Summary: Geo-strategic consid-

erations in present-day global

affairs are of a dual nature. On
one hand, geo-strategic factors
still weigh heavily in the thoughts
and actions of major powers.
On the other hand, globalization
and the advancement of science
and technology are making geo-
strategic factors less decisive
in national capitals. Many new
factors are acquiring more prom-
inence in strategy and policy
planning. This essay analyzes
the evolution and adaptation of
geo-strategic thought; examines
strategic considerations in the
relations between China, Europe,
as represented by the European
Union, and the United States;
assesses the new Chinese lead-
erships geo-strategic concepts
and practices; and explores
possible ways of moving from
geo-strategy to omni-strategy.
Stockholm China Forum
Paper Series
From Geo-Strategy to Omni-Strategy:
Interactions between China, Europe,
and the United States
By Yang Jiemian
1744 R Street NW
Washington, DC 20009
T 1 202 683 2650
F 1 202 265 1662
E info@gmfus.org
February 2014
The Basic Features of Geo-Strategy
China, Europe, and the United States
interact with each other within the
general framework of the global envi-
ronment, but while these three powers
share basic geo-strategic features, they
difer in some key elements, especially
with regards to the implementation of
their geo-strategies.
Defnitions and Connotations
Te concept of geo-strategy has long
been central to political and military
strategy. Chinese geo-strategic thought
thrived during the Chinese Spring
and Autumn-Warring State Periods
(770-221 B.C.), ultimately culminating
in the frst unifcation of China, which
has been attributed to Emperor Qin-
Shi-Huangs geo-strategic maneu-
vering (221 B.C.). At around the same
time, Herodotus (484-425 B.C.) in
his book History described a clash of
civilizations between the Egyptians,
Persians, and Greeks as heavily infu-
enced by the physical geographic
setting.
Millennia later, geo-strategic thinking
and geo-strategists continue to play an
important role in modern and contem-
porary international relations. Alfred
Tayer Mahans Sea Power Teory,
Halford J. Mackinders Heartland
Teory, and Karl Haushofers Leben-
sraum Teory were all written in
the context of colonial expansion and
imperial dominance, especially by Nazi
Germany and Fascist Japan. While
the term Lebensraum was dropped
afer World War II, it saw a revival in
the Cold War years of the 1970s and
onwards.
Nowadays, geo-strategy is an ofen-
used term in international relations,
stressing the combined factors of
strategic goals and geographic consid-
erations. China considers itself to be
a point of departure from which the
geo-strategic importance of geographic
or thematic factors is determined. But
the Chinese reject the notion of Leben-
sraum completely and instead call for
community thinking and building.
Chinese and Western defnitions of
geo-strategy have one obvious difer-
ence. Te Chinese view geo-strategy
as comprehensive, long term, and
righteous. Chinese President Xi
Jinping 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
2
Stockholm China Forum
Paper Series
them develop.
1
Many Westerners emphasize the military
and political aspects of geo-strategy. Jakub J. Grygiel defnes
geo-strategy as a situation in which a state concentrates its
eforts by projecting military power and directing diplo-
matic activity.
2
James Rogers and Luis Simn hold that
geo-strategy focuses on the military control of key locations
with the support of an alliance system.
3
While defnitions of
geo-strategy may vary, all agree on the centrality of national
interests and capabilities.
National interests serve as the basis for geo-strategy in the
United States, Europe, and China. It is relatively clearer
and easier to understand what national interests mean to
both China and the United States. However, the case of the
European Union is somewhat complicated. EU interests are
neither the aggregate of its member states national inter-
ests nor the separate national interests of each individual
member state. Te European Union is in the midst of a
long transition from a collection of nation-states to a single
super-state. If and when it eventually completes its inte-
gration process, the European Union would have features
in common with other continental-sized powers such as
China, the United States, or even Russia.
