on industrial economics, 1225 on agricultural economics, 1049 on economic reform, 1593 on economic management and sustainable development, and 699 on finance, but just 2060 on politics. The articles are further categorised: the biggest three types are the 9608 articles based on specific industry guidance, 4256 considered ‘fundamental research’, and 1935 classed as policy research.
These articles make at least one reference to the European Union within their content. A more specific search of the fee-paying CNKI journal database returned 2760 articles with the word ‘European Union’ appearing in the title from 2005 to the present day.
In terms of the general content of European Studies’ research output, as Shambaugh (2008a) astutely points out: “There is a remarkable homogeneity, uniformity, and conformity in Chinese perceptions of Europe and Sino-European relations.” (p. 128) Lacking different ‘schools of opinion,’ in general European Studies
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
scholars present very similar analyses of Europe, with the difference in the details as opposed to the overall standpoint. As it stands, policy makers actually have very little to choose from regarding different approaches to the European Union amongst academics.
scholars present very similar analyses of Europe, with the difference in the details as opposed to the overall standpoint. As it stands, policy makers actually have very little to choose from regarding different approaches to the European Union amongst academics.