affairs are of a dual nature. On one hand, geo-strategic factors still weigh heavily in the thoughts and actions of major powers. On the other hand, globalization and the advancement of science and technology are making geo- strategic factors less decisive in national capitals. Many new factors are acquiring more prom- inence in strategy and policy planning. This essay analyzes the evolution and adaptation of geo-strategic thought; examines strategic considerations in the relations between China, Europe, as represented by the European Union, and the United States; assesses the new Chinese lead- erships geo-strategic concepts and practices; and explores possible ways of moving from geo-strategy to omni-strategy. Stockholm China Forum Paper Series From Geo-Strategy to Omni-Strategy: Interactions between China, Europe, and the United States By Yang Jiemian 1744 R Street NW Washington, DC 20009 T 1 202 683 2650 F 1 202 265 1662 E info@gmfus.org February 2014 The Basic Features of Geo-Strategy China, Europe, and the United States interact with each other within the general framework of the global envi- ronment, but while these three powers share basic geo-strategic features, they difer in some key elements, especially with regards to the implementation of their geo-strategies. Defnitions and Connotations Te concept of geo-strategy has long been central to political and military strategy. Chinese geo-strategic thought thrived during the Chinese Spring and Autumn-Warring State Periods (770-221 B.C.), ultimately culminating in the frst unifcation of China, which has been attributed to Emperor Qin- Shi-Huangs geo-strategic maneu- vering (221 B.C.). At around the same time, Herodotus (484-425 B.C.) in his book History described a clash of civilizations between the Egyptians, Persians, and Greeks as heavily infu- enced by the physical geographic setting. Millennia later, geo-strategic thinking and geo-strategists continue to play an important role in modern and contem- porary international relations. Alfred Tayer Mahans Sea Power Teory, Halford J. Mackinders Heartland Teory, and Karl Haushofers Leben- sraum Teory were all written in the context of colonial expansion and imperial dominance, especially by Nazi Germany and Fascist Japan. While the term Lebensraum was dropped afer World War II, it saw a revival in the Cold War years of the 1970s and onwards. Nowadays, geo-strategy is an ofen- used term in international relations, stressing the combined factors of strategic goals and geographic consid- erations. China considers itself to be a point of departure from which the geo-strategic importance of geographic or thematic factors is determined. But the Chinese reject the notion of Leben- sraum completely and instead call for community thinking and building. Chinese and Western defnitions of geo-strategy have one obvious difer- ence. Te Chinese view geo-strategy as comprehensive, long term, and righteous. Chinese President Xi Jinping emphasizes that the basic tenet of diplomacy with neighbors is to treat them as friends and partners, to make them feel safe, and to help 2 Stockholm China Forum Paper Series them develop. 1 Many Westerners emphasize the military and political aspects of geo-strategy. Jakub J. Grygiel defnes geo-strategy as a situation in which a state concentrates its eforts by projecting military power and directing diplo- matic activity. 2 James Rogers and Luis Simn hold that geo-strategy focuses on the military control of key locations with the support of an alliance system. 3 While defnitions of geo-strategy may vary, all agree on the centrality of national interests and capabilities. National interests serve as the basis for geo-strategy in the United States, Europe, and China. It is relatively clearer and easier to understand what national interests mean to both China and the United States. However, the case of the European Union is somewhat complicated. EU interests are neither the aggregate of its member states national inter- ests nor the separate national interests of each individual member state. Te European Union is in the midst of a long transition from a collection of nation-states to a single super-state. If and when it eventually completes its inte- gration process, the European Union would have features in common with other continental-sized powers such as China, the United States, or even Russia. National capabilities are the main resources that the three powers use to realize their overall goals. At present, those capabilities are comprehensive. China, the European Union, and the United States have diferent capabilities, which determine their respective geo-strategic goals. Te United States has global ambitions while China and the EU mainly focus on their immediate regions. Tis explains why Chinas main geo-strategic goal is in the Asia-Pacifc region while the European Union cares more about its neighboring area. Context and Overall Strategies Strategic thinking of the three powers is complex and multi-dimensional. Important as it is, geo-strategy is only a component of (and functions in service of) an overall strategy. As a result, it is important to understand the overall strategies of the three powers if we are to have a better understanding of their geo-strategies. Chinas overall strategy is to build up favorable and peaceful environments 1 Xi Jinping, China to further friendly relations with neighboring countries, Beijing, Oct. 25, 2013 (Xinhua). 