Notes
-
[1]
The author is grateful to the organisers of the workshop, « L’Union européenne et le nouvel équilibre des puissances », Colloque international, Université de Montréal, le 21 septembre 2012, for funding the workshop where this paper was presented, and would like to acknowledge Frauke Austermann, Miguel Otero-Iglesias, Jin Men, Zheng Yongnian and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions
-
[2]
Building on my earlier literature review, “Perspectives on China’s Relations with the EU”, in Emilian Kavalski (ed.), The Ashgate Research Companion to Chinese Foreign Policy, Abingdon, Ashgate, 2012, p. 201-210.
-
[3]
Scholars who have attempted to study China’s identity include Yong Deng (2000), “Escaping the Periphery: China’s Identity in World Politics”, in Weixing Hu et al. (eds.), China’s International Relations in the 21st Century: Dynamics of Paradigm Shifts, Lanham, University Press of America, p. 41-70; Anne F. Thurston (2001), “Community and Isolation: Memory and Forgetting: China in Search of Itself”, in Gerrit W. Gong, (ed.), Memory and history in East and Southeast Asia: issues of identity in international relations, D. C., Center for Strategic and International Studies, p. 149-72; and Zheng, Shiping (2001), “Making sense of the Conflict between Mainland China and Taiwan”, in Vendulka Kubálková, Foreign Policy in a Constructed World, Armonk and London, M. E. Sharpe, p. 203-26; and Qin Yaqing (2010), “Struggle for Identity: A Political Psychology of China’s Rise”, in Brantly Womack (ed), China’s Rise in Historical Perspective, Lanham, Rowman and Littlefield, p. 249-70.
1From the establishment of diplomatic relations between China and the EC in 1975 and the signing of the EC-China Trade and Cooperation Agreement in 1985, the relationship between the two actors has moved in fits and starts through several high and low points (Appendix 1). The tentative Cold War “united front” (together with the USA and ASEAN) against the Soviet Union in the 1970s and 1980s laid the foundation for burgeoning trade and economic cooperation from the 1990s, and a “honeymoon” period of mostly warm and active international cooperation from 1995 to 2005. This has since given way to a more “normal” relationship from 2006, where the two sides recognize fundamental differences in their international outlooks and visions of world order (Chen and Armstrong, 2010; Shambaugh, 2007).
2 This paper argues that China-EU relations have evolved in step with the growth and changing nature of each actor, but are now at a stage where further progress cannot be expected until internal consolidation and the cognitive underpinnings of each actor’s identity is clearer. The paper suggests that four main theoretical perspectives on the China-EU relationship- historical-cilvilizational; international political economy; balance-of-power strategic studies; and ideology – are actually underpinned by the evolving identities of the EU and China. The paper first reviews the place the concept of “identity” plays in scholarship on China’s international relations, and how “identity” is related to three major theoretical approaches to EU-China relations. [2] It then focuses on how “identity” can be better understood, measured and compared by students and researchers so as to illuminate an important dynamic in this complex and increasingly significant relationship.
“Identity” in the EU’s and China’s international relations
3 “Identity” became a serious concept in the study of foreign policies and international relations from the 1990s. Several states became the subject of serious work on the impact of identities - changing, multiple and overlapping. These included, inter alia, the Soviet Union/Russia, the United States, and even multi-state actors like the European Union (Hopf, 2002). Yet, few booklength studies have addressed the issue of China’s international identity, let alone the constructed arrangement of the EU-China relationship. [3] In part, this has been because China’s identity is often taken as a “given” – that of a recidivist fast-rising power. Also, the focus of most studies which do consider China’s identity, is usually on the identity of China’s interlocutor- the US, Japan, or the European Union, rather than on China itself (Breslin, 2009; Garver, 1997).
4 In this paper, the concept of “identity” is taken, following Peter Katzenstein, as a shorthand for varying constructions of nationhood and statehood - national ideologies, collective distinctiveness, and purpose (Katzenstein 1996, 24). Identity is thus changeable, subjective and relational. This concept is usually downplayed in analyses of the EU’s relations with external actors. China is no exception. Of course, it is much simpler, for the purposes of foreign policy analysis, to assume that the EU is unitary, and that it has fixed and ordered preferences which the EU then applies to external partners such as China. Most scholars have suggested that the EU and its member states sacrifice normative ideals so as to protect their vested economic and strategic interests in China (Grant, 1995; Baker, 1998; Shambaugh, 2004). The underlying logic is that material interests (trade, investment, finance, etc) trump non-material interests (human rights, democracy, etc) in the EU’s dealings with China. Such studies usually fault the EU and its member states for using “double standards” in their approach to China (Grant, 1995; Foot, 2000).
5 But assuming utility-maximizing, rational and unitary agency, without due regard for the self-perceptions of international actors, runs into considerable problems when we consider the immense changes in the last 30 years in both the EU (which more than doubled from 12 member states as recently as in 1994, to 27 in 2007) and China (which experienced exponential economic growth, became the world’s largest creditor nation and holder of foreign reserves by 2008, and was invited into a close strategic and economic dialogue with the US).
6 Nicholas Onuf has argued that human beings are social animals, and that human arrangements like governments, states and international organizations, and the interactions between these actors, can be understood as social constructions or arrangements with their own particular patterns and rules (Onuf, 1989). This paper puts forward the hypothesis that appreciating the identities that China and the EU bring to bear in the social arrangement that is the EU-China relationship, is key to understanding the “rules” and the vicissitudes of this social arrangement.
7 This paper takes the view that identity is relational, ie that identity makes sense only when an actor interacts with another, and forms an image of the “self” and of the “other”. The EU and China each has a multiplicity of identities – perceptions and images of the “self” and of the “other” which affect the actors’ speech acts and actions – but what is most germane here are the relevant identities that come into play in the EU-China relationship, and how the statements and actions in this relationship form a pattern which can serve as a way to change or reinforce the identity each actor has.
8 Smith and Vichitsorasatra (2010), for example, argue that the key purpose behind the EU’s many attempts to issue statements and “strategic papers” on the EU-China relationship, is internally rather than externally directed. Instead of a means to modify China’s behavior, the strategy papers serve an integrative function; they express the desire to have a collective EU position and reflect an idea of a common EU identity in a challenging world:
10 Many scholars note that the study of identity is fraught with problems of conceptual ambiguity. Four features of identity in particular – alterity, fluidity, multiplicity, and constructedness – make this concept very difficult to pin down and study (Goff and Dunn, 2004). This challenge is particularly present in the EU-China relationship. The next four sections will show how Chinese and European identities have changed and adapted the Self and the Other even as two very different civilizations morphed into ever-centralising political entities.
International Political Economy
11 The currently dominant IPE approach views the interactions between China and the EU as essentially an “economic” relationship between two powerful economic (especially trading) actors (Dent, 1999; Kapur, 1990). Although very much in vogue, this perspective is of relatively recent provenance. Its proponents tend to agree that its explanatory value took off in earnest only in the wake of China’s economic opening under Deng Xiaoping.
