This paper discusses how the relationship between China and Europe in international conflict management is evolving by looking at the cases of Sudan and Iran. Two questions in particular are of interest. First, does the growing influence of China lead to a weakening of Europe’s role? Second, what is the potential for cooperation between Europe and China in conflict management and security diplomacy?
Key findings:
- The experience of Europe in dealing with the Darfur and Iranian crises suggests that China has an important impact on Europe’s role in international security. This is most visible with regard to European influence at the local level. In both Iran and Sudan, local influence seems to a large degree to be mutually exclusive. While China has strong diplomatic and economic ties with these countries, Europe has weaker ties – especially in the case of Sudan. In both cases it is the decision of the European countries to scale down their economic involvement that has given China extra opportunities to strengthen its relationship with Sudan and Iran. A core element in the European approach consists of trying to isolate the Iranian and Sudanese governments, while a core element in China’s strategy is to uphold and protect its good relations with the same regimes. The European strategy of downgrading or severing ties to put pressure on certain countries is seriously weakened by the fact that China provides an alternative source of economic and political support. The use of economic sanctions by Europe also boosts China’s influence. When it is taken into account that Europe does not exist as a single security actor – whereas China really is a unified actor – the relative weakness of Europe’s position is further emphasised.
- In terms of setting norms for global governance, the emergence of China also has a limiting effect on Europe’s role. When it comes to international conflict management, Europe and the US prefer an outcome that contributes to the spread of democracy and open markets. While focusing on human rights violations and support for international terrorism as the key problems, Western governments promote (pro-Western) democracy as the best long-term solution. But the emergence of China and other non-Western nations as great powers requires the West to compromise.
- A Sino-European partnership can work out in two ways. First, the two sides can be complementary. While one side puts pressure on the local government, the other side acts as mediator. Secondly, the two sides acting as mediators. This is what happened in the Iranian case. Both parties have been trying to prevent a military conflict by getting Iran to change its nuclear policy. The Sudan and Iran crises also show that there are restrictions to the Sino-European partnership. Since Europe has smaller local interests than China, there also appears to be less inclination to aim at conflict resolution or prevention. Instead, Europe tends to push for more ideological objectives, such as promoting democracy and human rights or political change. China, on the other hand, often has a tendency not to become too involved in addressing a crisis.
- Wherever Europe and China have significant interests as well as influence – which is the case especially in Africa, but is also relevant in parts of the Middle East and Asia – they are bound to play a prominent role in international conflict management. Together with the United States, in many instances they may be the most influential actors involved. For the time being the relationship between Europe and China in regional conflict management is likely to be characterised by a mixture of cooperation and rivalry. There are too many opposing interests for there to be a large degree of cooperation. This is especially true in the sphere of human rights and state sovereignty. Yet both sides have a need for regional stability and for good mutual relations. Consequently, the potential for cooperation is always there.
