Advertisement

Conceptual Differences of Strategic Partnership in EU-China Relations

  • May-Britt U. Stumbaum
  • Wei Xiong

Abstract

On the establishment of the EU-China strategic partnership, the then high representative of the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy, Javier Solana, stated that “the EU wants to work alongside China in addressing key problems, since the two sides are both strong, and are both looking to make constructive contributions to the stability of our regions and of the international community.”1 Today, China has become one of the main foci for the EU’s strategic partnership concept in the EU’s effort to promote effective multilateralism with an ever stronger and ever more important China. However, growing frictions in the Sino-European relationship have shown not only that the “relationship is getting serious and the honeymoon is over” but also that there is a lack of understanding and knowledge about the other entity and its respective comprehension of the concept of a strategic partnership. In fact, there seems to be a conceptual gap between China and the EU. Most literature on EU-hina relations and the strategic partnership in particular has so far focused on the policy-relevant side of the relationship, such as mutual expectations and global challenges to tackle together. However, there is a lack of debate on the circumstances that have influenced the formulation of the strategic partnership and those expectations in the first place — hence, on the circumstances that lead to a conceptual gap between China and the EU.

Keywords

Security Policy European Council Conceptual Difference Strategic Partnership Strategic Partner 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 3.
    Eberhard Sandschneider, “The Strategic Significance of China-EU Partnership”, Foreign Affairs Journal, special issue, November 2009; Jonathan Holslag, “The Elusive Axis: Evaluating the EU-hina Strategic Partnership”, BICCS Asia Papers, vol. 4, no. 2, 2009; Jonathan Holslag, “The Strategic Dissonance between Europe and China”, Chinese Journal of International Politics, vol. 3, no. 3, 2010, pp. 325–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 4.
    Michael Yahuda, “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, 1995;Google Scholar
  3. May-Britt U. Stumbaum, The EU and China: EU Decision-Making in Foreign and Security Policy toward the People’s Republic of China, Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2009.Google Scholar
  4. 5.
    Michael Yahuda, “The Sino-European Encounter: Historical Influences on Contemporary Relations”, in David Shambaugh, Eberhard Sandschneider, and Zhou Hong, eds, China-urope Relations: Perceptions, Politics and Prospects, New York: Routledge, 2008, pp. 13–32.Google Scholar
  5. 8.
    Günther Maihold, “‘Strategische Partnerschaft’ und Schwacher Interregionalismus, Die Beziehungen zwischen Brasilien und der EU”, in Annegret Bendiek and Heinz Kramer, eds, Globale Außenpolitik der Europäischen Union: Interregionale Beziehungen und “Strategische Partnerschaften”, Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2009, pp. 190–208.Google Scholar
  6. 9.
    Council of the European Union, A Secure Europe in a Better World: The European Security Strategy, Brussels, 12 December 2003, p. 13.Google Scholar
  7. 12.
    For the debate on “Civilian Power” Europe, see Hanns W. Maull, “Germany and Japan: The New Civilian Powers”, Foreign Affairs, vol. 69, no. 5, Fall 1990, pp. 91–106;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Karen E. Smith, “The End of Civilian Power EU: A Welcome Demise or Cause for Concern?” International Spectator, vol. 35, no. 2, April–June 2000, pp. 11–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 17.
    Among others, see Günther Maihold, “Conclusion: Leadership Coalitions as a New Element for the EU’s External Action”, in Jörg Husar, Günther Maihold, and Stefan Mair, eds, Europe and New Leading Powers: Towards Partnership in Strategic Policy Areas, Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2010, pp. 149–56; Sven Biscop and Thomas Renard, “A Need for Strategy in a Multipolar World: Recommendations to the EU after Lisbon”, Security Policy Brief, no. 5, January 2010.Google Scholar
  10. 24.
    Su Hao, “Harmonious World: The Conceived International Order in Framework of China’s Foreign Affairs”, in Masafumi Iida, ed., China’s Shift: Global Strategy of the Rising Power, NIDS Joint Research Series, no. 3, 2009, pp. 29–56.Google Scholar
  11. 29.
    May-Britt U. Stumbaum, “Opportunities and Limits of EU-hina Security Cooperation”, International Spectator, vol. 42, no. 3, September 2007, pp. 351–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 31.
    Per Gullestrup and May-Britt U. Stumbaum, “Coping with Piracy: The European Union and the Shipping Industry”, in Bibi van Ginkel and Frans-Paul van der Putten, eds, The International Response to Somali Piracy: Challenges and Opportunities, Leiden/Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2010.Google Scholar
  13. 32.
    Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China, China’s EU Policy Paper, Beijing, 2003.Google Scholar
  14. 34.
    David Shambaugh, “China and Europe: The Development from Secondary to an Independent Relationship”, in Xinning Song and Xiaojin Zhang, eds, China and Europe Towards the Twenty-first Century, Hong Kong: Social Sciences Press, 1997, pp. 33–4.Google Scholar
  15. 37.
    Zhongqi Pan, “Managing the Conceptual Gap on Sovereignty in China-EU Relations”, Asia Europe Journal, vol. 8, no. 2, 2010, pp. 227–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© May-Britt U. Stumbaum and Wei Xiong 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • May-Britt U. Stumbaum
  • Wei Xiong

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations