China and EU split on global governance
03 May 2011
Jian Junbo assesses the conceptual gap between China and the European Union on global governance
Recently China and the European Union have worked jointly to promote the world order. For example after the global financial crisis, both sides coordinated their positions on the reform of the US-controlled international financial system.
But, although they have similar opinions and common ground on some international affairs, there also exist a lot of different ideas and contradictory tactics on dealing with those affairs. Namely, they have some conceptual incongruities regarding global issue-resolving, which are easily found in both side's policy papers, reports and high-level officials' speeches, and so on. These differences in ideas – termed as a conceptual gap – on governance regarding international affairs are not only the consequence of bilateral quarrels and conflicts but also the pullbacks of international joint action on some particular global issues such as nuclear proliferation, global warming, food shortage, financial crisis, international terrorism and regional conflicts.
The EU's concept of global governance was formulated in the first decade of the twenty-first century by several policy papers, notably a white paper on global governance, Governance and Development, the EU's Security Strategy and a series of cooperative agreement with developing countries.
In terms of the EU's policies, they highlight the significance of so-called good governance. It has said "the Union should seek to apply the principles of good governance to its global responsibilities", and make global governance an enlarged model of European governance at international level. The EU identified five principles of good governance which embraced "openness, participation, accountability, effectiveness and coherence". Meanwhile, it strengthened the role of the UN, saying that "the global governance deficit has been addressed continuously in recent years through various initiatives and dialogue at the multilateral level, driven in particular by the United Nations". Moreover, it also argued the dialogues with some "important third partner countries, such as China, Russia, India and Brazil" – which are now famed for the pop-name BRIC – had very important and positive implications for global governance.
China in the 1960s and 1970s adhered to an isolationist foreign policy after its relations with Soviet Union broke down and at the same time its relationship with the US – the centre of international capitalism –remained tense, although it entered into the UN in 1972 and relations improved. After the open-door policy started in the early 1980s, China's involvement in international society through participating in lots of organisations grew rapidly, especially after 1990.
At the beginning of the second millennium, the Chinese government pronounced that China would push the establishment of a "harmonious world". According to Chinese political rhetoric, the meaning of "harmonious world" is linked with "harmonious society" which is based on a traditional Confucian dogma "harmony". According to Confucianism, the building of harmony is promotes social peace, stability, tolerance and reconciliation – and a cooperative social order with societal diversity between different groups. This logic would be used to understand the harmonious world.
Considering the different cultural traditions, political ideologies, economic interests and institutional systems between China and the EU, their concepts of global governance are undoubtedly different from each other.
In general, their strategy reflects an essential difference between them – the EU's normalization of the rest of the world by European values and China's harmonious world. Additionally, their different ideas of sovereignty result in a principle gap. China adheres to sovereign independence while the EU weakens the importance of sovereignty.
Undoubtedly, it is necessary to narrow the gap by seeking some common ground. Firstly, shared strategies in other fields can be found in their comprehensive strategic partnership – the label that has been designed by both sides as the basis of their bilateral relationship since 2003. Through this partnership, the friendly bilateral relations based on mutual understanding, mutual trust and mutual benefit can make the strategic confrontation on global governance somehow ineffective on their bilateral relations as well as on global governance itself. Secondly, they could find some principles that both can agree to use in global governance – for example that the UN should be the common platform and leader in global governance.
Mutual trust between the EU and China and a cooperative spirit based on pragmatism are the most significant way for them to narrow their conceptual gap on global governance and also to promote their strategic partnership.
Dr Jian Junbo works out of the Centre for European Studies at Fudan University in Shanghai, China
Recently China and the European Union have worked jointly to promote the world order. For example after the global financial crisis, both sides coordinated their positions on the reform of the US-controlled international financial system.