12 The international political economy (IPE) perspective portrays the EU and the PRC (together with the USA) as the most important “poles” of the world economy. From the beginning of the 1990s, IPE perspectives cast the relationship between the USA, the EU, and China as an increasingly tripolar condominium. The three protagonists (often the USA is portrayed as the declining, and China, the rising actor) are seen as dominating global economic governance in decision-making and norm-producing fora such as the World Trade Organization (WTO), the Bretton Woods institutions, and ad hoc groupings (such as the G20), which meet to discuss and coordinate steps to resolve international trade and finance issues as they arise (Smith and Xie, 2009; Chen, 2011).
13 Here, studies of China-EU relations are dominated by analyses which posit that the motivating factors for the interaction are essentially economic motives (Dent, 1999; European Commission, 1995; Kapur, 1990). IPE explanations portray China as a vast economic opportunity, a potential market of over 1 billion consumers, and the largest holder of US Treasury bonds. In this respect, China is not only a colossal market for and manufacturer of goods and services, but it also plays an important role in the management of the global economy by buying American and European sovereign bonds. The idea of an economic “triad” is thus considered as a distinct and welcome prospect in the steering of global financial issues, especially following China’s entry into the WTO in 2001 (Crossick, 2006, 2009,).
14 IPE perspectives focus on China’s rapidly increasing importance in international manufacturing, trade and finance, and are preoccupied with the accommodation of China into the global economic system. In particular, such approaches appear to have informed the European Commission’s trade policies towards China in the 1980s and 1990s. For example, the decision to include China in a preferential agreement in 1980 involved full exemption from customs duty for all industrial goods and for partial exemption for certain processed agricultural products exported to developed countries (Kapur, 1990, 149-50).
15 The EC-China Joint Committee created by the 1978 bilateral agreement and affirmed in the 1985 EC-China Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) quickly became the most institutionalized component of the EC’s interactions with China, with the Commission playing the role of intermediary. The 1978 agreement was the first trade agreement concluded by the EC with a communist country and it placed China in an advantageous position (Hong, 1998, 91-2). The cornerstone of the 1978 and 1985 Trade Agreements was the most-favored nation (MFN) clause. Article 14 in the 1985 TCA reserved the right of the member states to conclude bilateral economic arrangements with China (Bartke, 1992). In practice, the Commission has been the engine in developing various forms of economic cooperation with China.
16 From the mid-1990s to about 2005, the Commission prioritized commercial issues over political or strategic relations. In July 1995, the European Trade Commissioner, Sir Leon Brittan, unveiled the EU’s new initiative, A Long-term Policy for China. The 1995 China strategy paper followed on the EU’s broadening relations with Asia, by placing even more attention on China as a “cornerstone in the EU’s external relations, both with Asia and globally.” The 1995 paper recognized the “rise of China as unmatched amongst national experiences since the Second World War” (Shambaugh, 1996; European Commission, 1995). The two papers, drafted by the Commission and approved by the Council, emphasized economic relations and looked upon China as a “cornerstone” of the EU’s “New Asia Policy” (Yahuda and Zhang, 1998, 194). Since 2006, however, the Commission has been less sanguine about China and has become more interested in issues associated with the political and human rights conditionality of the EU (European Commission, 2006). Even then, the EU has remained China’s largest trading partner since 2007, and China continues to be important to the EU not only in trade terms, but also as a buyer and holder of European bonds.
17 IPE perspectives are critical in understanding the China-EU relationship today because trade and investment form the main substance of the bilateral relationship. At the same time, both Beijing and Brussels continue to be significant actors on the world economic stage. In China itself, IPE perspectives are very recent and can be traced to the early 1990s when China’s external relations and domestic reforms revealed the necessity and importance of understanding the interaction of world politics and economics. In particular, IPE perspectives became prominent during the tortuous negotiations for WTO membership (Song and Chan, 2000, 28-9; Kim, 2010). Indeed, China and the EU soon found themselves in conflicts over trade deficits, intellectual property rights, quotas, protectionism, and the EU’s continuing refusal to grant market economy status to China ahead of the 2016 deadline under the terms of China’s WTO membership (Zweig and Chen, 2007; Kim, 2010; Otero-Iglesias, 2011)
18 European states pay attention to Beijing’s intentions and actions as China is now an important trade and financial power and holder of European debt – as witnessed by the red-carpet treatment of Chinese government and Central Bank officials in Spain and Portugal during 2010, and attempts by French President Nicolas Sarkozy, the German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and the head of the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF), Klaus Regling, to persuade Beijing to buy EFSF bonds and securities in 2011-2012 (Chen, 2011; Otero-Iglesias, 2011). With the Greek economy on the brink of bankruptcy, and the looming prospect of the debt crisis afflicting other eurozone countries, it appears that the economic relationship between Brussels and Beijing is becoming more equal now that China’s foreign currency reserves are estimated to be at US$3.2 trillion. It seems that China is likely to demand EU concessions (e.g., on EU recognition of China’s market economy status) in exchange for assisting the EU at a critical juncture (Chen, 2011).
19 IPE perspectives also serve to explain the persistent tensions in China-EU relations, which are commonplace and even considered “normal” in the relations between dyads of major economic actors, such as the USA and the EU, the EU and Japan, Japan and the USA. However, IPE perspectives in themselves may not be very good at explaining the profound and seemingly sudden shifts in the China-EU relationship – for instance, the unexpected “honeymoon phase” of 1995 – 2004 turning sour by 2007-2008. IPE approaches therefore appear constrained when it comes to explaining the non-economic or non-material factors at play in the China-EU relationship.
Balance-of-power
20 A second way of looking at the China-EU relationship is through balance-of-power lenses. China is a fast-rising power, while the EU is a would-be superpower made up of nation-states that pool their sovereignty and resources together. This approach is also one of fairly recent vintage, since one can only speak of a China-EU relationship proper after the establishment of the PRC in 1949 and the emergence of the European Community in 1957. In fact the China-EU relationship was institutionalized only with the EC’s diplomatic recognition of China in 1975, followed by the EU-China TCA in 1980 (Wong, 2008).
21 However, it is a relationship that both recognize to be limited by multiple factors, despite calls on both sides for a “strategic partnership.” Unlike geostrategic accounts of USA-China relations, which are overwhelmingly dominated by American realists who see China as a military threat to the USA, and whose rise needs to be slowed down, if not contained (see Wong, 2012b), the geopolitical perspectives of China-EU relations acknowledge that each side can use the other as strategic weight to balance off troublesome neighbors or even partners, such as the USSR/Russia or even the USA. Thus, in the 1970s, China was wooed by both the USA and the European Community as a valuable associate and a “16th partner of NATO” in a bid to contain Soviet expansionism.
22 In this context, European perspectives on the rise of China have thus far been less alarmist than those of American analysts (Cabestan, 1995, 2008; Védrine, 2001; Stares and Régaud, 1998; Peyrefitte, 1996). The prime reason for this trend is that China is too far away, and Europe has no strategic disputes with China (such as Taiwan, for instance) that could conceivably drag it into a potential conflict.
