Registration
You will receive an email confirming your registration.
In March 2016, the Carnegie–Tsinghua Center for Global Policy hosted its third annual Carnegie Global Dialogue series at its new office. With support from the Royal Norwegian Embassy in Beijing, this series brought together leading foreign policy experts from across the Carnegie Endowment’s global network of centers and from top Chinese thinktanks to examine emerging trends and policy challenges that are impacting China and the rest of the international community.
This year’s Carnegie Global Dialogue series included four panel discussions that focused on China’s relationships with Russia, the United States, the European Union, and the Middle East respectively.
Are Warming China-Russia Relations Made to Last?
Geopolitical circumstances have prompted Russia to forge closer ties with China, but behind the warming façade, the two countries’ differing goals could create new sources of tension across Eurasia.
In recent years, geopolitical circumstances have prompted Russia to forge closer ties with China. Presidents Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin have concluded large-scale energy and economic deals, conducted joint naval exercises, and pursued limited bilateral security coordination on issues like cybersecurity. But behind the warming façade, obstacles to closer ties remain. The greatest of these challenges lies in Central Asia, where Russia and China may find that differing goals for the Shanghai Cooperation Organization or in plans to connect the Silk Road Economic Belt initiative and the Eurasian Economic Union could create new sources of tension.
At an event hosted by the Carnegie–Tsinghua Center, panelists discussed how China and Russia can manage sources of friction while enhancing cooperation in the areas of diplomacy, economics, and security in 2016. This panel was the first in the Carnegie Global Dialogue Series 2016 and was co-sponsored by the China Center for Contemporary World Studies.
Discussion Highlights
- Reasons for Closer Ties: Panelists noted that a confluence of economic and political factors has brought China and Russia closer. They observed that the two countries have complementary economies, with Russian exports of natural gas and other raw materials serving as vital contributors to China’s economic growth. On the international stage, Beijing and Moscow have advanced similar calls in the United Nations, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and other venues for a greater non-Western leadership role in global governance. One panelist predicted that closer relations between the two countries will continue, but that such cooperation may benefit China more given its more advantageous geopolitical position relative to Russia.
- Limits on Cooperation: Despite the countries’ overlapping interests, diplomatic coordination between Beijing and Moscow may be impeded by strategic and cultural factors, participants asserted. They said that China views some of Russia’s efforts to remain a major geostrategic actor—such as its air campaign in Syria—as overly risky and potentially destabilizing. Culturally speaking, interactions between Chinese and Russian elites are infrequent and neither country has many regional specialists who study the other. Panelists raised concerns that these obstacles make misperceptions and lingering historical mistrust harder to dispel. Speakers predicted that China and Russia will continue to enjoy deeper diplomatic cooperation, integrated infrastructure, and economic synergy, but that both countries’ desire to retain freedom of action means that a formal alliance remains unlikely.
- Global Implications of Reshaping Eurasia: Panelists pointed out that China’s proactive engagement with Russia, Central Asia, and Europe through regional infrastructure investment is likely to pave the way for greater connectivity among countries across Eurasia. One speaker described this geoeconomic shift as the most consequential global event since the collapse of the Soviet Union, predicting that China’s growing economic footprint will lead to heightened political influence. At the same time, panelists added, Russia is trying to reestablish itself as a major geopolitical actor, and not be too dependent on either Europe or Asia. They predicted that, by being more internationally engaged, China will provide Russia with new economic opportunities, but this dynamic may create new sources of tension with Moscow in the long run, as China’s global influence grows.
- Neighborhood Diplomacy in Central Asia: China and Russia’s interactions in Central Asia reveal much about each country’s diplomatic stances toward neighboring countries and toward each other, panelists agreed. They observed that both Beijing and Moscow seek to exert influence in the former Soviet republics. While some of the two countries’ interests are aligned, the agendas that they are pursuing are by no means uniform and could strain relations when objectives differ, participants said. They agreed that strengthening Beijing and Moscow’s strategic division of labor in the region could solidify constructive engagement between the two powers in Central Asia. As Beijing continues to build infrastructure and inject much-needed capital into Central Asian economies, Russia’s ongoing security role and close cultural and historical ties to the region cannot be overlooked.
- Maintaining Secure Borders: China and Russia are both seeking to maintain stability on their borders, panelists observed. They stated that this concern informs Russia’s involvement in Ukraine and perhaps even its support for the Assad regime in Syria. China’s approach to the South China Sea may also reflect this dynamic, as Beijing seeks to protect its maritime interests. Speakers did not view this approach as distinctively Russian or Chinese, but instead interpreted it as a natural tendency among emerging powers to enhance their own security that is likely to be mirrored in the future actions of other rising actors, such as India.
Paul Haenle
Paul Haenle is the director of the Carnegie–Tsinghua Center for Global Policy based at Tsinghua University in Beijing. Haenle’s research focuses on Chinese foreign policy and U.S.-China relations.
Feng Yujun
Feng Yujun is the director of the Institute for Russian Studies at the China Institute of Contemporary International Relations (CICIR), where he also works as a full-time researcher and doctoral supervisor.
Alexander Gabuev
Alexander Gabuev is a senior associate and the chair of the Russia in the Asia-Pacific Program at the Carnegie Moscow Center. His research is focused on Russia’s policy toward East and Southeast Asia, political and ideological trends in China, and China’s relations with its neighbors—especially those in Central Asia.
Hu Hao
Hu Hao has served as the deputy director-general of the China Center for Contemporary World Studies since 2011. He worked at the Chinese Embassy in Moscow as the counselor of the People’s Republic of China to Russia from 2007 to 2010.
Dmitri Trenin
Dmitri Trenin is the director of the Carnegie Moscow Center and has been with the center since its inception. He also chairs the research council and the Foreign and Security Policy Program.
Zhao Kejin
Zhao Kejin is a resident scholar at the Carnegie–Tsinghua Center and deputy director of Tsinghua University’s Center for U.S.-China Relations.
Feng Yujun
U.S.-China Relations in 2016: A Critical Year
While looking to deepen cooperation on global issues of common interest, the United States and China must identify effective approaches to dealing with international security challenges.
President Xi Jinping made his second visit to the United States in less than a year in late March. His state visit in September 2015 exposed elements of both intensifying cooperation and competition in the bilateral relationship. While the United States and China will be looking to deepen cooperation on global issues where they share common interests, such as combating climate change and preventing nuclear terrorism, they will also need to work to identify more effective approaches to deal with North Korean nuclear proliferation and other international security challenges.
In an event hosted by the Carnegie–Tsinghua Center for Global Policy, panelists examined how Washington and Beijing can better manage elements of competition and cooperation in the bilateral relationship over the next year and beyond. They also assessed the abilities of U.S. and Chinese policymakers to manage growing tensions while deepening cooperation in areas of common interest, particularly given the upcoming 2016 U.S. presidential election. This panel was the second in the Carnegie Global Dialogue Series 2016 and was co-sponsored by the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations.
Discussion Highlights
- Strategic Continuity and the U.S. Election: Panelists described the 2016 U.S. presidential election as a potential key moment for the U.S.-China bilateral relationship. Regardless of who is elected, it will take time for the new administration to assemble its foreign policy team and develop relationships with overseas counterparts. Other panelists pointed out that, despite the uncertainty surrounding U.S. foreign policy under the next administration and the heated campaign rhetoric on China, the past several administrations have ended up staying the course on China policy once in office. They added that China’s U.S. policy will also likely remain consistent with previously articulated positions, since Xi Jinping will be at the helm for seven more years.
- Perception Gaps and Strategic Trust: Panelists asserted that the problem of strategic rivalry is the most important feature of U.S.-China relations today—both countries will have to address competing security interests in the Asia-Pacific to avoid a destabilizing arms race. Security concerns on both sides involving the South China Sea, cyber capabilities, and the shifting balance of power in Asia are exacerbated by limited trust between Chinese policymakers and their U.S. counterparts. Speakers did, however, identify measures such as the High-Level Joint Dialogue on Cybercrime, which was announced in December 2015, as positive progress toward building greater strategic trust. They also suggested that better coordination among different actors within both the Chinese and U.S. governments could result in more consistent diplomatic signaling and fewer misunderstandings.