National capabilities are the main resources that the three
powers use to realize their overall goals. At present, those
capabilities are comprehensive. China, the European Union,
and the United States have diferent capabilities, which
determine their respective geo-strategic goals. Te United
States has global ambitions while China and the EU mainly
focus on their immediate regions. Tis explains why Chinas
main geo-strategic goal is in the Asia-Pacifc region while
the European Union cares more about its neighboring area.
Context and Overall Strategies
Strategic thinking of the three powers is complex and
multi-dimensional. Important as it is, geo-strategy is only
a component of (and functions in service of) an overall
strategy. As a result, it is important to understand the
overall strategies of the three powers if we are to have a
better understanding of their geo-strategies. Chinas overall
strategy is to build up favorable and peaceful environments
1 Xi Jinping, China to further friendly relations with neighboring countries, Beijing, Oct.
25, 2013 (Xinhua).
2 Jakub J. Grygiel, Great Powers and Geopolitical Change, Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins
University Press. p. 23.
3 James Rogers and Luis Simn, Think Again: European Geostrategy (March 14, 2010),
http://europeangeostrategy.ideasoneurope.eu/2010/03/14/think-again-european-
geostrategy/
for its modernization and rejuvenation. Te European
Union wants to maintain its role as a major player in the
world through regional integration within and normative
infuence without. Te United States works hard to retain
its leadership role in the world by all means available. Te
common denominator of the three powers is a desire to
achieve strategic goals through diplomatic negotiations to
establish norms, rules, and institutions.
Context is a defning factor in determining any given actors
overall strategy. Te changing confguration of power is
creating a new global environment, which is particularly
consequential for China, Europe, and the United States.
Te three powers have both overlapping and conficting
strategic interests. China is the most important emerging
power and a non-Western country. Europe and the United
States jointly make up the bulk of the West. Tey belong to
the worlds establishment and feel forced to share power,
rights, and benefts with a rising China. Furthermore, China
adheres to a political system and development path that is
not only diferent from that of the West but also provides a
possible alternative. Deep-rooted strategic suspicion exists
between China and the transatlantic allies.
Despite the tensions, the overall trilateral relationship
between and among China, Europe, and the United States
is no longer characterized by hostility. China and the
European Union established a comprehensive strategic
partnership in 2003 and are in process of upgrading this
partnership. China and the United States are committed
to building a New Model of Major Country Relation-
ship (NMMCR). Te NMMCR stresses the importance
of avoiding confrontation or confict and instead building
mutual respect and cooperating on a win-win basis. Te
United States and Europe are allies but their declared
Despite the tensions, the overall
trilateral relationship between
and among China, Europe, and
the United States is no longer
characterized by hostility.
3
Stockholm China Forum
Paper Series
target is not China. Te main substance of the relationship
between the three parties is economic cooperation and
diplomatic consultation. While recognizing that principled
diferences do exist between China on one side and the
European Union and the United States on the other, all
three powers are committed to avoiding fatal confronta-
tion. Te world has learned from two world wars and the
dire consequences of the use of nuclear weapons. China, the
United States, and Europe will work to prevent the world
from sufering such devastation again.
However, China, Europe, and the United States do not have
efective mechanisms and institutions in place to help trans-
late this awareness into reality. Although the major Euro-
pean countries such as Germany, France, and Britain prefer
to have their own foreign strategies and policies, European
countries generally interact within the EU framework. Like-
wise, Europe and the United States have institutionalized
their interactions within the framework of the transatlantic
alliance. Transatlantic consultation and coordination is far
more intensive and extensive than that between China and
Europe or China and the United States. For the foreseeable
future, China, Europe, and the United States will continue
to operate without an overarching framework to govern
their relationships.