23 Within such geopolitical reading, one influential strand sees balance-of-power maneuvering as essential to keeping the system stable. This perspective goes back at least to the Cold War and gives center stage to the USA, portraying it as the Cold War leader of the free world and the shield for European integration and Asian multilateralism in a global effort to contain Soviet power (Peterson, 1996; Yahuda, 1996). With the Sino-Soviet split and the US-China rapprochement of the 1970s, the balance-of-power school portrayed Washington as the linchpin of a Euro-Sino-American front defying Soviet aggression in Afghanistan and Cambodia. The EU-China relationship is thus framed by the legacy of such Cold War experience (Cabestan, 1995; Nuttall, 1993).
24 After the Cold War and at the beginning of the twenty-first century, however, such geostrategic analyses have tended to focus on the “China threat” – the construction of China as a rapidly rising power and challenger to American hegemony. In this setting, the question has been raised: what role will the Europeans play in this power shift. Some analyses (principally, by French or Chinese commentators) have privileged the idea of the EU and China as alternative poles to a unilateral America (French Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 1997; Chinese Foreign Ministry, 2003; Védrine, 2001).
25 One of the biggest hurdles to understanding Chinese foreign policy – recognized by China observers and Chinese scholars themselves – is that “few subjects are more complicated – and mysterious than Chinese foreign policy.… so far there has been little consensus and much frustration in this field of study, to say nothing of the failure to bring it into the mainstream of theoretical inquiry” (Hao, 1998, 510). Yang (2009) argues that the perceptual approach – which studies Chinese foreign policy by focusing on “perceptions held by Chinese foreign policymakers, specialists, and scholars at different levels,” is helpful today because of the current expansion in international relations education and research, China’s opening to the outside world, and the pervasiveness of the cognitive frameworks underpinning Chinese foreign policy.
26 Some analyses were even suggesting that the EU and China were moving towards a relationship that could form a “new axis” in international relations. For instance, David Shambaugh has suggested that such a “strategic partnership” could provide opportunities to (i) enhance China’s involvement in international affairs by involving it in multilateral institutional arrangements; (ii) intensify the bilateral Sino-European ties; and (iii) improve China’s “domestic capacity” to govern (Shambaugh, 2004).
27 Others have argued that a US-EU-China strategic triangle is emerging, in which the USA might be friendlier with the EU than with China, or vice versa (Wong, 2012a; Chen, 2011; Crossick 2009). However, more realistically, China is probably acting according to a logic of yi chao si qiang (one superpower, four great powers), where the USA is the overwhelming center of power, and plays off other great powers in three-cornered triangles (Chan, 1999, 110-12).
“Strategic Partnership”
28 A recent variation of the balance-of-power approach, the idea of EU-China relations as a “strategic partnership”, saw its apogee during 2003-2004. The EU entered into strategic linkages with China (especially in aerospace cooperation projects) in 2003 – coincidentally the year in which China became the third nation to send a man into space (see Chapter 31). A joint Sino-European satellite navigation cooperation center was opened in Beijing in February 2003, and an agreement was reached in September of the same year, committing China to finance up to €230 million (or one-fifth) of the EU’s Galileo satellite positioning system which is seen as an alternative to the US Global Positioning System (BBC News, 2003; European Commission, 2003; Le Monde 2003a). The announcement of the decision made a positive prelude to the 6th EU–China summit in Beijing, although human rights, market access and the EU’s growing trade deficit with China continued to be nagging issues (Le Monde, 2003b).
29 Evidence that China has begun to take the EU seriously as an international actor could be found in the publication of the Chinese Foreign Ministry’s first-ever “EU Policy Paper.” This was mirrored by detailed analyses in leading Chinese academic and policy journals on international affairs (Men, 2006). The October 2003 Foreign Ministry paper noted that the EU was an important international player and that the single European currency and the EU enlargement process enhanced Brussels’ weight in international affairs. As the “EU Policy Paper” indicated, although there were “twists and turns” in China’s relations with the EU, neither Brussels nor Beijing perceived each other as security threats, and shared fundamentally similar views and interests on trade and world order (Chinese Foreign Ministry, 2003).
30 In this context, the PRC formally broached the question of ending the arms embargo imposed in the wake of the Tiananmen protests. The final paragraph of the “EU Policy Paper” called on the EU to “lift its ban on arms sales to China at an early date so as to remove barriers to greater bilateral cooperation on defense industry and technologies” (Chinese Foreign Ministry, 2003). Over the following year, a number of EU leaders announced their support for lifting the ban, most vocally by then German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder and French President Jacques Chirac. Europe took a major step toward meeting Beijing’s request in December 2004 at the 7th EU-China Summit, with the EU committing to work toward lifting the embargo.
31 Then the Council of the European Union approved a joint statement and called on the EU presidency to “finalize the well-advanced work in order to allow for a decision [on the embargo]” and “underlined that the result of any decision should not be an increase of arms exports from EU member states to China, neither in quantitative nor qualitative terms” (Griffin and Pantucci, 2007). The Council further stressed that the EU should move to adopt a revised “Code of Conduct” on arms exports and a new instrument on exports to post- embargo countries, known as the “Toolbox.”
32 The EU found itself under a lot of pressure in 2004-2005 from the USA when Paris and Berlin prematurely announced that the EU arms embargo on China – in place since 1989 – would soon be lifted. Washington threatened that the EU’s response on this issue would be seen as a test of its loyalty. The resulting internal dissension within the EU scuttled the lifting of the embargo, and instead intensified the USA-EU joint consultations and intelligence sharing on China (Barysch et al., 2005; Godement, 2005; Gompert et al., 2005).
33 Increased arms sales to China (which now has the second highest defence budget in the world) would boost the ailing European arms industry. It would also help make the EU-China dialogue more of a “strategic one,” as both sides had announced at the EU-China summit in 2004 (Barysch et al., 2005; Smith and Xie, 2010b). Despite the Council’s intention to strengthen the Code of Conduct, there were indications in early 2005 that Paris had entered into talks with Beijing on the sale of advanced Mirage 2000-9CS fighter aircraft.
34 US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice visited Europe in February 2005 to begin patching over the damage from the Iraq War, but the issue of the US response to Europe’s pending decision to lift its arms embargo threatened to overshadow the talks with EU leaders. Critics in Congress blasted Europe for “selling out” the alliance in order to cut deals in Beijing, and legislators such as Senator Richard Lugar threatened to cut transatlantic defense-industrial cooperation if Europe lifted the embargo. In the face of such acrimony from the USA and growing domestic criticism, Brussels backed down, but the issue is not dead.
35 The first visit by German Chancellor Angela Merkel to China in May 2006 looked set to continue her predecessor’s close relations with the PRC (Eyal, 2006). When the Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao attended the 9th EU-China Summit in September 2006, he received a pledge that Europe would continue efforts toward lifting the embargo. One month later, Chirac declared his continued opposition to the embargo in a joint communiqué with President Hu Jintao: “The moment has come for the EU to make the most of the expanding partnership between the EU and China, most notably by lifting the arms embargo which is no longer pertinent to the present situation.” (Griffin and Pantucci, 2007).
