Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Chinese network diplomacy as a challenge for transatlantic partners

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Asia Europe Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

For decades, a prevailing view has been that a very limited number of global issues can be resolved without the USA and European Union acting together. But in recent years, we have seen a growing body of scholarship addressing the question of the ‘diffusion of power’, ‘the rise of the rest’ or ‘global zero’. With the financial crisis, questionable foreign policy choices and growing global competition from other international actors, both in terms of trade and ideas, the idea of the Western domination is increasingly questioned. At the same time, many international actors, including the European Union, are increasingly shifting—or ‘rebalancing’—their attention towards China and other Asian markets introducing new dynamics to old alliances and relationships. Borrowing from the network analysis scholarship, this paper looks at the EU relationship with China through a conceptual lens of ‘network power’ and ‘network diplomacy’. It applies this analytical lens to investigate the implications of EU–China relations for (1) the relations with the USA, (2) the relations with the ASEAN and (3) the effects of the trilateral EU–China–US cooperation on the region.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Figures 1 and 2 are used only as an illustration to demonstrate the breadth and the intensity of connections existing in the Asia Pacific. An in-depth methodological discussion is beyond the scope of this paper. It is worth mentioning however that both figures have been created using UCINET and NetDraw software.

References

  • Agneessens F, Waege H, Lievens J (2006) Diversity in social support by role relations. Soc Networks 28(4):437–441

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bower EZ (2012) China reveals its hand on ASEAN in Phnom Penh, 19 July 2012, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington, D.C.

  • Bower EZ, Poling G (2012) Advancing the national interests of the United States: ratification of the Law of the Sea, 25 May 2012, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington, D.C.

  • Brass DJ, Burkhardt ME (1992) Centrality and power in organizations. In: Nohria N, Eccles R (eds) Networks and organizations: structure, form and action. Harvard Business School Press, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Camroux D, Pawlak P (2012) Trajectories of regional integration in the Asia Pacific. In: Pawlak P (ed) Look East, Act East: transatlantic agendas in the Asia Pacific, Report No. 13, EU Institute for Security Studies, Paris, pp 31–37

  • Casarini N (2013) Brussels–Beijing: changing the game? Report No. 14, EU Institute for Security Studies, Paris

  • Cronin PM, Kaplan RD (2012) Cooperation from strength: U.S. strategy and the South China Sea. In: Cronin, PM Cooperation from strength: the United States, China and the South China Sea, January 2012, Center for a New American Security, Washington, D.C., pp 5–31

  • Defense Security Service (2012) Targeting U.S. technologies 2012: a trend analysis of reporting from defence industry, 29 November 2012

  • Deng Y, Moore T (2004) China’s view of globalisation: toward new great-power politics? Wash Q 27(3):115–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Union (2013) Defending national interests, preventing conflict. Speech delivered by High Representative Catherine Ashton at the Shangri-La Dialogue, Singapore, 1 June 2013

  • Gnyawali DR, Madhavan R (2001) Cooperative networks and competitive dynamics: A structural embeddedness perspective. Acad Manag Rev 26(3):431–445

    Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter MS (1973) The strength of weak ties. Am J Sociol 78(6):1360–1380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter MS (1985) Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. Am J Sociol 91(3):481–510

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gulati R, Nohria N, Zaheer A (2000) Strategic networks. Strateg Manag J 21(3):203–215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ibarra H (1992) Homophily and differential returns: sex differences in network structure and access in an advertising firm. Adm Sci Q 37(3):422–447

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inkster N (2013) Chinese intelligence in the cyber age. Survival 55(1):45–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International Institute for Strategic Studies (2010) Remarks by Heli Tiirmaa-Klaar at the 8th IISS Global Strategic Review Global security governance and the emerging distribution of power, 12 September 2010

  • Jones C, Hesterly WS, Borgatti SP (1997) A general theory of network governance: exchange conditions and social mechanisms. Acad Manag Rev 22(4):911–945

    Google Scholar 

  • Klimburg A (2013) The Internet Yalta, Commentary, 5 February 2013, Center for a New American Security, Washington, D.C.

