Nearly everybody would agree that no single nation can tackle today’s challenges alone. Our economies and our security are interconnected. To handle global challenges, the EU, the U.S. and China must all play a prominent role within the international community and contribute to a stronger, fairer and more effective multi-lateral system. In this sense, Li Zhaoxing’s article is a very good analysis because he conceptualises the picture of a multi-lateral world and underlines the importance of China-EU and U.S.-China relations. And it can be also read as an announcement of China’s willingness to co-operate with Europe!
But without wishing to devaluate his ideas, my reaction is that words are easily spoken…we must see the reality beyond the rhetoric. The history and reality of EU-China relations is of co-operation and rapprochement, but also one of conflicts and tensions. In a subtle way, Li Zhaoxing somehow points out the weaker aspects of EU-China relations. When he says that Bejing "hopes that the EU will play an even greater role in international affairs" he doesn’t do so by accident!
China wants Europe to be its partner, just as Europe wants a strategic partnership with China. But what Li Zhaoxing is suggesting indirectly is that if Europe wants to act on the same level as China and the U.S. it must understand that it has to act as a single unity and overcome its own cacophony of political voices. Despite the fact that the EU often lacks "one voice", we must recognise that Europe has made considerable progress in recent years, especially with the Lisbon treaty, and its variety of instruments, its civil and military outreach within the framework of the European Security and Defence Policy, and the fact that it still is the biggest aid donor in the world. Europe is already a global player.
But it's not only on the EU side that EU-China relations are at a "critical stage". The EU expects its Chinese partner to behave according its rhetoric. Li Zhaoxing describes China-EU-U.S. relations as being not "a game of containment through alliance" but rather "complementary, mutually reinforcing, and conducive to win-win-solutions". There are three critical points here: First, if we consider such facts as China’s restrictions on the export of raw materials that directly affect Europe, we must doubt the seriousness of the proclaimed "win-win", mutual open and reciprocal relationship when it comes to trade.
Second, Zahoxing's vision seems very interest-dominated. From a European view point, foreign policy is not only interest-oriented but also value-oriented. In the EU-U.S. relations, we have common ground in our shared values, but EU-China relations are not based on anything equivalent. This sometimes provokes problems and hinders an effective EU-U.S.-China partnership because it is made clear by human rights cases like that of Ai Weiwei or Tibet. Third, China wants stability and peace but its harsh approach during just the last year towards its neighbours like Vietnam or Japan leaves room for doubt. If China is serious about contributing to a world of peace and stability it should prove that it is the case in its own neighbourhood.
So, we can see that EU-China relations are indeed at a critical stage, and depend on both sides to develop them in fruitful and positive ways. Zhaoxing's article lacks concrete proposals. The question is not if we need closer EU-U.S.-China co-operation – we can all agree on that. Rather, the question is how can we achieve a fruitful co-operation despite our different world views, values and interests?
We can all understand that in the light of today's global geopolitics, the self-contained pursuit of national interests has become unrealistic – in Europe just as much as in China. What we need now is that both sides should make the necessary efforts, and that both should foster mutual trust. This will only be possible if we translate the present dialogue into an expansion and deepening of practical co-operation. We have to actively promote more exchanges on business, educational and administrative levels! The German-Chinese Institutes for Law at the universities of Göttingen and Nanjing, and also the China Europe International School (CEIBS), are good examples. We need more bi-lateral dialogues and mechanisms like the existing High-level Economic and Trade Dialogue (HED) between the EU and China and the ongoing negotiations on a comprehensive Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA) offer an obvious opportunity to improve the framework for bi-lateral trade and investment relations. As former U.S. President Woodrow Wilson put it: “Interest does not tie nations together; it sometimes separates them. But sympathy and understanding does unite them."