36 Debates over the meaning of the EU’s “strategic partnerships” (with China, India, Japan, South Korea, Brazil, Indonesia, etc) are important because they indicate contestations over whether the EU should remain a “civilian power”, or seek to move towards greater independence from the US and become a normal superpower which builds and employs strategic resources in the pursuit of foreign policy objectives (Smith K., 2008; Godement, 2008; Smith and Xie, 2010b). In this vein, it will be interesting to see if and how the eurozone debt crisis, and disillusion with NATO, may impact the EU’s commitment to the arms ban.
Ideology, Culture and Civilisation
37 A third approach (or rather, broad school of approaches) to China-EU relations is to see the relationship through ideological, cultural and/or civilisational lenses. During the Cold War, China’s relations with the European Community were predominantly a “secondary relationship,” a relationship dependent on China’s (and Western Europe’s) “primary relationship” with the USA and the USSR (Yahuda, 1994; Shambaugh, 1996). Yet, even after the Cold War, despite the rise of China as an economic superpower and the emergence of the European Union (EU), this relationship does not seem to have emerged from the ever-present shadow of the USA to become a primary, important “axis” in its own right (Shambaugh, 2004).
38 From Beijing’s perspective, ideology is the communist-capitalist lens often used by Chinese policy-makers and academics to understand the world. At the birth of the PRC in 1949, most European countries were seen in Beijing as belonging to either of two camps – on the one hand was American-led capitalist western Europe, which had been responsible for two world wars, and on the other hand was Soviet-led industrializing communist central and eastern Europe.
39 Mao himself saw the USA and USSR as superpowers in the “first world,” Europe, Japan, and Latin America in the “second world,” and most of Africa and Asia as the “third world” (Chen, 1979). However, this ideological prism is largely moderated by power-based perspectives, as discussed in the preceding section. During the worst of the Sino-Soviet conflict, Europe (and America) was seen as a potential counter-weight to Soviet belligerence. This tendency was accelerated in post-Mao China, where Deng Xiaoping urged China’s leaders to follow a pragmatic foreign policy (Cabestan, 2010). A more recent (and somewhat problematic) debate revolves around the universalism/ relativity of norms (such as human rights) and the “Asian values” debate (Clapham, 1999; Foot, 2000).
40 These ideology-based approaches have epistemological roots that go back way before the Cold War. They have echoes in historical/civilizational narratives that look at the China-EU relationship as an interaction between two old civilizations, which goes back millennia – before the formation of the modern state of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in 1949, and even before the modern state system in Europe – and has its origins in the dynamics of the ancient Silk Road. The first Western European traders to reach China and establish a permanent presence were the Portuguese. Tomé Pires was sent by the King of Portugal as ambassador to the Ming court in 1517 (Hsü, 1990, 93; Neves, 1995). Large contingents of Portuguese traders and adventurers later arrived from their bases in Goa, Malacca and the East Indies to settle on St John’s Island near Canton, and in 1535 Portugal secured official Chinese permission to dry their cargoes in Macao. This was the beginning of the first (and, eventually, the last) European colony in China. Today’s European Union, with its many attempts at coordinating policies internally between member states, and externally towards foreign partners, can be conceptualized as a “civilisational community of practice” or even a “normative power” with a self-perceived role in setting a normative example in international politics (Adler, 2010; Zielonka, 2008; Manners, 2002).
41 However, the persistent image of Europe in the minds of many Chinese people, derives from the experience of colonial expansion and encroachment into China’s territory during the Qing dynasty. The “century of humiliation” that followed the Opium Wars and the cession of Hong Kong to Britain, and the concessions in Shanghai to a range of European powers, the USA and Japan rendered Qing China a semi-colony (Qin, 2010). In this sense, it can be argued that China has regained its full independence only with the return of Hong Kong in 1997 and Macao in 1999, respectively (Neves and Bridges, 2000; Yong, 2000).
42 A variation of this approach is to conceive of China and the EU not as “normal” or typical states, but as modern “empires” (Zielonka, 2006). In this perspective, China and the EU are not conventional nation-states, but very large and diverse, multiethnic and multinational political entities that strive to behave like nation-states. In essence, each is the progenitor of its own civilization. Historical-civilizational approaches take into account the “shock” from the initial encounter during the late eighteenth and mid-nineteenth centuries, when the Qing dynasty extended China’s borders to their greatest extent and in the process came into contact with expansionist European powers which imposed extraterritoriality and unequal treaties on a proud but hitherto self-sufficient civilization (Peyrefitte, 1996; Suzuki, 2009). Such contextualization helps explain the contemporary constraints and opportunities in the interactions between China and Europe (cf. Wilkinson, 1983).
43 Historical-civilizational approaches tend either to lionize China as the noble “other” (Peyrefitte, 1973, 1997); or view it as an inferior international actor, gradually brought into an international system created by Europeans, by socializing it into a Western-framed standard of “civilization” (Gong, 1984; Suzuki, 2009). A few “civilizational” approaches even view China as a threat to the values and interests of the “West” (Huntington, 1993).
44 Whatever their differences, the major contribution of historical-civilizational approaches is the recognition that China’s worldview, culture, and history are very different from those of Europe (and the West, more generally). Such framing helps students come to terms with Beijing’s self-image and external outlook on its own terms, using cognitive maps and historical references familiar to the Chinese mind. The explanatory value of historical-civilization approaches is perhaps more limited today since China has gradually become a full member of “international society” (Gong, 1984; Zhang, 1991; Qin, 2003; Wang, 2004; Johnston, 2008). At the same time, it must be acknowledged that civilizations and cultures are neither unitary nor static, but evolve and adapt as they interact and engage with each other (Katzenstein, 2010).
Pinning down “Identity”
45 From the above survey, the strengths and weaknesses of three broad approaches can be summarized as follows. Balance-of-power perspectives help to explain China’s options as a rising power, and the steps taken by others in response to China’s growing influence. But they assume a dissatisfied, anti-status quo Chinese state bent on rewriting the rule of the international system – an assumption which does not adequately question the root or nature of Chinese motivations, and under-estimates the socialization of China after decades of participation in international institutions (Johnston, 2008). Ideological perspectives were helpful in using Marxist lenses to explain communist China’s actions and relations with European states in the first decades of the PRC, but they have since been overtaken by other ideational lenses involving culture and post-Cold War debates over human rights and their universality/relativism. Normative concerns for the promotion of human security concerns (eg. human rights and the protection of the earth’s resources), have since become an important rallying point for European NGOs, civil society, European institutions like the EP, and member states alike to build some sort of distinctive identity in international politics (Clapham, 1999; Manners, 2002).
46 In China’s case, the heady sense of growing power is tempered by an acute awareness of the relative backwardess and poverty of large swathes of the country outside the coastal cities, the gulf of technological, human development and per capita GDP gaps between China and the developed world, and the expectation that China should play according to developed-economy rules (Qin, 2002; Geeraerts, 2010).
47 As Rawi Abdelal and associates have suggested regarding the methodology of measuring identity, discourse analysis, surveys, and content analysis could be combined with three newer methods (experiments, agent-base modeling and cognitive mapping) to compare different kinds of identity, and to measure the content (constitutive norms, social purposes, relational comparisons and cognitive models) of identity (Abelal et al., 2006).
48 Numerous studies on European “identity” have pointed out how “civilisational” identity is strong, even among citizens of EU states suspicious of the EU. On the other hand, “civic” identity, linked to the more overtly political goals of European Union, is qualitatively different and exerts less attractive power over citizens in EU states (Bruter, 2003; Smith M. E., 2000; Larsen, 1998). As far as this author knows, there are no studies in China that demonstrate if there is a similar difference between “civic” and “civilisational” identities in China. The studies that have been done and published on Chinese identity or perceptions, have focused on elite publications on international relations. Jing Men’s study, for example, perhaps measures elite perceptions of China’s international identity which conflates the civic and the civilizational, rather than differentiate the two (Men, 2006).
49 In the specific example of the EU-China case, surveys and discourse analysis could be done to measure the relational component and the particular cognitive models (images, historical analogies etc.) that are used the foreign policies of each actor with regard to the other. If existing social psychology studies of differences between American and Chinese “ways of reasoning” are any indication, then it is important to better understand the different mental universes inhabited by Europeans and Chinese to appreciate the different starting points that go into their bilateral relationship (Peng and Nisbett, 1999). Jing Men’s study on Chinese perceptions of the EU, measured through Chinese international relations journals over a five-year period, represents an important milestone and baseline for future studies on how identity can be studied in China’s relations with the EU (Men, 2006).
50 Many scholars based in China, or looking at China, have concluded that China has been undergoing a change in its identity towards being a responsible great power (Li and Xu, 2006; Johnston, 2008). One could hypothesize and find ways to measure popular Chinese identity with regard to international relations, how different it is from that of elite identity, and whether it is more or less likely to be nationalist, emotional and informed by historical symbols and narratives such as the “century of (Western) humiliation” (Qin, 2010).
51 Using discourse analysis through representative texts and speeches (eg Larsen, 1998; Hopf, 2002; Men, 2006) or through the use of surveys targeting sample citizen populations (eg Bruter, 2003), one could devise more rigorous ways of measuring contemporary civic and civilizational identities in China across time, and geographical sub-regions in China, and how contested national identity is.
Tentative Conclusions
52 In the discussion above of three approaches to the EU-China relationship, we see how at times, the identity of the EU or Chinese Self is defined against the Other (often in historical narratives, on human rights and ideological issues, and increasingly on IPE issues). But we also see how difference from the Other can result in the alteration of the Self’s identity in the direction of the Other (such as in shared anxieties about Soviet expansionism in the 1970s, and joint statements about multipolarity directed at American unilateralism from 2001-2005).
53 The frequents shifts in the tenor EU-China relations can be explained – as they usually are – as a function of international political economic ties (in particular, the transition in the trade advantage from the European to the Chinese side), ideology, or as a function of changes to the balance-of-power in the international system.
54 But if we dig deeper, we become cognizant of the ever-changing nature and identities of both the EU and the PRC. These evolving identities inform their self-images, the choices that these actors make and even the preferences that they hold. The EU expanded from a grouping of nine Western democracies in 1973, to a diverse club of 27 of countries (many of which were former communist countries) by 2007. It is a major global player, and perhaps its most important attempt to develop a distinctive European identity in world affairs is the framing of external affairs through the content and practices of “normative power.” The gist of the EU’s normative foreign policy is encapsulated in its political and economic “conditionality” (Adler, 2010; Manners, 2002).
55 Meanwhile, China has come a long way from being a communist developing country in 1975, to a middle-income, conservative G-20 trade superpower (or even G-2 power, as some in Washington seem to believe). However, as its roles expand, Chinese foreign policy will be forced to re-evaluate its identity and preferences, choosing to selectively remember or forget symbols and representations of the past in order to act in the present and, thus, shape the future of international politics (Thurston, 2001; Qin, 2010). Studies of the EU grappling with its past as its “other”, selectively remembering or forgetting certain parts and dealing with geopolitical realities, could provide a model for how such a study could be done in the Chinese case (Guisan, 2011; Diez, 2004).
56 Observers of Brussels-Beijing interactions would expect that the EU-China relationship will develop in the context of the ongoing redefinition of their identities and roles in the evolving international order. Both will probably continue to respond to each other according to their changing relational identities, and as a function of external expectations placed on them as important players in global politics, diplomacy, economics, trade, finance and security. Equally significantly, the evolution and potential outcome of the eurozone debt crisis is likely to provide one of the most significant contingencies shaping the patterns of the EU’s relations with Beijing.
57 Research on measuring identity, and changes in the perceptions of Europeans and Chinese towards themselves and to the other, would be a fascinating empirical and theoretical enterprise indeed.
Foci of EU policy | Motivations | Highlights | |
1975-1988 EC in search of markets, tacit cooperation against Soviets | Building diplomatic and commercial ties |
Cold War, anti- Soviet front |
1978 Preferential trade Agreement
(EC’s first with a communist
state) 1984 China targets NL over Taiwan 1985 TCA 1988 EC Delegation in Beijing |
1989-1997 Tiananmen sanctions & Human Rights |
EU normative
values Expanding commercial ties EU sanctions |
European interest
groups European commercial and industrial interests; “Third link” in IPE |
1989 EU sanctions after Tiananmen
events 1993 CDU paper (DE) 1994 Commission’s “Asia Strategy’ 1997 China targets DK over HR |
1995-2005 “Honeymoon” |
Commercial
ties Strategic partnership |
Balance US
unilateralism EU as distinct and principled power |
1995 First “China strategy paper” 1997 FR, DE, IT, ES ( “Airbus Group”) defect from common position at UNCHR 1997 UK returns HK 1998 1st EU-China summit 1999 PT returns Macau 2001 Council paper downplaying HR (EU-China) 2003 Galileo satellite system China targets BE over Taiwan President’s address at EP 2003 1st Chinese MFA paper on EU (Oct.) 2004 EU backs down from lifting arms embargo 2005 EU-China “bra wars’ |
2006-
“Normal Relationship” |
Commercial
ties HR & Democracy | Maturing relationship with both cooperation and conflict |
2008 Beijing postpones EU-China
summit over Sarkozy/Tibet 2009-2013 Eurozone crisis, EFSF and search for Chinese support |
Bibliographie
References
- Abdelal Rawi, Herrera Yoshiko M., Johnston Alastair Iain and McDermott Rose (2006), “Identity as a Variable”, Perspectives on Politics, vol. 4, n° 4, p. 695-711.