Neighbors and Strategic Linchpins
Neighbors and other countries that act as global strategic
linchpins are two of the most important components of
geo-strategic thinking and planning. China has made major
powers and neighbors the double foci of its diplomatic
strategy. China is now the biggest trading partner for most
of its neighbors and one of the most important members
of a number of regional cooperation mechanisms. In 2013,
Chinese leaders met with almost all the leaders in its neigh-
borhood. Te European Union has made Russia and the
Mediterranean region top diplomatic priorities. Te United
States has further consolidated its relations with Canada
and Mexico with NAFTA. On the basis of strengthened
neighboring relations, the three powers are now moving to
extended geographical spheres. China additionally attaches
importance to the neighbors of its neighbors, such as
Cambodia and Turkmenistan. Te European Union pays
particular attention to the Western Balkan region and has
established partnerships with Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus,
Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine. Te United States is more
global in its geo-strategic goals and has expanded from
being a Pacifc country into an Asia-Pacifc country through
its rebalancing strategy.
With diferent overseas interests, China, Europe, and the
United States difer in their geo-strategic layouts and imple-
mentation. China is rapidly developing its overseas ties
but lacks geo-strategic linchpins. China wants to promote
friendly relations with those who are important to its
resource supply, market, investment, and people-to-people
exchanges. European countries have links with former
colonies with signifcant networks in the areas of trade,
investment, defense, education, and culture. Te European
Union as a whole needs to see geo-strategic linchpins in a
new light. Europe needs to step out of the shadow of U.S.
geo-strategic thinking and fnd new strategic linchpins in
the Asia-Pacifc region. Te United States has the most
extensive and intensive geo-strategic linchpins in the world.
However, with a waning budget, the United States has to
share responsibility in the Greater Middle East in order to
allow it to enhance its presence and capabilities in the Asia-
Pacifc.
Meeting New Challegnes
Geo-strategic thinking had its heyday in the 19
th
and 20
th

centuries with military alliances, bloc confrontations, and
war. However, the political multi-polarization, economic
globalization, cultural diversifcation, and social informa-
tionization of the 21
st
century have caused geo-strategic
thinking to undergo a number of improvements.
Recognizing Drawbacks and Looking for Improvement
An insistence on geo-strategic considerations is contradic-
tory to the trends of globalization and interdependence. By
overemphasizing geo-strategic factors, many have fallen
into the traps of the zero-sum game and confrontation-
Transatlantic consultation and
coordination is far more intensive
and extensive than that between
China and Europe or China and
the United States.
4
Stockholm China Forum
Paper Series
focused thinking. Even well-respected geo-strategists,
such as Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski, remain confned by their
own thinking and call for a larger and more vital West.
4

Geo-strategy alone is an insufcient means of coping with
present challenges, and has already been proved irrelevant
to most of the non-traditional threats such as international
terrorism and climate change. As a result, the international
community is in search of a re-conceptualization and better
policy implementation of geo-strategy.
Turning Exclusive Backyards into Inclusive Platforms
Te worlds geo-strategic views are shifing from their
traditional points of departure: neighboring countries and
areas. China, Europe, and the United States all have strong
ties with their neighbors, but in the current context, the
old geo-strategic thinking of excluding others from ones
backyard can no longer hold. China has repeatedly stated
that it respects the current reality and will not challenge
legitimate U.S. rights in the Asia-Pacifc region. Instead,
China supports open and inclusive regional cooperation
and works with the United States at the East Asia Summit.
Europe and the United States have also demonstrated their
pragmatism and accepted the increased Chinese presence in
Africa and the Western Hemisphere.
Geographical Factors Interacting with Other Fields
At present, the world sees an increasing inter-relationship
between diferent factors such as geo-economy, geo-culture,
geo-psychology, and geo-ecology. Tese new concepts and
4 Zbigniew Brzezinski, Strategic Vision: America and the Crisis of Global Powers, Basic
Books, 2012.
realities in global afairs will need more institutional regula-
tion and governance, which will in turn promote more
transnational cooperation. Tis cycle of mutual reenforce-
ment will both improve and reduce the role of geographic
factors. Te challenges the world faces today take place
in inter-dependent surroundings, and thus ofen call for
solutions with transnational eforts, which will undermine
beggar-thy-neighbor thinking.
