The EU and China partners in effective multilateralism

The EU and China: Partners in Effective Multilateralism?Liselotte OdgAArd & Sven BiscopPaper presented at the conference on the International Politics of EU-China Relations sponsored by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences and the British Academy, 20-21 April 2006.Introduction In a way, both the European Union and China can be seen as new global strategic actors in the politico-military dimension of world affairs. While both, in view of their economic and demographic weight, for some time have certainly had the potential to become global actors in the field of foreign and security policy, it is not until recently that they are actively waging policies in these fields. Because of their weight, the emergence of the EU and China as global strategic actors constitutes a new structural factor that has an enormous impact on the world order and on world events. This impact first became apparent with regard to the EU. The ongoing development of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), to which was later added the military arm of the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP), has notably led to as yet unresolved questions regarding the nature of the transatlantic partnership between Europe and the US and the future of its most visible expression, NATO. China set foot on the stage slightly later, but this step caused even more reverberation. This paper aims to assess whether the EU and China have just their position as debutants on the international politico-military scene in common, or whether they share strategic views to an extent that would allow them to establish a true strategic partnership, i.e. structural consultation and active cooperation on a wide range of foreign and security policy issues. The Global Role of the EU: From Player to Power? A Holistic StrategyAlthough the CFSP dates back to the entry into force of the Maastricht Treaty in 1993, it is since the creation of ESDP in 1999 that the EU has really emerged as a global actor in foreign and security policy. This evolution is symbolized by the adoption of the ambitious European Security Strategy (ESS), A Secure Europe in a Better World, by the European Council on 12 December 2003. See http:/ue.eu.int/uedocs/cmsUpload/78367.pdf. For the very first time the Member States solemnly adopted a common strategic vision for the whole of EU foreign policy. The ESS can best be characterized as a holistic, integrated or comprehensive approach. Sven Biscop, The European Security Strategy A Global Agenda for Positive Power. Aldershot, Ashgate Publishing, 2005. This approach can be conceptualized through the notion of global public goods (GPG), which emerged in the context of the UN at the end of the 1990s. GPG have traditionally been seen in the context of development, but currently the concept is being used more and more in general political terms, e.g. by Joseph Nye. Joseph S. Nye, The Paradox of American Power: Why the Worlds Only Superpower Cant Go it Alone. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2002. Starting point of this approach is the assumption that there are a number of goods that are global or universal in the sense that it is generally felt at least in Europe that every individual is entitled to them. GPG are sometimes defined more narrowly as comprising only those public goods which cannot be provided but through international cooperation, excluding public goods of which the State is or should be the main provider, such as education or political participation. See e.g. the International Task Force on Global Public Goods, http:/www.gpgtaskforce.org. Like in the human security approach, the individual is the point of reference. If to a certain extent the definition of the core GPG is a political and normative choice Rotberg uses the term political goods Robert I. Rotberg, Strengthening Governance: Ranking Countries Would Help, in The Washington Quarterly, Vol. 28, 2004, No. 1, pp. 7181. many elements have been recognized as being universal beyond any doubt, notably in the field of human rights. These goods are public in the sense that their provision cannot be left to the market but should be supervised by government at the different levels of authority (local, national, regional and global). These core GPG can be grouped under four broad headings: - physical security or freedom from fear; - political participation, the rule of law and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms; - an open and inclusive economic order that provides for the wealth of everyone or freedom from want; - social wellbeing in all of its aspects access to health services, to education, to a clean and hazard-free environment etc. These GPG are strongly interrelated: ultimately, one cannot be ensured or enjoyed without access to the other; the four categories are therefore equally important. The ESS puts forward the global objective of effective multilateralism: The development of a stronger international society, well functioning international institutions and a rule-based international order is our objective. Effective multilateralism, or in other words effective global governance, can be translated as ensuring access to GPG; a system that fails to provide the core GPG lacks legitimacy. Global stability, and therefore the security of all States, depends on the availability of sufficient access to the core GPG. Rather than terrorism, weapons of mass destruction (WMD) or other military threats, the most important threat is the ever growing gap between haves and have-nots, a gap which can be best expressed in terms of access to the essential GPG. While this gap and the feelings of exclusion, marginalization and frustration resulting from it certainly do not justify conflict, they do help to explain it, which is a prerequisite for prevention and resolution of conflicts. The gap between haves and have-nots is foremost among the challenges of the globalized world, because it is a threat of a systemic nature, i.e. it results from the malfunctioning of, and impacts on, the global order itself. For unless mechanisms of governance are created or rendered more effective that can alleviate this situation, at a certain level of inequality, the resulting political upheaval, extremisms of all kinds, economic uncertainty and massive migration flows will become uncontrollable. Because of this interdependence GPG are non-exclusive, like true public goods: ultimately maintaining our access to GPG requires improving others access. Since it denies access to core GPG to a