- Key Questions on the South China Sea: Panelists observed that disagreements between China and the United States over the South China Sea reflect differing interpretations of relevant international laws and norms. Some speakers argued that the United States and its allies in the region are concerned that China’s definition of the nine-dash line and the claims it represents remain very ambiguous. They further pointed out that China and the United States disagree on UNCLOS provisions about freedom of navigation and what foreign naval activities are permissible within another country’s exclusive economic zones and claimed territorial waters. However, panelists observed that despite China’s stated interest in resolving disputes through peaceful resolution, consultations to conclude a multilateral code of conduct have made little progress. They proposed that serious, sustained discussion on the South China Sea at the highest levels of government would be required to identify opportunities to stabilize the situation in the South China Sea and eventually resolve these disagreements.
- Prospects for Managing South China Sea Disputes: Panelists acknowledged that there are tensions between China, other claimant countries, and the United States over the South China Sea, but they pointed out that peacefully settling the region’s maritime disputes is possible. One panelist observed that U.S. policymakers should pay closer attention to how China distinguishes between its claims to the Paracel Islands—which China has militarized and controlled for over four decades—and the Spratly Islands, where Beijing occupied maritime features later than other countries and has expressed openness to negotiations.
- Opportunities for Cooperation: Panelists stated that although tensions in the South China Sea have garnered widespread public attention, the U.S.-China relationship should not be defined only by the challenges it faces. Positive examples of cooperation on climate change, the nuclear deal with Iran, and UN Security Council sanctions against North Korea demonstrate that common interests can help ensure that U.S.-China ties remain constructive, speakers said. They were hopeful that jointly addressing shared policy concerns may lead to greater cooperation between China and the United States as well as multilateral institutions like ASEAN.
Paul Haenle
Paul Haenle is the director of the Carnegie–Tsinghua Center for Global Policy based at Tsinghua University in Beijing. Haenle’s research focuses on Chinese foreign policy and U.S.-China relations.
Chen Qi
Chen Qi is a resident scholar at the Carnegie–Tsinghua Center for Global Policy. An expert on U.S.-China relations, global governance, and China's foreign policy, Chen runs the Carnegie–Tsinghua Center’s U.S.-China Track II dialogue.
Douglas H. Paal
Douglas H. Paal is vice president for studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. He previously served as vice chairman of JPMorgan Chase International (2006-2008) and was an unofficial U.S. representative to Taiwan as director of the American Institute in Taiwan (2002-2006).
J. Stapleton Roy
Ambassador J. Stapleton Roy is a distinguished scholar and founding director emeritus of the Kissinger Institute on China and the United States at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington.
Wang Wenfeng
Wang Wenfeng is a senior researcher at the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations (CICIR) and chief editor of the publication Contemporary International Relations.
Yuan Peng
Yuan Peng, a research professor and doctoral adviser, is vice president of the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations (CICIR). His research focuses on American studies, Sino-U.S. relations, Asia-Pacific security, and China’s foreign policy.
Chen Qi
Resident Scholar , Carnegie-Tsinghua Center for Global Policy
Maturing China-EU Engagement: Opportunities and Challenges
Since China and the EU celebrated forty years of diplomatic ties last year, many of their latest overtures have focused on upgrading investment and trade cooperation.
Last year, China and the European Union (EU) celebrated forty years of diplomatic relations. The EU’s leading foreign policy official, Federica Mogherini, visited Beijing for the first time and advocated greater EU engagement in Asia. Meanwhile, Chinese President Xi Jinping traveled to the UK and also hosted state visits to China by German and French leaders. Much of this diplomatic activity focused on upgrading cooperation between China and Europe on investment and trade as a way to deepen their strategic partnership.
In an event hosted by the Carnegie–Tsinghua Center for Global Policy, panelists discussed the opportunities for, and obstacles to, forging greater China-Europe strategic cooperation to address shared security and development challenges. They reflected on the ways that disparate interests on both sides encourage and constrain coordinated responses to shared policy concerns, such as stable economic growth and global governance challenges. This panel was the third in the Carnegie Global Dialogue Series 2016 and was co-sponsored by the China Institute of International Studies.