2 Jakub J. Grygiel, Great Powers and Geopolitical Change, Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. p. 23. 3 James Rogers and Luis Simn, Think Again: European Geostrategy (March 14, 2010), http://europeangeostrategy.ideasoneurope.eu/2010/03/14/think-again-european- geostrategy/ for its modernization and rejuvenation. Te European Union wants to maintain its role as a major player in the world through regional integration within and normative infuence without. Te United States works hard to retain its leadership role in the world by all means available. Te common denominator of the three powers is a desire to achieve strategic goals through diplomatic negotiations to establish norms, rules, and institutions. Context is a defning factor in determining any given actors overall strategy. Te changing confguration of power is creating a new global environment, which is particularly consequential for China, Europe, and the United States. Te three powers have both overlapping and conficting strategic interests. China is the most important emerging power and a non-Western country. Europe and the United States jointly make up the bulk of the West. Tey belong to the worlds establishment and feel forced to share power, rights, and benefts with a rising China. Furthermore, China adheres to a political system and development path that is not only diferent from that of the West but also provides a possible alternative. Deep-rooted strategic suspicion exists between China and the transatlantic allies. Despite the tensions, the overall trilateral relationship between and among China, Europe, and the United States is no longer characterized by hostility. China and the European Union established a comprehensive strategic partnership in 2003 and are in process of upgrading this partnership. China and the United States are committed to building a New Model of Major Country Relation- ship (NMMCR). Te NMMCR stresses the importance of avoiding confrontation or confict and instead building mutual respect and cooperating on a win-win basis. Te United States and Europe are allies but their declared Despite the tensions, the overall trilateral relationship between and among China, Europe, and the United States is no longer characterized by hostility. 3 Stockholm China Forum Paper Series target is not China. Te main substance of the relationship between the three parties is economic cooperation and diplomatic consultation. While recognizing that principled diferences do exist between China on one side and the European Union and the United States on the other, all three powers are committed to avoiding fatal confronta- tion. Te world has learned from two world wars and the dire consequences of the use of nuclear weapons. China, the United States, and Europe will work to prevent the world from sufering such devastation again. However, China, Europe, and the United States do not have efective mechanisms and institutions in place to help trans- late this awareness into reality. Although the major Euro- pean countries such as Germany, France, and Britain prefer to have their own foreign strategies and policies, European countries generally interact within the EU framework. Like- wise, Europe and the United States have institutionalized their interactions within the framework of the transatlantic alliance. Transatlantic consultation and coordination is far more intensive and extensive than that between China and Europe or China and the United States. For the foreseeable future, China, Europe, and the United States will continue to operate without an overarching framework to govern their relationships. Neighbors and Strategic Linchpins Neighbors and other countries that act as global strategic linchpins are two of the most important components of geo-strategic thinking and planning. China has made major powers and neighbors the double foci of its diplomatic strategy. China is now the biggest trading partner for most of its neighbors and one of the most important members of a number of regional cooperation mechanisms. In 2013, Chinese leaders met with almost all the leaders in its neigh- borhood. Te European Union has made Russia and the Mediterranean region top diplomatic priorities. Te United States has further consolidated its relations with Canada and Mexico with NAFTA. On the basis of strengthened neighboring relations, the three powers are now moving to extended geographical spheres. China additionally attaches importance to the neighbors of its neighbors, such as Cambodia and Turkmenistan. Te European Union pays particular attention to