  • Krackhardt D (1992) The strength of strong ties. In: Nohria N, Eccles R (eds) Networks and organizations: structure, form and action. Harvard Business School Press, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Krekel B, Bakos G, Barnett C (2009) Capability of the People’s Republic of China to conduct cyber warfare and computer network exploitation. Report prepared by the Northrop Grumman Corporation for the US–China Economic and Security Review Commission, 9 October 2009

  • Louch H (2000) Personal network integration: transitivity and homophily in strong-tie relations. Soc Networks 22(1):45–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mcevily B, Perrone V, Zaheer A (2003) Trust as an organising principle. Organ Sci 14(1):91–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mcpherson JM, Smith-Lovin L, Cook JM (2001) Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks. Annu Rev Sociol 27(1):415–444

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nakashima E (2012) U.S. refuses to back U.N. treaty, saying it endorses restricting the Internet. The Washington Post, 13 December 2012

  • National Intelligence Council (2008) Global trends 2025: a transformed world. National Intelligence Council, Washington, D.C

    Google Scholar 

  • Nayyar PR, Bantel KA (1994) Competitive agility: a source of competitive advantage based on speed and variety. Adv Strateg Manag 10(1):193–222

    Google Scholar 

  • Nye JS (2005) The rise of China’s soft power. Wall Street Journal Asia, 29 December 2005

  • Panetta L, Dempsey ME (2012) Remarks by Secretary Panetta and Gen. Dempsey at a Forum on the Law of the Sea Convention, 9 May 2012, U.S. Department of Defence, Washington D.C.

  • Pawlak P (2013) Networks in transatlantic homeland security cooperation: from a metaphor to an analytical tool. Working paper no. 5, January 2013, Center for European Union Research, Central European University, Budapest

  • Pollack J (2012) China’s rise and US strategy in Asia. In: Pawlak, P (ed). Look east, act east: transatlantic agendas in the Asia Pacific. Report no. 13, EU Institute for Security Studies, Paris, pp 51–58

  • Riley M, Lawrence D (2012) Hackers linked to China’s army seen from EU to DC. Bloomberg, 26 July 2012

  • Ring PS, Van De Ven AH (1992) Structuring cooperative relationships between organizations. Strateg Manag J 7(13):483–498

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers E (1995) Diffusion of innovations. Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogin J (2012) NSA Chief: cybercrime constitutes the “greatest transfer of wealth in history”. The Cable blog, Foreign Policy.com, 9 July 2012

  • Slaughter AM (2004) A new world order. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith KG, Grimm CM (1991) A communication–information model of competitive response timing. J Manag 17(1):5–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone D (2002) Policy paradox. The art of political decision making. W. W. Norton & Company, New York

  • Taylor Fravel M (2012) China’s island strategy: “Redefine the status quo”. The Diplomat, 1 November 2012

  • The White House (2013) The United States and the Asia-Pacific in 2013, Remarks by Tom Donilon, National Security Advisor to the President. The Asia Society, New York, 11 March 2013

    Google Scholar 

  • US Department of State (2012) US–EU statement on the Asia-Pacific Region, 12 July 2012

  • Valente TW (1995) Network models of the diffusion of innovations. Hampton Press, Cresskill

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaughn B (2007) U.S. strategic and defence relationships in the Asia-Pacific region, 22 January 2007, Congressional Research Service, Washington, D.C.

  • Wasserman S, Faust K (1994) Social network analysis: methods and applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Yahuda M (2012) China’s recent relations with maritime neighbours. Int Spectator 47(2):30–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yue Jones T (2013) China says willing to discuss cyber security with US. Reuters, 12 March 2013

Download references

Disclaimer

The views expressed here are those of the author and should not be attributed to the EUISS.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. European Union Institute for Security Studies, Paris, France

    Patryk Pawlak

Authors
  1. Patryk Pawlak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Patryk Pawlak.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pawlak, P. Chinese network diplomacy as a challenge for transatlantic partners. Asia Eur J 12, 95–108 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10308-014-0370-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10308-014-0370-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation