Geo-strategic considerations in the present global affairs are of duel nature. On the one hand, geo-strategic factors still weigh heavily in the thoughts and actions of major power relations. On the other hand, the globalization and advancement of science and technology are making geo-strategic factors less decisive. Many new factors are acquiring more prominence in the strategy and policy planning. This essay is to analyze geo-strategy’s evolution and adaptation, to examine the strategic considerations in the relations between and among China, Europe as represented by the Europe Union (EU) [1] and the United States of America, to assess the Chinese new leadership’s geo-strategic concepts and practices, and to explore the possible ways from geo-strategy to omni-strategy.

1. BASIC FEATURES OF GEO-STRATEGY

China, Europe and the United States are interacting each other within the general framework of the global environment. Their geo-strategies are parts of their overall strategies. These three powers share the basic geo-strategic features but differ in some of the key elements and especially in how to implement their geo-strategies.

1.1. Definition and Connotation. Geo-strategy as political thoughts and military planning can be traced into the distant history. The Chinese Spring and Autumn-Warring State Periods (770-221B.C.) already saw the thriving of geo-strategic thoughts and actions. The first unification of China by the First Emperor Qin-Shi-Huang (221 B.C.) was partly attributed to his geo-strategic maneuvering. At about the same time, Herodotus (484-425 B.C.) in his book History described a clash of civilizations between the Egyptians, Persians, and Greeks. He believed that all of these were heavily influenced by the physical geographic setting.

Geo-strategic thinking and geo-strategists played important role in modern and contemporary international relations, such as Alfred Thayer Mahan’s “Sea Power Theory”, Halford J. Mackinder’s “Heartland Theory” and Karl Haushofer’s “Lebensraum Theory”. However, the above-mentioned are tainted by its colonial expansion and imperial dominance, especially by the Nazi Germany and Fascist Japan. This term was dropped after the WWII but revived in the Cold War years of the 1970s and onwards.

Nowadays, geo-strategy is a much used term in international relations and stresses the combined factors of strategic goals and geographic considerations. China takes itself as a point of departure to decide the geo-strategic importance in a number of concentric circles in either geographic or thematic orders. But the Chinese rejects the notion of Lebensraum completely and calls for community thinking and building.

Geo-strategy has many definitions. The Chinese and Western ones have one obvious difference. The Chinese generally holds geo-strategy is a more all-embracing one with its comprehensiveness, long term and righteousness. Chinese President Mr. Xi emphasizes that the basic tenet of diplomacy with neighbors is to treat them as friends and partners, to make them feel safe and to help them develop.[2] Many Westerners emphasize the military and political aspects of geo-strategy. Jakub J. Grygiel’s defined that geo-strategy describes where a state concentrates its efforts by projecting military power and directing diplomatic activity.[3] James Rogers and Luis Simón held that geo-strategy emphasizes on military control of key locations with the support of alliance system.[4] However, let us first examine geo-strategy on the mutually agreed parts of national interests and capabilities.

Geo-strategy is generally related to nation-states in its overall strategy making and policy planning in their external relations. National interests are the basis for all the three powers’ points of departures. It is relatively clearer and easier to understand what national interests mean to both China and the United States. However, the EU case is somewhat complicated. The EU interests are neither an assembly of its member states’ national interests nor the separate national interests of each and every member state. The EU is in the long transition from nation-states to a super-state. Even if and when it eventually completes its full integration process, the EU would still retain and contain many features of such a continental sized power as China, the United States or even Russia.

National capabilities are the main leverages that the three powers use to realize their overall goals. At present and in the future capabilities are comprehensive ones. China, the EU and the U.S. have different capabilities, which determine their respective geo-strategic goals. The U.S. has global ambitions while China and the EU mainly aim at the most related regions. This explains why China’s main geo-strategic goal is in the Asia-Pacific region and EU cares more about its neighboring area.

1.2. General Settings and Overall Strategies. Strategic thoughts of the three powers’ are complex and multi-dimensional. Important as it is, geo-strategy is only a part of a given overall strategy and must serve the latter. Therefore, it is important to understand the overall strategies of the three powers before we can have a better understanding of their geo-strategies. China’s overall strategy is to build up favorable and peaceful environments for its modernization and rejuvenation. The EU wants to maintain its major player’s role in the world through regional integration within and normative influence without. The United States works hard at retaining its leadership role in the world by all the means available. The three powers’ common denominator is to achieve their strategic goals by diplomatic negotiations to set up norms, rules and institutions.