- Adler Emmanuel (2010), “Europe as a Civilizational Community of Practice”, in Peter J. Katzenstein (ed.), Civilizations in World Politics: Plural and Pluralist Perspectives, London and New York, Routledge, p. 67-90.
- Balme Richard (2008), “A European Strategy towards China? The Limits of Integration in Foreign Policy Making”, in Richard Balme and Brian Bridges (eds.), Europe-Asia relations: Building Multilateralisms, New York, Palgrave Macmillan, p. 125-144.
- Barysch Katinka, Grant Charles and Leonard Mark (2005), Embracing the Dragon: The EU’s Partnership with China, London, Centre for European Reform.
- Breslin Shaun (2009), “Understanding China’s regional rise: interpretations, identities and implications”, International Affairs, vol. 85, n° 4, p. 817–883.
- Bruter Michael (2003), “Winning Hearts and Minds for Europe The Impact of News and Symbols on Civic and Cultural European Identity”, Comparative Political Studies, vol. 36, n° 10, p. 1148-1179.
- Cabestan Jean-Pierre (1995), “Sino-Western European Relations: Distant Neighbours or Distant Rivals?”, China Review, Autumn-Winter, p. 42-44.
- Cabestan Jean-Pierre (2008), “The Taiwan Issue in Europe-China Relations: an Irritant more than Leverage”, in David Shambaugh, Eberhard Sandschneider and Zhou Hong (eds.) (2008), China-Europe Relations: Perceptions, Policies and Prospects, London and New York, Routledge, p. 84-101.
- Cabestan Jean-Pierre (2010), “Introduction: China’s New Diplomacy: Old Wine in a New Bottle?”, in Shaun Breslin (ed.), Handbook of China’s International Relations, London and New York, Routledge, p. 1-10.
- Casarini Nicola (2008), “What Role for the European Union in Asia? An Analysis of the EU’S Asia Strategy and the Growing Significance of EU-China Relations”, Current Politics and Economics of Asia, vol. 7, n° 1, p. 59-82.
- Chan Gerald (1999), Chinese Perspectives on International Relations: A Framework for Analysis, New York, St. Martin’s Press.
- Chen King C. (ed.) (1979), China and the Three Worlds: A Foreign Policy Reader, London, Macmillan.
- Chen Zhimin (2007), “Soft Balancing and Reciprocal Engagement: International Structures and China’s Foreign Policy Structures”, in David Zweig and Chen Zhimin (eds.), China’s Reforms and International Political Economy, New York, Routledge, p. 42-61.
- Chen Zhimin and Armstrong John (2010), “China’s relationship with Europe: towards a more “normal’ relationship?”, in Shaun Breslin (ed.), Handbook of China’s International Relations, London and New York, Routledge, p. 156-165.
- Chen Zhimin et al. (eds.) (2011a), Zhongguo, Meiguo yu Ouzhou: Xin Sanbian Guanxi zhong de Hezuo yu Jingzhen [China, the US and Europe: Cooperation and Competition in a New Triangular Relationship], Shanghai, Publishing House.
- Chen Zhimin (2011b), “Since we’re Equal, it’s Time for Give and Take”, China Daily European Weekly, 30 September, <http://europe.chinadaily.com.cn/epaper/2011-09/30/content_13826264.htm>, accessed 1 November 2011.
- Chinese Foreign Ministry (2003), China’s EU Policy Paper, Beijing, 13 October.
- Clapham Andrew (1999), “Where is the EU’s Human Rights Common Foreign Policy, and How is it Manifested in Multilateral Fora?”, in Philip Alston (ed.), The European Union and Human Rights, Oxford, Oxford University Press, p. 627-686.
- Commission of the European Communities (1995), A Long-term Policy for China-Europe Relations, COM (95) 279, 15 July.
- Commission of the European Communities (1998), Building a Comprehensive Partnership with China, COM (98) 181, 25 March.
- Commission of the European Communities (1999), Press Conference by Chris Patten, EU Commissioner for External Relations, Brussels, DOC/99/18, 16 December.
- Commission of the European Communities (2001a), EU Strategy towards China: Implementation of the 1998 Communication and Future Steps for a more Effective EU Policy, COM (2001) 265 final, 15 May.
- Commission of the European Communities (2003), A Maturing Partnership: Shared Interests and Challenges in EU-China Relations, COM (2003) 533 fin, 10 September.
- Commission of the European Communities (2004), The EU’s China Policy, <http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/china/intro/index.htm>, accessed 22 June.
- Commission of the European Communities (2006), The EU’s Relations with China, <http://ec.europa.eu/comm/external_relations/china/intro/index.htm>, accessed 1 September.
- Crossick Stanley (2006), “Rise of China and Implications for the European Union”, Singapore, EAI.
- Crossick Stanley (2009), “China, EU and US: Holy Trinity or Ménage à Trois?”, <http://www.crossick.blogactiv>, accessed 1 March 2010.
- Dent Christopher M. (1999), The European Union and East Asia: An Economic Relationship, London, Routledge.
- Diez Thomas (2004), “Europe’s others and the return of geopolitics”, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, vol. 17, n° 2, p. 319-335.
- EU General Affairs Council (2001a), Human Rights - Conclusions, General Affairs Council 2338th Council meeting, Brussels, 19 March.
- EU General Affairs Council (2001b), China: EU-China Dialogue on Human Rights, General Affairs Council 2327th Council meeting, Brussels, 22-23 January.
- Eyal Jonathan (2006,) “Merkel Shows China it’s not Business as Usual”, Straits Times, 25 May.
- Foot Rosemary (2000), Rights Beyond Borders: The Global Community and the Struggle over Human Rights in China, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
- Foot Rosemary (2006), “Chinese Strategies in a US-Hegemonic Global Order: Accommodating and Hedging”, International Affairs, vol. 82, n° 1, January, p. 77-94.
- French Ministry of Foreign Affairs (1997), Déclaration conjointe Franco-chinoise pour un Partenariat Global, Pékin, 16 May.
- Garver John W. (1997), Face Off: China, the United States and Taiwan’s Democratization, Seattle, University of Washington Press.
- Geeraerts Gustaaf (2010), “China’s Budding Identity Dilemma”, BICCS Asia Briefing, n° 63, 15 September, on <http://www.vub.ac.be/biccs/site/.../63%20-%20Identity%20dilemma.pdf>, accessed 1 December 2012.
- Godement François (2004), “Europe’s China-Play: An Uneasy EU, Juggling Human Rights and Business Interests, May Lift its Arms Embargo against China”, YaleGlobal, 6 December, on <http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/europes-china-play>, accessed 10 September 2010.
- Godement François (2005), “Europe’s Second Thoughts on China Embargo: Trouble over Planned Arms Sales May Eventually Result in Closer US-European Coordination”, YaleGlobal, 25 March, on <http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/europes-second-thoughts-china-embargo>, accessed 1 September 2010.
- Godement François (2008), “Europe-Asia: The Historical Limits of a ‘Soft’ Relationship”, in Richard Balme and Brian Bridges (eds.), Europe-Asia relations: Building Multilateralisms, New York, Palgrave Macmillan, p. 27-46.
