| Summary: | 博士 === 國立政治大學 === 亞太研究英語博士學位學程(IDAS) === 107 === There is an ongoing academic debate over the rise of China, and its impact on the future international landscape. What can be observed in the past two decades, is that China increased its skills to navigate the complex political landscapes of selected states and regional platforms, including localized forms of multilateralism (or so-called multi-bilateralism). These platforms can be claimed to work towards the re-conceptualization of China’s rise in Europe, and a larger global scale.
One of the significant grounds of this phenomenon is the engagement between China and Europe. The comprehensive cooperation between China and the EU started over a decade ago in the belief that its strategic engagement with Beijing will influence it on the domestic and foreign policy arena, to the image desired by the European continent. In the past 10 years, the stated relationship was based on the policy of so-called unconditional engagement, which meant nothing more than allowing China to have a chance of making one-sided use of all its liberties and market rules governing countries within the EU. One of the turning points of that relationships was the 2008 financial crisis, which while putting more pressure on Beijing to support the stability of the international governance systems, gave the country (rich in financial means) a chance to increase its engagement with its neighboring countries, and started a new chapter in its political and economic relationships around the globe, including Europe.
Questions asked in regards to these relationships are largely bipolar, and generally depend on the perspective of China and the West. This view, on the European side, poses a degree of fragmentation, largely associated with differences in the conceptualization of understanding of a strategic bilateral relationship, bilateral relationships of individual stakeholders, regional engagement, and the different platforms of implementation of policies on the two continents. Among stated differences, one important issue is how to uphold the necessary level of regional political independence of Europe, and how to accommodate sub-regional engagement of China in line with “building of new international relations of new era” on one side, and the commitment to the Western world order based on the widely accepted values and present form of international governance system on the other.
The second half of 2010’s witnessed an increase in cross-regional multi-bilateral (or multilateral) formats, including areas of South-East Asia, Caribbean, Africa, and Europe that are often based on the perception of policymakers in Beijing. They can contribute to the simplification of China’s policy implementation in the areas of geographic and political significance to China, especially in the neighborhood regions to its “major-country diplomacy” fronts (Russia, European Union, and the U.S.). One of first of such formats is the Cooperation between China and Central Eastern European Countries, or 16+1, which became an important element in the Sino-European landscape.
In a nutshell, this research aims to determine and assess the concepts and structure of stated multi-bilateral 16+1 cooperation, located in the frontline of the West versus East relations. The questions being asked during this research are related to the impact of Cooperation between China and Central and Eastern European Countries, with the application of additional theoretical framework – utilizing elements of the neo-tributary perspective of international relations – that may help to assess 16+1 role in Chinese revisionism of contemporary international relations. The main research question is what impact the China-CEEC Cooperation generates on the development of the cross-regional EU-China strategic partnership, therefore is it complementary, constitutes a part of the wider sub-regional relationship between European Community and PRC, or perhaps on contrary creates negative impact or no impact at all. The time perspective of the research centered between 2012 (the year of mechanism establishment) and the end of the first quarter of 2019 (8th China-CEEC Summit). The first 7 years before the first mechanism enlargement by accepting Greece as a “full-fledged member” it’s also the time that ended the “16+1” and started the “17+1” cooperation.
There are three levels of analysis applied in this work, exploring the Belt and Road, 16+1 sub-regional engagement and bilateral relationships within the title process, with the use of theories of complex interdependence, neo-liberalism, ideas of regionalism and thoughts on neo-functionalism. It aims to assess the stake in support of the new international relations of China and explore the impact of 16+1 process on the EU-China relationship. Since it is discussing an ongoing process, it does not aim at providing a definitive conclusion, but rather streamline the first stage of 16+1 presence.
The first level of analysis streamlines the ideas behind the largest outside platform of external engagement of China, the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). It draws the shared elements between that initiative and 16+1 explaining the contemporary shifts influencing certain political courses that are discussed over the following pages. The second level is based on an analysis of the 16+1 cooperation mechanism itself from the (multilateral) regional level. It assesses its multi-bilateral nature, and present conditions calling for a new form of sub-regionalization explained in institutionalization pieces of evidence of a discussed cooperation format. The third level touches upon the bilateral aspects of cooperation between China and CEEC’s, with the EU implications, to allow in the assessment of the impact on the cross-regional overall relationship. The last part is the analysis of findings from the stated three levels of analysis based on two frameworks, of which one underlines the impact of the 16+1 cooperation and the other one help to contextualize a claimed presence of China’s revisionism in Europe. The above steps may also help to evaluate whether any preliminary motives originally existed as the objective of this mechanism and if they serve a wider purpose in the context of the whole Eurasian landmass.
|
|---|