large share of the worlds population, the status quo is not an option. Against this background, specific politico-military challenges do stand out. They include regions of chronic tension and long-standing disputes and conflicts, failed States and civil wars, proliferation of WMD and excessive militarization, and terrorism. These challenges directly threaten people, States and regions. They have to be tackled head-on, but as they are symptoms of the dark side of globalization, effective global governance, improving access to GPG, must be pursued at the same time as the key to preventing such threats. Security is the precondition of development, the ESS States, but this works the other way around as well. Of course, the strength of the causal relationship between, on the one hand, the gap between haves and have-nots in the broadest sense and, on the other hand, specific politico-military issues differs from case to case. Nonetheless, in the long term no durable solution of politico-military problems can be achieved unless the stability of the world system itself is assured. The Holistic Approach in PracticeImplementing a comprehensive or holistic approach, based on the notion of GPG, has evident policy implications. The first is integration. Because the core GPG are inextricably linked together, action must be undertaken to address all of them simultaneously and in a coordinated fashion, by all relevant actors, in all fields of external policy, putting to use all the instruments at their disposal, including trade, development, environmental, police, intelligence and legal cooperation, diplomacy, and security and defence. In the words of the ESS: Spreading good governance, supporting social and political reform, dealing with corruption and abuse of power, establishing the rule of law and protecting human rights are the best means of strengthening the international order. The same plea for a comprehensive approach can be found in the objectives of EU external action as formulated in the draft Constitutional Treaty (Article III-292), which puts additional emphasis on aspects of global governance, such as sustainable economic, social and environmental development, the eradication of poverty, the integration of all countries into the world economy, and the abolition of trade restrictions. In its recent communications on development, the Commission has explicitly mentioned the provision of universal public goods as a basic factor. COM (2005) 132 final, Speeding up Progress towards the Millennium Development Goals. The European Unions Contribution. Although policies in all of these fields must be integrated under the same overall objective of increasing access to GPG, in order to avoid contradictory actions being undertaken, each policy should continue to operate according to its own rationale and dynamic. Securitization, i.e. the instrumentalization of non-military dimensions of foreign policy in function only of hard security concerns or freedom from fear, must be avoided, for it ignores the intrinsic importance of the other GPG. An integrated approach deals with all GPG simultaneously, but does not require that all issues must be put under the label of security. On the contrary, although this may raise their importance in the eyes of States, it also blurs the distinctions between policy areas. Poverty or HIV/AIDS are of a different nature than terrorism, proliferation or conflict: they can be life-threatening but they do not imply a threat of violence and cannot be tackled by politico-military means. Accordingly, rather than including all challenges under the label of security, issues must not be dealt with as security threats unless they pose an effective threat of violence. In that sense, the ESS has perhaps not really been aptly named. It really is a foreign policy strategy rather than just a security strategy. The second policy implication is that by thus addressing the root causes of conflict, a policy oriented on the core GPG emphasizes structural conflict prevention. This presents a formidable challenge: it implies dealing with more issues, related to all of the core GPG, at an earlier stage, before they become security threats. Effective prevention is much more than mere appeasement: it demands a proactive stance, aiming to change circumstances that induce instability and conflict. Mark Duffield analyses how structural prevention in effect amounts to the merging of development and security: Development is no longer concerned with promoting economic growth in the hope that development will follow. Today it is better described as an attempt, preferably through cooperative partnership arrangements, to change whole societies and the behaviour and attitudes of people within them. Mark Duffield, Global Governance and the New Wars. London, Zed Books, 2002, p. 42. In this broad sense, development not only leads to the reduction of poverty, more political freedom, and greater affirmation of human rights, but also lays the foundation for more durable peace and security. Roy Culpeper, Human Security, Equitable and Sustainable Development: Foundations for Canadas International Policy, NSI Paper on the International Policy Review. Ottawa, The North-South Institute, 2005, p. 4. In the terms of the Commission: Development is crucial for collective and individual long-term security: they are complementary agendas and neither is subordinate to the other. There cannot be sustainable development without peace and security, and sustainable development is the best structural response to the deep-rooted causes of violent conflicts and the rise of terrorism, often linked to poverty, bad governance and the deterioration and lack of access to natural resources. COM (2005) 311 final, Proposal for a Joint Declaration by the Council, the European Parliament and the Commission on the European Union Development Policy. The European Consensus, p. 8. In its relations with third countries, the EU seeks to bind all these dimensions together via conditionality mechanisms, e.g. in the framework of the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) and in its relations with the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries (ACP) under the Cotonou Agreement. A policy oriented on GPG will thus in fact be quite intrusive, which can make it rather contentious with the target countries. Agns Hurwitz and Gordon Peake, Strengthening the Security-Development Nexus: Assessing International Policy and Practice Since the 1990s, Conference Report. New York, International Peace Academy, 2004. But as it is in the very nature of GPG that