- Goff Patria M. and Dunn Kevin C. (2004), “Introduction: In Defense of Identity”, in Patria Goff and Kevin C. Dunn, Identity and Global Politics, New York, Palgrave Macmillan, p. 1-8.
- Gompert David C., Godement François, Medeiros Evan S. and Mulvenon-James C. (2005), China on the Move: A Franco-American Analysis of Emerging Chinese Strategic Policies and Their Consequences for Transatlantic Relations, Washington DC, RAND.
- Gong Gerrit W. (1984a), The Standard of “Civilization” in International Society, Oxford, Clarendon Press.
- Gong Gerrit W. (1984b), “China’s entry into International Society”, in Hedley Bull and Adam Watson (eds.), The Expansion of International Society, Oxford, Oxford University Press, p. 171-183.
- Grant Richard (ed.) (1995), The European Union and China: A European Strategy for the Twenty-First Century, London, Routledge-RIIA.
- Griffin Christopher and Pantucci Raffaello (2007), “A Treacherous Triangle? China and the Transatlantic Alliance”, SAIS Review, vol. 27, n° 1, Winter-Spring, p. 161-170.
- Guisan Catherine (2011), A Political Theory of Identity in European Integration: Memory and policies, London and New York, Routledge.
- Hopf Ted (2002), Social Construction of International Politics: Identities and Foreign Policies, Moscow, 1955 and 1999, Ithaca and London, Cornell University Press.
- Hu Weixing, Gerald Chan and Daojiong Zha (eds.) (2000), China’s International Relations in the 21st Century: Dynamics of Paradigm Shifts, Lanha, University Press of America.
- Huntington Samuel P. (1993), “The Clash of Civilizations?”, Foreign Affairs, vol. 72, n° 3, summer, p. 22-49.
- Huntington Samuel P. (1996), The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, New York, Simon & Schuster.
- Hsü Immanuel C. Y. (1990), The Rise of Modern China, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
- Johnston Alastair Iain and Ross Robert S. (eds.) (2006), New Directions in the Study of China’s Foreign Policy, Stanford, Stanford University Press.
- Kapur Harish (1990), Distant Neighbours: China and Europe, London, Pinter Publishers.
- Katzenstein Peter J. (1996), The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics, New York, Columbia University Press.
- Katzenstein Peter J. (2010), “A World of Plural and Pluralist Civilisations: Multiple Actors, Traditions, Practices”, in Peter J. Katzenstein (ed.), Civilizations in World Politics: Plural and Pluralist Perspectives, London and New York, Routledge, p. 1-40.
- Kerr David and Liu Fei (2007), “Introduction”, in David Kerr and Liu Fei, (eds.), The International Politics of EU-China Relations, New York, Oxford University Press, p. 1-12.
- Kim Soo Yeon (2010), Power and the Governance of Global Trade: From the GATT to the WTO, Ithaca, Cornell University Press.
- Kubálková Vendulka (2001), “Foreign Policy, International Politics and Constructivism”, in Vendukla Kubálková (ed.), Foreign Policy in a Constructed World, Armonk and London, M. E. Sharpe, p. 15-37.
- Johnston Alastair Iain (2008), Social States: China in International Institutions, 1980-2000, Princeton, NJ, Princeton UP.
- Li Baojun and Xu Zhengyuan (2006), “China’s Self-Identity Construction as a Responsible Power in the Post-Cold War era”, Jiaoxue yu Yanjiu (Learning and Research), n° 1, p. 49-56.
- Li Shaojun (2007), “Key Elements of China’s Foreign Strategy”, in D. Kerr and Liu Fei (eds.), The International Politics of EU-China Relations, New York, Oxford UP, p. 38-53.
- Liu Guoli (ed) (2007), Chinese Foreign Policy in Transition, New York, Aldine de Gruyter.
- Manners Ian (2002), “Normative Power Europe: A Contradiction in Terms?”, Journal of Common Market Studies, vol. 40, n° 2, p. 235-258.
- Men Jing (2006), “Chinese Perceptions of the European Union: A Review of Leading Chinese Journals”, European Law Journal, vol. 12, n° 6, November, p. 788-806.
- Nau Henry R. (2003), “Identity and the Balance of Power in Asia”, in G. John Ikenberry and Michael Mastanduno (eds.), International Relations Theory and the Asia-Pacific, New York, Columbia University Press, p. 213-241.
- Neves Miguel S. (1995), “Towards a Common China Policy for the EU: a Portuguese Perspective”, in Richard Grant (ed.), The European Union and China, London, Routledge, p. 75-88.
- Neves Miguel S. and Bridges Brian (eds.) (2000), Europe, China and the Two SARs: Towards a New Era, London, Macmillan Press.
- Onuf Nicholas (1989), World of our Making: Rules and Rule of Social Theory and International Relations, Columbia, University of South Carolina Press.
- Otero-Iglesias Miguel (2011), “Currency Wars” between the US and China: Where does the EU Stand?”, Paper prepared for the conference “The EU, the US and China: Towards the New International Order?”, Bruges, Belgium, College of Europe, 22-23 April.
- Peng Kaiping and Nisbett Richard E. (1999), “Culture, Dialectics, and Reasoning about Contradiction”, American Psychologist, vol. 54, n° 9, p. 741-754.
- Peyrefitte Alain (1973), Quand la Chine s’éveillera… . le monde tremblera, Paris, Fayard.
- Peyrefitte Alain (1989), L’empire immobile ou le Choc des Mondes, Paris, Fayard. Transl. Alain Peyrefitte (1993), The Collision of Two Civilisations: the British Expedition to China in 1792-4, London, Harvill.
- Peyrefitte Alain (1996), La Chine s’est éveillée: carnets de route de l’ère de Deng Xiaoping, Paris, Fayard.
- Peyrefitte Alain (1997), De la Chine, Paris, Omnibus.
- Qin Yaqing (2003), “Guojia Shengfen, Zhanlue Wenhua he Anquan Liyi: Guanyu Zhongguo yu Guoji Shehui de Sange Jiashe/National Identity, strategic culture and security interests: three hypotheses on the relationship between China and international society”, Shijie Jinji yu Zhengzhi (World Economics and Politics), n° 1, p. 10-15.
- Qin Yaqing (2010), “Struggle for Identity: A Political Psychology of China’s Rise”, in Brantly Womack (ed.), China’s Rise in Historical Perspective, Lanham, Rowman and Littlefield, p. 249-270.
- Shambaugh David, Sandschneider Eberhard and Zhou Hong (eds.) (2008), China-Europe Relations: Perceptions, Policies and Prospects, London and New York, Routledge.
- Shambaugh David (1996), China and Europe, 1949-1995, London, Contemporary China Institute, School of Oriental and African Studies.
- Shambaugh David (2004), “China and Europe: The Emerging Axis”, Current History, September, p. 243-248.
- Shambaugh David (2007), “China-Europe Relations get complicated”, Brookings Northeast Asia Commentary, n° 9, May, on <http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2007/05/china-shambaugh>, accessed 1 September 2012.