Conceptual Changes Toward a 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. Tese
are both true in the case of geo-strategy related to China,
Europe, and the United States. Te new geo-strategic
concept put forward by Chinese President Xi Jinping
emphasized that dealing with neighboring countries
should have a three-dimensional, multi-element perspec-
tive, beyond time and space.
5
Te European Union attaches
great importance to comprehensive interaction with its
eastern and southern transitional or developing neigh-
bors. In its second term, the Obama administration has
attempted to readjust the focus set by Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton on the military and security aspects of the
rebalancing strategy in the Asia-Pacifc region.
Not Only Interests But Also Values
Geo-strategy is a sub-school of realism, which is based
on power and interests. Historically, geographic prox-
imity enabled similar civilizations, cultures, and values
to converge. At present, civilizations, cultures, and values
are largely able to overcome physical and non-physical
barriers. Consequently, international relations and global
afairs have seen values take an increasingly central role.
Shared values has become a catchphrase in the competi-
tion for commanding heights in international cooperation
and competition. Te Chinese government calls for putting
forth the right approaches to upholding justice and seeking
interests with a view to enhancing friendship and coopera-
tion with neighboring and developing countries.
6
Although
Europe and the United States still stress diferences in values
with China, the three powers have a chance to expand
5 Xi Jinping, China to further friendly relations with neighboring countries, Beijing, Oct.
25, 2013 (Xinhua).
6 Yang Jiechi, Innovations in Chinas Diplomatic Theory and Practice Under New Condi-
tions, August 16, 2013, http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/zxxx/t1066869.shtml
Geo-strategy alone is an
insuffcient means of coping with
present challenges, and has
already been proved irrelevant to
most of the non-traditional threats
such as international terrorism
and climate change.
5
Stockholm China Forum
Paper Series
shared value-building in order to meet the challenges of our
times.
The U.S.-Europe-China To-Do List
New challenges, environments, and tasks require that the
international community update its knowledge of, upgrade
its understanding of, and improve its thinking of geo-
strategy. Te international community will need to think
and act beyond geo-strategy in order to meet the challenges
of the present and future world. As the three major actors
in the world, China, Europe, and the United States shoulder
special responsibilities. Among the immediate and mid to
long-term objectives, three tasks stand out most promi-
nently.
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 with each other and within the international
system in a more equal and fair direction. Te three powers
should discard the simplistic thinking that major powers
must inevitably compete and instead create new concepts
of non-confict/confrontation, mutual respect, and win-win
cooperation. In terms of relations between major powers
and others, the three powers should give more consider-
ation to the interests of small and medium-sized countries
as well as non-state actors. Power-politics and regime
change by force are ideas of the past. Only by agreeing on
new norm setting can the three powers produce new ideas
and new principles to match with the needs of our times.
Agreeing on a New Agenda, Rules, and Institutions
Having set out new thinking and norms, China, Europe,
and the United States should spare no efort in translating
these ideas and concepts into realities. Te three powers
should especially consult on pushing forward inter- and
trans-regional cooperation. For instance, the three powers
have not yet agreed to work together on global and inter-
regional economic cooperation mechanisms such as the
WTO, TPP, and TTIP. More importantly, the three powers
have made few substantive eforts to work together to create
roadmaps, and nor have they discussed detailed steps to
ensure that agreed principles materialize.
Finding New Solutions to Global and Hotspot Issues
Until very recently, China has ofen been absent from many
important foreign policy discussions. Te United States
and Europe are the main players in the Quartet on the
Middle East Peace Process, without Chinas participation.
Te United States and European members of NATO do
not hold strategic consultations with China on Afghani-
stan. However, this situation is changing. China has played
a leading role in the Six Party Talks on the North Korean
nuclear issue as well as in the Sextet Talks on the Iranian
nuclear issue. With Chinas 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 way instead of
on an ad hoc basis.
Chinas Innovative Practices & Theories
2008 marked a turning point for China from regional to
global power. Chinas grand strategy has since taken on
global power characteristics. Against this backdrop, the new
Chinese leadership is pursuing more innovative and creative
geo-strategic practices and theories.