Discussion Highlights
- Granting China Market Economy Status: Panelists agreed that the most important issue on the China-EU economic agenda is whether the EU will grant China market economy status (MES). Some speakers asserted that doing so may help counter growing protectionist sentiments in Europe. But others maintained that the overriding issue affecting China-EU economic ties is whether Europe would continue to apply antidumping duties to Chinese goods after China has been granted MES. One panelist identified the MES debate as one of the EU’s last bargaining chips and suggested that Brussels should make China’s economic status conditional on greater European access to China’s domestic markets.
- Competing Priorities and Differing Expectations: Panelists asserted that China and the EU are approaching their relationship in an overly reactive and asymmetric fashion in both economic and political terms. They mentioned that a major European concern is China’s lack of reciprocal openness to foreign investment, whereas China is eager to invest heavily in Europe and gain a greater foothold in European markets. Politically speaking, the European Union must account for its limited influence in Asia when forming foreign policy, while China foresees Europe playing an important role in the multipolar international system that Beijing envisions.
- Eurasian Connectivity and Trade: Panelists noted that trade is the most important aspect of China-EU relations, although there are geopolitical undertones to China’s economic engagement with Europe and countries along overland Eurasian trade routes. China’s One Belt, One Road (OBOR) strategy of funding infrastructure projects throughout Eurasia is indicative of this geographical shift, whereby China is committed to strengthening economic ties with partners beyond the Asia-Pacific, according to speakers. They acknowledged that the EU could engage more proactively with China’s long-term OBOR investment plans. But they also observed that Xi Jinping’s assertive foreign policy approach already has prompted countries like the UK, France, and Germany to deepen economic interactions with China, as demonstrated by their decisions to join the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.
- Europe as a Balancer: Speakers stated that a major foreign policy issue for Europe is how to navigate a middle ground between the policy preferences of China and the United States when differences between the two countries emerge. They pointed out that the United States remains Europe’s chief provider of security, while China is Europe’s largest trading partner. Panelists proposed that if the EU were to engage more substantially with Asia, it may be able to play a pivotal role by striking a balance between U.S. and Chinese interests in the region. One panelist highlighted the Paris climate change negotiations as a successful model of trilateral cooperative efforts, and suggested that China, the United States, and Europe should strive to approach other policy challenges with the same constructive mind-set.
- Reconciling Interests and Values: Panelists asserted that China and Europe should base their diplomatic agenda more on shared interests as a counterweight to the normative dimensions of the relationship. Speakers remained mindful that Europe’s economic interests in deepening trade and investment ties with China do not always fully align with the EU’s normative stances toward China, which Beijing sometimes see as potentially disruptive to diplomatic relations. Panelists agreed that both parties would need to make concerted efforts to reconcile these various objectives.
Paul Haenle
Paul Haenle is the director of the Carnegie–Tsinghua Center for Global Policy based at Tsinghua University in Beijing. Haenle’s research focuses on Chinese foreign policy and U.S.-China relations.
Cui Hongjian
Cui Hongjian is a senior research fellow and director of the Department of European Studies at the China Institute of International Studies (CIIS). His current research interests include practical forms of China-EU cooperation and China-EU trade relations.
François Godement
François Godement, an expert on Chinese and East Asian strategic and international affairs, is a nonresident senior associate in the Asia Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. His current research focuses on trends and debates in China’s foreign policy and on Europe-China relations.
Jin Ling
Jin Ling is an associate research fellow at the Chinese Institute for International Studies (CIIS). Her current research interests include the study of EU integration, European foreign policy, and China-EU relations.
Shi Zhiqin
Shi Zhiqin is a resident scholar at the Carnegie–Tsinghua Center for Global Policy, where he runs the China-EU Relations program and the China-NATO dialogue series. Shi is also professor and chancellor of the School of Social Sciences and dean of the Department of International Relations at Tsinghua University.
Jan Techau
Jan Techau is the director of Carnegie Europe, the European center of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Techau works on EU integration and foreign policy, transatlantic affairs, and German foreign and security policy.
Cui Hongjian
China’s Emerging Role in a Tumultuous Middle East
Instability in the Middle East remains widespread, but China continues to deepen its economic and diplomatic ties with the region.