the Western Balkan region and has established partnerships with Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine. Te United States is more global in its geo-strategic goals and has expanded from being a Pacifc country into an Asia-Pacifc country through its rebalancing strategy. With diferent overseas interests, China, Europe, and the United States difer in their geo-strategic layouts and imple- mentation. China is rapidly developing its overseas ties but lacks geo-strategic linchpins. China wants to promote friendly relations with those who are important to its resource supply, market, investment, and people-to-people exchanges. European countries have links with former colonies with signifcant networks in the areas of trade, investment, defense, education, and culture. Te European Union as a whole needs to see geo-strategic linchpins in a new light. Europe needs to step out of the shadow of U.S. geo-strategic thinking and fnd new strategic linchpins in the Asia-Pacifc region. Te United States has the most extensive and intensive geo-strategic linchpins in the world. However, with a waning budget, the United States has to share responsibility in the Greater Middle East in order to allow it to enhance its presence and capabilities in the Asia- Pacifc. Meeting New Challegnes Geo-strategic thinking had its heyday in the 19 th and 20 th
centuries with military alliances, bloc confrontations, and war. However, the political multi-polarization, economic globalization, cultural diversifcation, and social informa- tionization of the 21 st century have caused geo-strategic thinking to undergo a number of improvements. Recognizing Drawbacks and Looking for Improvement An insistence on geo-strategic considerations is contradic- tory to the trends of globalization and interdependence. By overemphasizing geo-strategic factors, many have fallen into the traps of the zero-sum game and confrontation- Transatlantic consultation and coordination is far more intensive and extensive than that between China and Europe or China and the United States. 4 Stockholm China Forum Paper Series focused thinking. Even well-respected geo-strategists, such as Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski, remain confned by their own thinking and call for a larger and more vital West. 4
Geo-strategy alone is an insufcient means of coping with present challenges, and has already been proved irrelevant to most of the non-traditional threats such as international terrorism and climate change. As a result, the international community is in search of a re-conceptualization and better policy implementation of geo-strategy. Turning Exclusive Backyards into Inclusive Platforms Te worlds geo-strategic views are shifing from their traditional points of departure: neighboring countries and areas. China, Europe, and the United States all have strong ties with their neighbors, but in the current context, the old geo-strategic thinking of excluding others from ones backyard can no longer hold. China has repeatedly stated that it respects the current reality and will not challenge legitimate U.S. rights in the Asia-Pacifc region. Instead, China supports open and inclusive regional cooperation and works with the United States at the East Asia Summit. Europe and the United States have also demonstrated their pragmatism and accepted the increased Chinese presence in Africa and the Western Hemisphere. Geographical Factors Interacting with Other Fields At present, the world sees an increasing inter-relationship between diferent factors such as geo-economy, geo-culture, geo-psychology, and geo-ecology. Tese new concepts and 4 Zbigniew Brzezinski, Strategic Vision: America and the Crisis of Global Powers, Basic Books, 2012. realities in global afairs will need more institutional regula- tion and governance, which will in turn promote more transnational cooperation. Tis cycle of mutual reenforce- ment will both improve and reduce the role of geographic factors. Te challenges the world faces today take place in inter-dependent surroundings, and thus ofen call for solutions with transnational eforts, which will undermine beggar-thy-neighbor thinking. Conceptual Changes Toward a Multi-Dimensional and Inter-Regional Direction Foreign relations are closely interrelated with concepts. Sometimes pioneering concepts lead to new relations and sometimes new relations call for new concepts. Tese are both true in the case of geo-strategy related to China, Europe, and the United States. Te new geo-strategic concept put forward by Chinese President Xi Jinping emphasized that dealing with neighboring countries should have a three-dimensional, multi-element perspec- tive, beyond time and space. 