But, although they have similar opinions and common ground on some international affairs, there also exist a lot of different ideas and contradictory tactics on dealing with those affairs. Namely, they have some conceptual incongruities regarding global issue-resolving, which are easily found in both side's policy papers, reports and high-level officials' speeches, and so on. These differences in ideas – termed as a conceptual gap – on governance regarding international affairs are not only the consequence of bilateral quarrels and conflicts but also the pullbacks of international joint action on some particular global issues such as nuclear proliferation, global warming, food shortage, financial crisis, international terrorism and regional conflicts.
The EU's concept of global governance was formulated in the first decade of the twenty-first century by several policy papers, notably a white paper on global governance, Governance and Development, the EU's Security Strategy and a series of cooperative agreement with developing countries.
In terms of the EU's policies, they highlight the significance of so-called good governance. It has said "the Union should seek to apply the principles of good governance to its global responsibilities", and make global governance an enlarged model of European governance at international level. The EU identified five principles of good governance which embraced "openness, participation, accountability, effectiveness and coherence". Meanwhile, it strengthened the role of the UN, saying that "the global governance deficit has been addressed continuously in recent years through various initiatives and dialogue at the multilateral level, driven in particular by the United Nations". Moreover, it also argued the dialogues with some "important third partner countries, such as China, Russia, India and Brazil" – which are now famed for the pop-name BRIC – had very important and positive implications for global governance.
China in the 1960s and 1970s adhered to an isolationist foreign policy after its relations with Soviet Union broke down and at the same time its relationship with the US – the centre of international capitalism –remained tense, although it entered into the UN in 1972 and relations improved. After the open-door policy started in the early 1980s, China's involvement in international society through participating in lots of organisations grew rapidly, especially after 1990.
At the beginning of the second millennium, the Chinese government pronounced that China would push the establishment of a "harmonious world". According to Chinese political rhetoric, the meaning of "harmonious world" is linked with "harmonious society" which is based on a traditional Confucian dogma "harmony". According to Confucianism, the building of harmony is promotes social peace, stability, tolerance and reconciliation – and a cooperative social order with societal diversity between different groups. This logic would be used to understand the harmonious world.
Considering the different cultural traditions, political ideologies, economic interests and institutional systems between China and the EU, their concepts of global governance are undoubtedly different from each other.
In general, their strategy reflects an essential difference between them – the EU's normalization of the rest of the world by European values and China's harmonious world. Additionally, their different ideas of sovereignty result in a principle gap. China adheres to sovereign independence while the EU weakens the importance of sovereignty.
Undoubtedly, it is necessary to narrow the gap by seeking some common ground. Firstly, shared strategies in other fields can be found in their comprehensive strategic partnership – the label that has been designed by both sides as the basis of their bilateral relationship since 2003. Through this partnership, the friendly bilateral relations based on mutual understanding, mutual trust and mutual benefit can make the strategic confrontation on global governance somehow ineffective on their bilateral relations as well as on global governance itself. Secondly, they could find some principles that both can agree to use in global governance – for example that the UN should be the common platform and leader in global governance.
Mutual trust between the EU and China and a cooperative spirit based on pragmatism are the most significant way for them to narrow their conceptual gap on global governance and also to promote their strategic partnership.
Dr Jian Junbo works out of the Centre for European Studies at Fudan University in Shanghai, China
COMMENTS
Junbo, basically you are right. But I would not exaggerate the issue of norms diferention between China and EU. The key question is the protective value of norms for users, workers, consumers, public health and environment. If Chinese norms and standards are more ambitious and effective, it is the very right of China to promote them and EU producers will have to adjust. The size of the Chinese market justifies this. If the purpose is protection, then it is wrong?
Pier defraigne - Brussels
RELATED CONTENT
New opportunities for societal change in China
There is an unprecedented set of opportunities to shape the attitudes of the Chinese public and the pressures to respond to it - writes Andrew Small
There is an unprecedented set of opportunities to shape the attitudes of the Chinese public and the pressures to respond to it - writes Andrew Small