The Syrian civil war shows few signs of ending and concerted efforts to counter the self-proclaimed Islamic State in Syria and Iraq have produced modest results. Civil and proxy wars have destabilized Libya and Yemen, and Egypt is experiencing a domestic insurgency. Instability in the Middle East remains widespread, but China continues to deepen its ties in the region. In January 2016, Xi Jinping embarked on his first state visit to the Middle East as president of China, just days after Beijing released its first-ever policy paper on the region.
At an event hosted by the Carnegie–Tsinghua Center, panelists assessed the prospects for restoring stability and prosperity to the Middle East after years of conflict, and the possible implications of China’s growing role in the region. They discussed how regional states and outside actors including China are positioned to effect positive change and what policy options are most likely to lead to more favorable outcomes. This panel was the final event in the Carnegie Global Dialogue Series 2016 and was co-sponsored by Peking University’s School of International Studies.
Discussion Highlights
- Locally Triggered Conflicts: Participants acknowledged that while many conflict zones in the Middle East share certain features, the chief concerns driving these conflicts are local. In particular, speakers noted that national demographic shifts and economic grievances across the Middle East have sparked radicalization and triggered instability. Focusing only on wide-angle issues like religious extremism may result in oversimplified analysis and ineffective policy recommendations, panelists cautioned.
- Economic Opportunity and Responsive Governance: Panelists identified several factors that are driving radicalization, such as limited economic opportunities, unresponsive governance, corruption, and political and social structures that are not inclusive. One speaker cited a Mercy Corps study, which posited that regional instability stems not so much from the actual shortage of economic and educational opportunities as it does from citizens’ keen awareness of how unevenly these public goods are distributed. Participants stated that resolving these issues will require policymakers to pay careful attention to the structure of the political and social institutions that are established after conflicts subside, or else instability may reoccur.
- The Islamic State as a Brand: Speakers noted that accurately understanding local conditions in the Middle East is essential to understanding the self-proclaimed Islamic State and other regional terrorist activities. Rather than viewing the Islamic State as a monolithic threat, panelists likened it to a franchise brand that diffuse local groups can affiliate themselves with to strengthen credibility and join a wider network. Speakers cited the Islamic State’s fundamentalist religious appeal as a key strength for this branding effort, but cautioned that it is not the sole one. They concluded that this network model more accurately depicts the decentralized, local nature of what has been misleadingly labelled as a single global terrorist movement.
- Risks of Outside Intervention: Panelists agreed that ill-timed or poorly-executed international intervention in the Middle East can potentially accelerate regional conflicts devolving into state failure. They pointed out that outside actors are struggling to find suitable regional allies against extremism. Speakers noted that the divergent objectives of regional actors can be counterproductive not only for resolving conflicts in a timely fashion but also for regional stability at large. If and when foreign intervention does occur, relevant actors must address the local root causes of conflict and consider carefully how post-intervention governance will be structured, panelists said.
- China’s Role in the Middle East: Given the risks of intervention, panelists asserted that China’s approach to the Middle East will continue to adhere to its stated policy of noninterference in the domestic affairs of other states. However, speakers saw Xi Jinping’s recent high-profile visit to the Middle East as an indication of China’s desire to help resolve the region’s problems. They predicted that China’s role for the foreseeable future will remain primarily economic and they cautioned that China should learn from other countries’ struggles to create projects that widely benefit as many local Middle Eastern communities as possible.
Paul Haenle
Paul Haenle is the director of the Carnegie–Tsinghua Center for Global Policy based at Tsinghua University in Beijing. Haenle’s research focuses on Chinese foreign policy and U.S.-China relations.
Michele Dunne
Michele Dunne is the director and a senior associate in Carnegie’s Middle East Program, where her research focuses on political and economic change in Arab countries, particularly Egypt, as well as U.S. policy in the Middle East.
Li Shaoxian
Li Shaoxian is the director of Ningxia University’s China-Arab Research Institute. He previously served as the deputy director of the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations.
Wang Suolao
Wang Suolao is an associate professor and the director of the Center for Middle East Studies in the School of International Studies at Peking University.
Frederic Wehrey
Frederic Wehrey is a senior associate in the Middle East Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Wu Bingbing
Wu Bingbing is an associate professor and deputy director of the Department of Arabic Language and Culture and director of the Institute of Arab-Islamic Culture at Peking University.
Michele Dunne
Nonresident Scholar, Middle East Program