General settings constitute a defining factor to determine any given actor’s overall strategy. Currently, the changing configuration of powers shapes the new environments for the world in general and China, Europe and the U.S. in particular. The three powers have both overlapping and conflicting strategic interests. China is the most important emerging power and a non-Western country. Europe and the U.S. jointly make up the bulk of the West. They belong to the world’s establishment and feel to be forced to share powers, rights and benefits with a rising China. Furthermore, China adheres to a political system and development path that is not only different from the West but also provides possible alternative to that of the West. In the bottom of their hearts, China and the trans-Atlantic alliance have deep strategic suspicions.

But the overall trilateral relationship between and among China, Europe and the U.S. is no longer a hostile one. China and the EU established comprehensive strategic partnership in 2003 and now are upgrading this strategic partnership onto a new height. China and the United States are committed to building out a New Model of Major Country Relationship (NMMCR). The NMMCR stresses on no confrontation or conflict, mutual respect and win-win cooperation. The United States and Europe are allies but their declared target is not China. Economic cooperation and diplomatic consultation constitute the main contents of these three sides. While recognizing principled differences do exist between China on the one side and the EU and the U.S. on the other, all of the three powers want to avoid fatal confrontations. Having learned great lessons through the two world wars and the dire consequences of the nuclear weapons, these three powers try to prevent the world from suffering such devastation again.

Moreover, China, Europe and the United States do not have effective mechanisms and institutions to translate their awareness into realities. Although the major European countries such as Germany, France and Britain prefer to have their own foreign strategies and policies, the European countries are generally interacting within the EU framework. Likewise, the Europeans and the Americans have close and institutionalized interactions within the trans-Atlantic alliance framework . The trans-Atlantic consultation and coordination are far more intensive and extensive than the Chinese-European and Chinese-American ones. In the foreseeable future, China, Europe and the U.S. will still not have an overarching framework governing various relations among and between themselves.

1.3. Neighbors and Strategic Linchpins. These two are the most important components of geo-strategic thoughts and planning. China, Europe and the United States all attach high importance to their neighboring areas and strategic linchpins in the world. China has made major powers and neighbors as its diplomatic strategy’s bi-foci. China now is the biggest trading partner with most of its neighbors and one of the most important members of various regional cooperation mechanisms. In 2013 the Chinese top leaders met almost all the leaders of its neighbors. The EU has made Russia and Mediterranean region on its top diplomatic priorities. The United States has further consolidated its relations with Canada and Mexico by the NAFTA. On the basis of strengthened neighboring relations, the three powers are proceeding to extended geographical proximities. For China, it attaches importance to neighbor’s neighbors, such as Cambodia and Turkmenistan. The EU pays particular attention to the Western Balkan region and established partnerships with the relevant six countries of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine. The United States is more global in its geo-strategic goals and extends itself from a Pacific country into an Asian-Pacific country and promotes the “Re-balancing Strategy”.

China, Europe and the U.S. have different geo-strategic linchpins. With different overseas interests, the three powers differ in their geo-strategic layouts and implementation. China is rapidly developing its overseas ties but lack of geo-strategic linchpins. Understandably, China wants to promote its friendly relations with those that are important to its resource supply, market, investment and people-to-people exchanges. European countries have traditional links with their former colonies with good networking in trade, investment, military, education and cultures. But to take the EU as a whole, Europe needs to have geo-strategic linchpins in a new sense. For instance, Europe has to gradually change its trailing the U.S. for geo-strategic thinking and find new strategic linchpins in the Asian Pacific Region. The United States has the most extensive and intensive geo-strategic linchpins in the world. However, with a waning budget, the United States has to contract in the Greater Middle East in order to enhance its presence and capabilities in the Asian Pacific Region.

2. MEETING THE NEW CHALLENGES

Geo-strategic thinking reached its hay days in the 19th and 20th Centuries with the military alliances, bloc confrontations and massive wars. However, at the times of political multi-polarization, economic globalization, cultural diversification and social informationization in the 21st Century, geo-strategic thinking and acting is undergoing a number of self-improvements.

