RSS

February’s Munich Security Conference provided the perfect context for a discussion of the shift in the global balance of power. The Kennedy-Institute at the Free University, Berlin hosted a discussion to question the nature of the future direction of the relationship between the United States, China and Europe: cooperation, competition or conflict? Moderated by Andreas Etges, Professor of History at the JFK Institute, the panelists discussed the sustainability of China’s economic growth, the EU’s lack of leadership, and financial difficulties in the US; each having a great influence on the dynamics of the trio.

Banning Garett, Director of the Atlantic Council’s Asia Program, noted that the Munich conference marked the first time that “a real global perspective was officially discussed; NATO did not deal only with transatlantic issues anymore.” These statements reinforce the assumption that today’s transatlantic agenda is global.

“Who sets the rules of cooperation?”

The underlying question was directed at Eberhard Sandschneider, Director of Deutsche Gesellschaft für Auswärtige Politik (DGAP): Who is setting the rules for worldwide cooperation? Who is the leader?

As the US is looks for a co-partner to lead the world, the EU has proven to be a disappointment. The EU considers itself to be a real leader through a strategy based on a “pointless political dialogue” and soft power. As opposed to modest, yet industrious China, which relies on pragmatic achievements : “China does have the leadership, wherever she can” as illustrated by the country’s strategy in Africa. China is waiting for the right moment to present itself as an undisputed alternative leading power to replace the US, but now is not that time. Presently China is enjoying its position as a potential candidate without assuming the responsibility that such a position entails. The fact is that “China is not ready to defend anything but its national interests”-yet.

“China has no time to be a threat to the world.”

In sharp contrast to the first speakers, Wang Xi, Professor of History at the University of Beijing argued that China is far from reaching the world’s expectations in numerous fields: the sustainability of a cheap labor led economy, the population growth, sovereignty over its own territory and democracy are still challenges China has to deal with on a daily basis. “China has no time to be a threat to the world with these multitasking challenges.” China is behaving like a “reluctant imperialist.” For instance in Afghanistan, while China is in agreement with the two Western powers about combating terrorism, it is rather hesitant to directly support action locally or send in troops.

As for the EU, one can observe that it has been living in the shadow of the West since the end of the Cold War without taking a lead in terms of its own identity and purpose. So the first step for Europe is to establish what it is. Therefore, the EU diplomacy is undoubtedly positive but rather feeble: the US-EU couple is doomed from the right beginning.

“America needs a ‘divorce lawyer.’”

Moritz Schularick, Professor of Economics at the Kennedy-Institute gave a brilliant economic perspective on the issue: “America needs to end its addiction to cheap (Chinese reserve) money.” Such an unbalance in the global economy puts tension on the system. Both bogged down in financial woes, the American and European economies cannot afford any conflict with China in such an tumultuous environment. They must try to persuade China to transition to a more sustainable economy in the long term, and in the process rebalance their national economy, thereby the global one as well. Whereas the US and the EU are still interested in having an ever more integrated global economy, this partnership is likely to produce more conflict.

Banning Garett identified numerous positive signs for possible cooperation ( last summer’s strategic economic dialogue, etc). As did Mr. Sandschneider who suggested that in order to favor cooperation the three partners/competitors should first agree on defining the long-term security threats and priorities on the global agenda. For example, when considering the Iran’s nuclear stance, the Western partners should join with China to define what position should be taken instead of taking measures unilaterally. The trio should define and address threats collectively.

“You choose the China you want to see.”

Mr. Sandschneider noted that “you choose the China you want to see: ‘hawkish,’ ‘threatening’ or ‘feeble, on the verge of social outburst.’” There are various perspectives that prevent us from forming a coherent and efficient approach.

This conference depicted the present world leadership on these lines: a wait and see attitude in the EU, a declining US hegemony, and a rising but threatening China. The issue of democracy in China was present in the Q & A session. The most startling question was formulated by Mr. Schularick, who questioned one of the core assumptions of the debate: we take the 10% Chinese growth rate for granted, but nobody knows how China will modernize its economy. This may be a more decisive of China’s leadership rather than its approach to democracy.

Much was said about China in terms of its capacity to comply with democracy standards. This view is usually seen through the eyes of Western governments, which are proving quite inadequate in the new eastern configuration. The culture clash is looming and prevents us from asking ourselves the right questions. As co-leadership is due for a new deal, “cooperation, competition and conflict” issues require a far deeper understanding to actually produce effective results.

Juliette Dixon is an editorial intern at the Atlantic Community. She is currently a MA student at Science Po Lille, studying European Integration and EU lobbying practices.

Related Material From Atlantic Community:

• May Hu: A New Reality for the United States
• Greg Randolph Lawson: Hedging Is Wise As China Rises
• M Brzezinski and M Fung: What Obama Should Propose in Beijing