5 Te European Union attaches great importance to comprehensive interaction with its eastern and southern transitional or developing neigh- bors. In its second term, the Obama administration has attempted to readjust the focus set by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on the military and security aspects of the rebalancing strategy in the Asia-Pacifc region. Not Only Interests But Also Values Geo-strategy is a sub-school of realism, which is based on power and interests. Historically, geographic prox- imity enabled similar civilizations, cultures, and values to converge. At present, civilizations, cultures, and values are largely able to overcome physical and non-physical barriers. Consequently, international relations and global afairs have seen values take an increasingly central role. Shared values has become a catchphrase in the competi- tion for commanding heights in international cooperation and competition. Te Chinese government calls for putting forth the right approaches to upholding justice and seeking interests with a view to enhancing friendship and coopera- tion with neighboring and developing countries. 6 Although Europe and the United States still stress diferences in values with China, the three powers have a chance to expand 5 Xi Jinping, China to further friendly relations with neighboring countries, Beijing, Oct. 25, 2013 (Xinhua). 6 Yang Jiechi, Innovations in Chinas Diplomatic Theory and Practice Under New Condi- tions, August 16, 2013, http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/zxxx/t1066869.shtml Geo-strategy alone is an insuffcient means of coping with present challenges, and has already been proved irrelevant to most of the non-traditional threats such as international terrorism and climate change. 5 Stockholm China Forum Paper Series shared value-building in order to meet the challenges of our times. The U.S.-Europe-China To-Do List New challenges, environments, and tasks require that the international community update its knowledge of, upgrade its understanding of, and improve its thinking of geo- strategy. Te international community will need to think and act beyond geo-strategy in order to meet the challenges of the present and future world. As the three major actors in the world, China, Europe, and the United States shoulder special responsibilities. Among the immediate and mid to long-term objectives, three tasks stand out most promi- nently. Converging on New Thinking and Guiding Principles Given the pressing challenges of the world today, the three powers should work together on agreed principles to guide their relations with each other and within the international system in a more equal and fair direction. Te three powers should discard the simplistic thinking that major powers must inevitably compete and instead create new concepts of non-confict/confrontation, mutual respect, and win-win cooperation. In terms of relations between major powers and others, the three powers should give more consider- ation to the interests of small and medium-sized countries as well as non-state actors. Power-politics and regime change by force are ideas of the past. Only by agreeing on new norm setting can the three powers produce new ideas and new principles to match with the needs of our times. Agreeing on a New Agenda, Rules, and Institutions Having set out new thinking and norms, China, Europe, and the United States should spare no efort in translating these ideas and concepts into realities. Te three powers should especially consult on pushing forward inter- and trans-regional cooperation. For instance, the three powers have not yet agreed to work together on global and inter- regional economic cooperation mechanisms such as the WTO, TPP, and TTIP. More importantly, the three powers have made few substantive eforts to work together to create roadmaps, and nor have they discussed detailed steps to ensure that agreed principles materialize. Finding New Solutions to Global and Hotspot Issues Until very recently, China has ofen been absent from many important foreign policy discussions. Te United States and Europe are the main players in the Quartet on the Middle East Peace Process, without Chinas participation. Te United States and European members of NATO do not hold strategic consultations with China on Afghani- stan. However, this situation is changing. China has played a leading role in the Six Party Talks on the North Korean nuclear issue as well as in the Sextet Talks on the Iranian nuclear issue. With Chinas mediations, the Sextet Talks moved out of stalemate several times. Looking into the future, the three powers should coordinate on the hotspot issues and global issues in a more systematic way instead of on an ad hoc basis. Chinas Innovative Practices & Theories 2008 marked a turning point for China from regional to global power. Chinas grand strategy has since taken on global power characteristics. Against this backdrop, the new Chinese leadership is pursuing more innovative and creative geo-strategic practices and theories. Drawing Lessons from Traditional Wisdom China has a rich history of geo-strategic thinking. Sun Tzu (545-470 B.C.) is the most outstanding representative of geo-strategists in Chinese ancient times. Te Art of War, a compilation of his works, embraced geo-strategy, geo- tactics, geo-psychology, geo-diplomacy, and geo-economics. Another classic entitled Strategies of the Warring States also included geo-strategic thinking such as befriending distant states while attacking those nearby. 7 Even at that time, Chinese geo-strategy included non-geographic factors. Confucius (551-479 B.C.) suggests that the near one pleases and the far one comes. 8 Mencius (375-289 B.C.) believed that situational chances are less important than 7 Liu Xiang (77-6 B.C.) (ed.), Zhan Guo Ce (Strategies of the Warring States) Qin Ce III. 8 Confucius, The AnalectsZilu. The international community will need to think and act beyond geo-strategy in order to meet the challenges of the present and future world. 6 Stockholm China Forum Paper Series geographic advantages, which in turn are less than peoples unity. 9 Ancient Chinese thought and practices show their dialectical values: while recognizing the geographic importance, geo-strategy embodies more than just physical signifcance. To meet the present challenges, China has tried to make full use of the traditional wisdom, adapted to the new realities. China is, for instance, reviving the thousand-year-old Silk Road by advocating for an economic community on both land and seas. Geo-strategic Thinking and Major Power Relations In the current Chinese diplomatic lexicon, major powers include the traditional powers, emerging powers, and regional powers (middle powers). China sees Russia as its most important geo-strategic partner. China had security pressures with its northern neighbors for thousands of years but now enjoys peaceful and active interactions along the thousands miles of border with Russia. China and Russia jointly initiated the Shanghai Five in 1996, which developed into the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) in 2001. Te SCO has played a big role in combating terrorism, secessionism, and religious extremism. Te Sino-U.S. relationship is another of Chinas most impor- tant bilateral relationships. While China and the United States do not share borders, they do have intertwining ties in many ways. Tere is an ongoing academic debate about whether good Sino-U.S. relations hold the key to solving Chinese problems with its neighbors, or if improving rela- tions with neighbors would help improve Sino-U.S. rela- tions, but none deny the importance of Sino-U.S. relations. Te interactions between China and the United States have been mostly focused on the Asia-Pacifc. Te Sino-U.S. relationship is both cooperative and competitive, with a heavy dose of geo-strategic thinking. Te United States is reallocating its strategic resources around China in an efort to ofset its increasing infuence. Te United States has also invested in its relationships with countries that have 9 Mencius, MenciusGongsun Chou II. disputes with China such as Japan, the Philippines, and Vietnam. China and Europe see each other as important global actors, sharing in their support for globalization, multipolarity, multilateralism, and global governance. Both China and the European Union want to enhance consultations on Africa, Central Asia, Latin America, and their respective neighbor- hoods. In addition, the two sides want to reinforce coop- eration in all relevant trans-regional and regional fora, in particular at ASEM and the ARF. China supports the Euro- pean Unions participation in the East Asia Summit (EAS). 10 Although most of the worlds middle powers are not neigh- bors of China, their importance to Chinas interests will continue to increase as China continues to rise. In the context of globalization and a growing Chinese presence in the world, China will increasingly need strategic linchpins in its political, economic, and security interactions with other countries. For instance, the protection of its overseas citizens and investments, safe passage of trading routes, and logistical supplies and technical support for its anti-piracy feet have taken on a new level of importance in Beijings thinking about its international relationships. Integrating the Considerations of Neighbors China is a large country with dozens of neighbors, each with diferent strategic directions. At present, China faces its main challenges from its east and southeast but it enjoys relatively good relations with Russia and Central Asia in the northwest. As a result, the Chinas new leadership has developed a geo-strategy based on partnership in Eurasia, and coping with problems in the Asia-Pacifc. On Eurasian cooperation, China is trying to transform geo-strategic competition into geo-cooperation. President Xi Jinping proposed the creation of an economic coopera- tion belt along the Silk Road from western China through Central Asia and Russia and all the way to Western Europe. At this initial stage, China will need to focus on conceptual- izing the project and making sure that it complements other proposals such as Russias Eurasian Community and the United States concept of New Silk Road. In addition, China is working on a Eurasian railroad and on northern routes through the Arctic. In the long run, China would like to see 10 China-EU 2020 Strategic Agenda for Cooperation released at 16th China-EU Summit (November 23, 2013), http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/zxxx/t1101804.shtml China sees Russia as its most important geo-strategic partner. 