2.1. Recognizing Drawbacks and Seeking for Self-Improvements. Excessive stress of geo-strategic factors is contradictory to the trending globalization and interdependence. By overemphasizing the geo-strategic factors, many have fallen into the traps of zero-sum game and doomed confrontation thinking. Geo-strategy sometimes leads to the opposite direction of regional political and security cooperation. Even such great a geostrategist as Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski, he is actually confined by his own thinking to call for a “larger and more vital West”.[5] Besides, Geo-strategy alone is far from sufficient to cope with present challenges, which has already been proved incapable to deal with most of the non-traditional threats such as international terrorism and climate changes, let alone the issues related to global commons. So the international community is searching for re-conceptualization and better policy implementation of geo-strategy. Some also try to bring in non-geo-strategic factors to adapt to the new situation.

2.2. Turning Exclusive Backyards into Inclusive Platforms. The world’s geo-strategic views are changing from where they usually start—the neighboring countries and areas. China, Europe and the United States all have strong ties with their neighbors. But in the new situation, the old geo-strategic thinking of excluding the others from the backyard can no longer hold. China has repeatedly stated that it respects the reality and will not challenge the American legitimate rights in the Asian Pacific region. In fact, China supports an open and exclusive regional cooperation and works with the United States at the East Asia Summit. As regards China’s increasing presence in Africa and West Hemisphere, Europe and the United States have also shown their pragmatism to accept the increasing Chinese presence.

2.3. Geographical Factor Proliferating into Other Fields. When geographic factor becomes less a physical barrier, it turns into new catalyst for the cross-breeding of contemporary international relations. The present world sees greater mixing-up of different kinds of factors such as geo-economy, geo-culture, geo-psychology and geo-ecology. Furthermore, these new concepts and realities of global affairs need more institutional regulation and governance, which in turn promote more transnational cooperation. This cycle of mutual re-enforcement is both enhancing and reducing geographic roles. As these take place in interdependent surroundings, they often call for solutions with transnational efforts, thus discarding “beggar-thy-neighbor” thinking.

2.4. Conceptual Changes towards Multi-Dimensional and Inter-Regional Direction. Foreign relations are closely interrelated with concepts. Sometimes pioneering concepts lead to new relations and sometimes new relations call for new concepts. These are both true in the case of geostrategies related to China, Europe and the United States. The Chinese President Xi Jinping put forward his new geo-strategic conceptby emphasizing that dealing with neighboring countries "should have a three-dimensional, multi-element perspective, beyond time and space".[6] The EU attaches great importance to comprehensive interaction with its Eastern and southern transitional or developing neighbors. The second term of President Obama’s administration tries to modify what the then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s overstressing on the military and security sides of the “Rebalancing Strategy” in the Asian Pacific region.

2.5. Not Only Interests but Also Values. Geo-strategy is a sub-school of realism which is based on power and interests. Historically, geographic proximity enabled same or similar civilizations, cultures and values to converge together. At present, civilizations, cultures and values are able to largely overcome physical and non-physical barriers and disseminate in a globe-wide way. Consequentially, international relations and global affairs nowadays see an increasing role of values. Common values have become a catchphrase to compete for commanding heights in international cooperation and competition. The Chinese government calls for putting forth the right approaches to upholding justice and seeking interests with a view to enhancing friendship and cooperation with neighboring countries and developing countries. [7] Although Europe and the United States still stress their different values with China, yet they have to admit that all the three powers do have the chance to expand shared value-building in meeting the challenges of our times.

3. TASKS FACING THE THREE POWERS

New changes, environments and tasks ask the international community to update their knowledge of, upgrade their understanding of and uplift their thinking of geo-strategies. Furthermore, the international community also needs to think and act beyond geo-strategies in order to meet the challenges of the present and future world. As China, Europe and the United States are three major actors in the world, they shoulder special responsibilities. Among the immediate and mid to long term objectives, the following three tasks stand out most prominently.

3.1. Converging on New Thinking and Guiding Principles. Given the pressing challenges of the world today, the three powers should work together on agreed principles to guide their relations each other and the international system in a more equal and justified direction. The three powers should discard the stereotyped thinking of major powers’ inevitable competition and build up new concepts of non-conflict/confrontation, mutual respect and win-win cooperation. In terms of relations between major powers and others, the three powers should give more considerations to the small and medium-sized countries as well as non-state actors. Power-politics and regime change by force are the ideas of the past. Only by agreeing on new norm-setting, can the three powers produce new ideas and new principles that go along with our times.