- Smith Karen (2008), “EU Foreign Policy and Asia”, in Richard Balme and Brian Bridges (eds.), Europe-Asia relations: Building Multilateralisms, New York, Palgrave Macmillan, p. 47-65.
- Smith Michael (2011). “Does Strategic Diplomacy Make a Strategic Difference in the EU’s Relations with the Great Powers? The Diplomacy of the EU’s “Strategic Partnership’with China, Paper Presented at the European Union Studies Association International Conference, Boston, MA, 2-5 March.
- Smith Michael and Vichitsorasatra Natee (2010), “The European Union’s Asia Strategies: Problems of Foreign Policy and International Relations”, International Politics, vol. 47, n° 3-4, p. 338-354.
- Smith Michael and Xie Huaixian (2010a), “The European Union, China and the United States: Complex Interdependence and Bi-Multilateralism in Commercial Relations”, in Georg Wiessala et al. (eds.), European Studies: A Journal of European Culture, History and Politics, Amsterdam, Rodopi, p. 167-185.
- Smith Michael and Xie Huaixian (2010b), “The EU and China: The Logics of ‘Strategic Partnership’”, Paper presented at the ECPR Standing Group on the EU Conference, Porto, Portugal, 24-26 June.
- Song Xinning and Chan Gerald (2000), “International Relations Theory in China”, in Weixing Hu, Gerald Chan and Daojiong Zha (eds.), China’s International Relations in the 21st Century: Dynamics of Paradigm Shifts, Lanham, University Press of America, p.15-40.
- Stares Paul and Régaud Nicolas (1998), “Europe’s Role in Asia-Pacific Security”, Survival, vol. 39, n° 4, Winter 1997-1998, p. 117-139.
- Suzuki Shogo (2009), Civilization and Empire: China and Japan’s Encounter with European International Society, Abingdon, Oxon, New York, Routledge.
- Thurston Anne F. (2001), “Community and Isolation: Memory and Forgetting: China in Search of Itself”, in Gerrit W. Gong, (ed), Memory and History in East and Southeast Asia: Issues of Identity in International Relations, Washington, D. C., Center for Strategic and International Studies, p.149-172.
- Védrine Hubert (2001), France in an Age of Globalization, Washington, D. C., Brookings Institution Press.
- Wang Gungwu (2004), “The Fourth Rise of China: Cultural Implications”, China: An International Journal, vol. 2, n° 2, September, p. 311-322.
- Wang Jisi (1994), “International Relations Theory and the Study of Chinese Foreign Policy: A Chinese Perspective”, in Thomas W. Robinson and David Shambaugh (eds.), Chinese Foreign Policy: Theory and Practice, Oxford, Clarendon Press and New York, Oxford University Press, p. 481-505.
- Wilkinson Endymion (1983), Japan versus Europe: A History of Misunderstanding, Harmondsworth, Pelican.
- Wong Reuben (2006), The Europeanization of French Foreign Policy: France and the EU in East Asia, Basingstoke and New York, Palgrave Macmillan.
- Wong Reuben (2008), “Towards a Common European Policy on China?: Economic, Diplomatic and Human Rights Trends since 1985”, Current Politics and Economics of Asia, special issue ed. Amy Verdun on “The European Union and Asia”, vol. 17, n° 1, p. 155-181.
- Wong Reuben (2012), “Perspectives on China’s Relations with the EU”, in Emilian Kavalski (ed.), The Ashgate Research Companion to Chinese Foreign Policy, Abingdon, Ashgate, p. 201-210.
- Yahuda Michael B. (1994), “China and Europe: The Significance of a Secondary Relationship”, in Thomas W. Robinson and David Shambaugh (eds.), Chinese Foreign Policy: Theory and Practice, Oxford, Clarendon Press and New York, Oxford University Press, p. 266-282.
- Yahuda Michael (1996), The International Politics of the Asia-Pacific, 1945- 1995, London and New York, Routledge.
- Yang Jian (2009), “The Rise of China: Chinese Perspectives”, in Kevin Cooney and Yoichiro Sato (eds.), The Rise of China and International Security: America and Asia Respond, Abingdon and New York, Routledge, p. 13-37.
- Yong Deng (2000), “Escaping the Periphery: China’s Identity in World Politics”, in Weixing Hu, Gerald Chan and Daojiong Zha (eds.), China’s International Relations in the 21st Century: Dynamics of Paradigm Shifts, Lanham, University Press of America, p. 41-70.
- Zhang Yongjin (1991), “China’s Entry into International Society: Beyond the Standard of “Civilization’”, Review of International Studies, vol. 17, n° 1, January, p. 3-16.
- Zhang Yongjin (1998), China in International Society Since 1949: Alienation and Beyond, New York, St. Martin’s Press.
- Zheng Shiping (2001), “Making Sense of the Conflict between Mainland China and Taiwan”, in Vendulka Kubálková (ed.), Foreign Policy in a Constructed World, Armonk and London, M. E., Sharpe, p. 203-226.
- Zielonka Jan (2006), Europe as Empire: The Nature of the Enlarged European Union, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
- Zielonka Jan (2008), “Europe as a Global Actor: Empire by Example?”, International Affairs, vol. 84, n° 3, p. 471-484.
- Zweig David and Chen Zhimin (eds.) (2007), China’s Reforms and International Political Economy, New York, Routledge.
Notes
-
[1]
The author is grateful to the organisers of the workshop, « L’Union européenne et le nouvel équilibre des puissances », Colloque international, Université de Montréal, le 21 septembre 2012, for funding the workshop where this paper was presented, and would like to acknowledge Frauke Austermann, Miguel Otero-Iglesias, Jin Men, Zheng Yongnian and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions
-
[2]
Building on my earlier literature review, “Perspectives on China’s Relations with the EU”, in Emilian Kavalski (ed.), The Ashgate Research Companion to Chinese Foreign Policy, Abingdon, Ashgate, 2012, p. 201-210.
-
[3]
Scholars who have attempted to study China’s identity include Yong Deng (2000), “Escaping the Periphery: China’s Identity in World Politics”, in Weixing Hu et al. (eds.), China’s International Relations in the 21st Century: Dynamics of Paradigm Shifts, Lanham, University Press of America, p. 41-70; Anne F. Thurston (2001), “Community and Isolation: Memory and Forgetting: China in Search of Itself”, in Gerrit W. Gong, (ed.), Memory and history in East and Southeast Asia: issues of identity in international relations, D. C., Center for Strategic and International Studies, p. 149-72; and Zheng, Shiping (2001), “Making sense of the Conflict between Mainland China and Taiwan”, in Vendulka Kubálková, Foreign Policy in a Constructed World, Armonk and London, M. E. Sharpe, p. 203-26; and Qin Yaqing (2010), “Struggle for Identity: A Political Psychology of China’s Rise”, in Brantly Womack (ed), China’s Rise in Historical Perspective, Lanham, Rowman and Littlefield, p. 249-70.