7 Stockholm China Forum Paper Series the creation of a cooperative framework that embraces all of the major actors. On the Asia-Pacifc regional issues, China has tried to promote economic ties and interconnectivity of infrastruc- tures with those with whom it shares land borders, as those disputes have mostly been resolved. Because maritime disputes are related to core national interests, they cannot be solved immediately. China tries to maintain the status quo by drawing a clear red line. From Geo-Strategy to Omni-Strategy In the context of a changing world, the international community and the United States, Europe, and China in particular will need to upgrade its conception of geo- strategy to one that is more comprehensive. Both strategic vision and strategic patience will be needed to create blue- print for cooperation that can help facilitate the implemen- tation of strategic goals. Strategy embraces long-term and systemic planning an approach that is ofen difcult to take. Te political systems in most countries produce election-driven politicians rather than far-sighted statesmen. As a result, most of the worlds leaders are more concerned with immediate issues. To them, geo-strategy is seen more as a tool for analyzing developments and cultivating electoral support. But great strategies are the product of great strategists. Although the world is currently characterized by equally distributed hard and sof powers, most contemporary geo-strategists are from Europe and the United States. Present and future challenges will require globally minded strategists and the inclusion of strategic talent from around the world. Our strategic visions and goals should be as comprehen- sive as possible on order to realize the one-world ideal. No single actor can think in a way that embraces everything, however an interdependent international community could pool its wisdom and strength. To realize this lofy goal, the international community should work out norms, rules, regulations, laws, mechanisms, and institutions that go toward more equality and justice. In terms of subjects and objectives, the international community will need to use its imagination in the wildest possible way. In short, to cure the major ills and issues of our times, we should not stick only to geo-strategy but think with an omni-strategy. About the Author Yang Jiemian is the president emeritus at the Shanghai Institutes for International Studies (SIIS). About the Stockholm China Forum Tis is part of a series of papers informing and informed by discus- sions at the Stockholm China Forum. Te Stockholm China Forum is an initiative of the German Marshall Fund, the Swedish Ministry for Foreign Afairs and the Riksbankens Jubileumsfond. It brings together policymakers, intellectuals, journalists, and businesspeople from Europe, the United States, and Asia on a biannual basis for an ongoing and systematic dialogue to assess the impact of Chinas rise and its implications for European and U.S. foreign, economic, and security policy. About GMF Te German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMF) strengthens transatlantic cooperation on regional, national, and global challenges and opportunities in the spirit of the Marshall Plan. GMF does this by supporting individuals and institutions working in the transatlantic sphere, by convening leaders and members of the policy and business communities, by contributing research and analysis on transatlantic topics, and by providing exchange opportunities to foster renewed commitment to the transatlantic relationship. In addition, GMF supports a number of initiatives to strengthen democracies. Founded in 1972 as a non-partisan, non-proft organization through a gif from Germany as a permanent memorial to Marshall Plan assistance, GMF maintains a strong presence on both sides of the Atlantic. In addition to its headquarters in Washington, DC, GMF has ofces in Berlin, Paris, Brussels, Belgrade, Ankara, Bucharest, Warsaw, and Tunis. GMF also has smaller representations in Bratislava, Turin, and Stockholm. While the strategic visions and goals should be far-sighted, the eforts and mentalities should be patient. As the old Chinese old saying goes, take it easy and get a good resolu- tion (Shi-Huan-Ze-Yuan). Understanding that fulflling such an ambitious task will require a prolonged and protracted process, all the parties concerned should over- come the modern disease of seeking quick success and instant benefts. If we approach the trilateral relationship between China, Europe, and the United States with a time- line of hundreds of years instead of hundreds of days, we are certain to yield better achievements.