pursuing them is in the mutual interest of all concerned, it is at the same time a very positive approach, contrary to other, threat-based strategies. For whom rather than against whom is the question that determines policy. The sincere pursuit of GPG will bring greatly enhanced legitimacy. As Nye advises the US: we gain doubly from such a strategy: from the public goods themselves, and from the way they legitimize our power in the eyes of others. Joseph S. Nye, op. cit., p. 143. Thirdly, as effective action in all policy fields concerned requires the cooperation of a wide range of actors at many different levels, a GPG-oriented policy implies multilateralism: an intricate web of States, regimes, treaties and organizations, i.e. multi-level governance, implicating all levels of authority in a coordinated effort to improve peoples access to GPG. Although in the spirit of human security the individual is taken as point of reference, the State remains a primary partner, for no effective arrangements can be made with weak and failed States. In the words of the ESS: The best protection for our security is a world of well-governed democratic States. Third States must therefore be seen as partners for cooperation rather than as mere subjects of EU policies; the aim is to influence rather than to coerce, to use the carrot rather than the stick. There will be cases where the use of force is inevitable, for not all actors are amenable to preventive initiatives and security threats will arise. But in the framework of multilateralism, the use of force can only be a measure of last resort to be mandated by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), which the ESS sees as the core of the multilateral system. In those cases, the legitimacy acquired through the pursuit of GPG can be capitalized upon. The EU is not the only actor pursuing an integrated approach. The Outcome Document of the UNs Millennium+5 Summit of September 2005 puts forward the linkages between security, development and human rights, dubbed the three freedoms by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan in his preparatory report. In Larger Freedom: Towards Development, Security and Human Rights for All. Report of the Secretary General for Decision by Heads of State and Government in September 2005, 21 March 2005. The important contribution of the EU to the debate on UN reform and its central role at the actual Summit has certainly influenced this outcome. In the development of integrated or holistic policies and institutions, the EU undoubtedly is a trend-setter. As the ESS recognizes, As a union of 25 states with over 450 million people producing a quarter of the worlds Gross National Product (GNP), and with a wide range of instruments at its disposal, the European Union is inevitably a global player. It is not yet a fully-fledged global power however, as all too often still it fails to find consensus and thus the will to actively influence events, notably in the field of CFSP/ESDP. Yet the EU certainly has the potential to be a power in the politico-military dimension of the world order, and, like many others, it already is in the economic dimension as well as in the transnational dimension of post-territorial issues and norms and values. Multipolarity therefore is a fact; multilateralism it the EUs way of dealing with it. Implications for an EU-China Partnership: The EU Perspective Strategic partnerships are vital to the implementation of the holistic approach, which seeks a positive way of permanent dialogue and active cooperation in all dimensions of foreign policy, in order to prevent conflict and promote security and social, economic and political development the four core GPG. The ESS says as much: In particular we should look to develop strategic partnerships with Japan, China, Canada and India as well as with all those who share our goals and values, and are prepared to act in their support. In this regard, the role of China is crucial, for not only is it a global power in its own right but it also is a permanent member of the UNSC. As for the EU the UNSC in principle is the sole arbiter that can decide on the use of force, a cooperative or at least non-obstructive China is first of all vital for the promotion of security. Without it, the legitimacy and legality of a UNSC resolution are unobtainable. Chinas obstructive role towards the adoption of coercive measures against Sudan in order to halt the atrocities in Darfur, apparently motivated by Chinese interests in the Sudanese oil industry, is a case in point. Secondly, this holds true for the other GPG as well: the conditionality-based approach of the EUs bilateral relations, which links aid and economic benefits to economic, political and social reform, can be easily undercut if another player comes along and offers partnership with total disregard of conditionality. Zimbabwe can serve as an example. While because of the human rights situation EU relations with the country have been frozen since 2002 and restrictive measures have been adopted against the government, Chinas relations with the regime have grown apace with its isolation from the West. If energy interests are at stake, the only conditionality imposed seems to be adherence to the One-China principle, Joshua Eisenman, Zimbabwe: Chinas African Ally, in The Jamestown Foundation China Brief, Vol. 5, 2005, No. 15. which appears to be the pattern for Chinas increased presence in Africa. In other words, Chinas oil needs are turning into a headache for the EUs foreign policy. Katinka Barysch, Charles Grant and Mark Leonard, Embracing the Dragon. The EUs Partnership with China. London, Centre for European Reform, 2005, p. 25. Finally, the cooperation of China is also vital to build effective multilateral rules and institutions addressing issues that cut across borders, such as the environment or the prosecution of war crimes. From the viewpoint of the EUs foreign policy strategy, China is not seen as a threat, but a strategic partnership with China would be highly beneficial if it is not a conditio sine qua non for the achievement of the EUs overall objective of effective multilateralism. Building on Chinas increasing actorness, EU policy therefore is to engage China and to encourage China to play a proactive and responsible role in global issues. COM (1998) 181 final, Building a Comprehensive Partnership with China. For: Globalization means, among many other things, that a country the size of China is both part of the problem and the solution to all major issues of international and regional concern. Engagement mean