3.2. Agreeing on New Agendas, Rules and Institutions. Having set out new thinking and norms, China, Europe and the United States should spare no efforts in translating the ideas and concepts into realities. Especially the three powers should consult on the advancement of the inter- and trans-regional cooperation where they are involved. For instance, the three powers have not yet had coordination mechanisms on global and inter-regional economic cooperation mechanisms such as over the WTO, TPP and TTIP. More importantly, the three powers have little substantive efforts to work together for roadmaps and detailed steps to materialize their agreed principles.

3.3. Finding New Solutions to the Global and Hotspot issues. For world politics and economy, it is extremely important to solve the existing problems. Until very recently China was often absent on many important occasions. The United States and Europe are the main players of the Quartet on the Middle East Peace Process without China’s participation. The United States and NATO European members do not hold strategic consultation with China on Afghan issue. However, this situation is changing. One example is China’s leading role in the Six Party Talks on Korean nuclear issue. Another example is the Sextet Talks on the Iranian nuclear issue. With China’s mediations, the Sextet Talks moved out of stalemate several times. Looking into the future, the three powers should coordinate on the hotspot issues and global issues in a more systematic ways instead of ad hoc ones.

4. CHINA’S INNOVATIVE PRACTICES & THEORIES

The year of 2008 marked a turning point for China from a regional power to a global power. China’s grand strategy has since developed with global power’s characteristics. Against these backgrounds, the Chinese new leadership is pursuing for more innovation and creativity of geo-strategic practices and theories.

4.1. Drawing Lessons from the Traditional Wisdom. China has a rich history of geo-strategic thoughts and actions. Sun Tzu (545-470 B.C.) is the most outstanding representative of geo-strategists in Chinese ancient times. The Art of War, allegedly a compilation of his works, embraced geo-strategy, geo-tactics, geo-psychology, geo-diplomacy and geo-economics. Another famous classic entitled Strategies of the Warring States also included many geo-strategic thinking such as “befriending distant states while attacking those nearby”.[8] Even at that time, Chinese geo-strategy already included many other non-geographic factors. Confucius (551-479 B.C.) called for that “the near one pleases and the far one comes.” [9] Mencius (375-289 B.C.) believed that “situational chances are less important than geographic advantages which in turn are less than people’s unity”.[10] The ancient Chinese thoughts and practices show their dialectical values: while recognizing the geographic importance, geo-strategy embodies more than physical significance.

To meet the present challenges, the Chinese tries to make full use of the traditional wisdom adapted to the new realities. For instance, China revives the thousand-year-old Silk-Road by advocating for an Economic Community on both land and seas.

4.2. Geo-strategic Thinking and Major Power Relations. In the current Chinese diplomatic lexicons, major powers include the traditional powers, emerging powers and regional powers (middle powers). China takes Russia as the most important geo-strategic partner. China had had security pressures with its northern neighbors for thousands of years but now enjoys peaceful and active interactions along the thousands miles of borders with Russia. China and Russia jointly initiated in 1996 the Shanghai Five which developed into Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) in 2001. The SCO has played a big role in combating terrorism, secessionism, and religious extremism.

The Sino-U.S. relationship is another one of its most important bilateral relations. China and the United States do not border each other but have intertwining ties in many ways. There are always academic debates on whether good Sino-U.S. relations would hold the key to solve Chinese problems with its neighbors or improving relations with neighbors would help improve the Sino-U.S. relations. But no one would deny the importance of the Sino-U.S. relations. China and the United States mainly and closely interact each other in the Asian Pacific Region. Their relationship is both cooperative and competitive and has a heavy hue of geo-strategic thinking. The United States is reallocating its strategic resources around China and trying to set off latter’s increasing influence. The U.S. is also enhancing its relations with the countries that have disputes with China such as Japan, the Philippines and Vietnam.

China and Europe take each other as important global actors. They share greatly the views of globalization, multipolarity, multilateralism and global governance. Both China and EU want to enhance consultations on Africa, Central Asia, Latin America and the respective neighborhoods of the China and the EU. Besides, the two sides also want to reinforce cooperation in all relevant trans-regional and regional fora, in particular ASEM and the ARF. China supports the EU's participation in the East Asia Summit (EAS).[11]

Most of the regional powers (middle powers) are not China’s neighbors but they are increasingly important as China ascends rapidly and continuously. With the globalization and enhanced Chinese ties with the outside world, China needs strategic linchpins for China’s political, economic and security interactions with other countries. For instance, China needs the protection of its overseas citizens and investments, safety passage of trading routes, logistical supply for anti-piracy fleet and technical supports.

4.3. Integrating Considerations on Neighbors. China is a large country with dozens of neighbors with different strategic directions. At present, China faces its main challenges from the Eastern and Southeastern parts but enjoys relatively better neighboring relations with Russia and Central Asia in Northeastern direction. Therefore, the Chinese new leadership works out a geo-strategy of partnering Eurasia and coping with problems in the Asia-Pacific region.

On Eurasian cooperation, China tries to turn geo-strategic competition into geo-cooperation. President Xi Jinping proposed for building up an economic cooperation belt along the Silk Road from the Western China through Central and Russia and all the way to West Europe. At this initial stage, China needs to do a good job of conceptualization as well as matching-up with other proposals such as Russia’s Eurasia Community and U.S.’s Concept of New Silk Road. Besides, China is also working at Eurasia railroad and Northern Routes through the Arctic. In the long run, China also seeks for cooperative framework that embraces all the major actors.

On the Asian Pacific Regional issues, China tries to promote economic ties and multi-interconnectivity of infrastructures with those neighbors sharing borders as China has solved most of the boundary issues with those neighbors. Maritime disputes are related to core national interests, therefore cannot be solved immediately. China tries to maintain status quo by drawing a clear red line.

4.4. Interactions among China, Europe and the United States. These three powers are global ones. China borders neither Europe nor the U.S. However, China does have geo-strategic consideration with these two. On pairing with Europe and the United States, China strives for upgrading strategic partnership with Europe and NMMCR with the United States. In terms of strategic interaction, China focused on jointly making up the global trends of peace, development and win-win cooperation. Presently, China tries to work with Europe and the United States on the norms and mechanisms of contemporary international relations. Although the three sides all agree that they are the major players in the world, they have not yet reached the stage of strategic coordination as a trilateral entity. Therefore, they need to work out trilateral mechanisms so as to govern their relations in an institutional and coordinated way. As a first step, the three powers should start dialogue mechanisms on economic and political affairs as well as crisis managements.

5. From Geo-strategy to Omni-strategy

In the context of fast changing world, the international community in general and the three powers in particular should upgrading their geo-strategy to comprehensive strategy with both strategic visions and strategic patience in the blueprinting and implementing of their strategic goals.

Strategy embraces the meaning of long-term and systemic planning. Yet it is difficult to do so. The current political systems in most countries produce election-driven politicians rather than far-sighted statesmen. Therefore, most of the politicians are more concerned the immediate issues. To them, geo-strategy is more of convenience to analyze the developments and cultivate electoral support. But the necessity of strategic vision would eventually bring forth World-class statesmen and super strategists. They work at creating new concepts and theories of visions and guidance.

Great strategies are the product of great strategists. World class strategists should be brought from all parts of the world. For obvious reasons, most of the modern and contemporary geo-strategists are from Europe and the United States. However, the world is presently at a time characterized by more equally distributed hard and soft powers. Therefore, both the present changes and future needs make the strategists think in a global way.

Our strategic visions and goals should be as comprehensive as possible so as to fit into the one-world entity. No actors could think in a maximum embracing way, however, an interdependent international community can pool our wisdom and strength in the most possible way. To realize this lofty goal, the international community should work out norms, rules, regulations, laws, mechanisms and institutions that go towards more equality and justice. In terms of subjects and objects, the international community should use their imaginations in a wildest possible way. In a word, to cure the major problems and issues of our times, we should not stick to geo-strategy only but think with an omni-strategy.

While the strategic visions and goals should be far-sighted, the efforts and mentalities should be patient. As the Chinese old saying goes, take easy and get a good resolution (Shi-Huan-Ze-Yuan). When realizing that to fulfill such a great task will certainly take a prolonged and protracted process, all the parties concerned should overcome the modern disease of seeking quick success and instant benefits. After all, if we approach the trilateral relations among China, Europe and the United States in a timeline of hundreds of years instead of hundreds of days, we are certain to yield better achievements.

---