Drawing Lessons from Traditional Wisdom
China has a rich history of geo-strategic thinking. Sun Tzu
(545-470 B.C.) is the most outstanding representative of
geo-strategists in Chinese ancient times. Te Art of War,
a compilation of his works, embraced geo-strategy, geo-
tactics, geo-psychology, geo-diplomacy, and geo-economics.
Another classic entitled Strategies of the Warring States
also included geo-strategic thinking such as befriending
distant states while attacking those nearby.
7
Even at that
time, Chinese geo-strategy included non-geographic
factors. Confucius (551-479 B.C.) suggests that the near
one pleases and the far one comes.
8
Mencius (375-289 B.C.)
believed that situational chances are less important than
7 Liu Xiang (77-6 B.C.) (ed.), Zhan Guo Ce (Strategies of the Warring States) Qin Ce III.
8 Confucius, The AnalectsZilu.
The international community will
need to think and act beyond
geo-strategy in order to meet the
challenges of the present and
future world.
6
Stockholm China Forum
Paper Series
geographic advantages, which in turn are less than peoples
unity.
9
Ancient Chinese thought and practices show
their dialectical values: while recognizing the geographic
importance, geo-strategy embodies more than just physical
signifcance.
To meet the present challenges, China has tried to make full
use of the traditional wisdom, adapted to the new realities.
China is, for instance, reviving the thousand-year-old Silk
Road by advocating for an economic community on both
land and seas.
Geo-strategic Thinking and Major Power Relations
In the current Chinese diplomatic lexicon, major powers
include the traditional powers, emerging powers, and
regional powers (middle powers). China sees Russia as its
most important geo-strategic partner. China had security
pressures with its northern neighbors for thousands of years
but now enjoys peaceful and active interactions along the
thousands miles of border with Russia. China and Russia
jointly initiated the Shanghai Five in 1996, which developed
into the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) in
2001. Te SCO has played a big role in combating terrorism,
secessionism, and religious extremism.
Te Sino-U.S. relationship is another of Chinas most impor-
tant bilateral relationships. While China and the United
States do not share borders, they do have intertwining ties
in many ways. Tere is an ongoing academic debate about
whether good Sino-U.S. relations hold the key to solving
Chinese problems with its neighbors, or if improving rela-
tions with neighbors would help improve Sino-U.S. rela-
tions, but none deny the importance of Sino-U.S. relations.
Te interactions between China and the United States have
been mostly focused on the Asia-Pacifc. Te Sino-U.S.
relationship is both cooperative and competitive, with a
heavy dose of geo-strategic thinking. Te United States
is reallocating its strategic resources around China in an
efort to ofset its increasing infuence. Te United States has
also invested in its relationships with countries that have
9 Mencius, MenciusGongsun Chou II.
disputes with China such as Japan, the Philippines, and
Vietnam.
China and Europe see each other as important global actors,
sharing in their support for globalization, multipolarity,
multilateralism, and global governance. Both China and the
European Union want to enhance consultations on Africa,
Central Asia, Latin America, and their respective neighbor-
hoods. In addition, the two sides want to reinforce coop-
eration in all relevant trans-regional and regional fora, in
particular at ASEM and the ARF. China supports the Euro-
pean Unions participation in the East Asia Summit (EAS).
10
Although most of the worlds middle powers are not neigh-
bors of China, their importance to Chinas interests will
continue to increase as China continues to rise. In the
context of globalization and a growing Chinese presence in
the world, China will increasingly need strategic linchpins
in its political, economic, and security interactions with
other countries. For instance, the protection of its overseas
citizens and investments, safe passage of trading routes, and
logistical supplies and technical support for its anti-piracy
feet have taken on a new level of importance in Beijings
thinking about its international relationships.
Integrating the Considerations of Neighbors
China is a large country with dozens of neighbors, each
with diferent strategic directions. At present, China faces
its main challenges from its east and southeast but it enjoys
relatively good relations with Russia and Central Asia in
the northwest. As a result, the Chinas new leadership has
developed a geo-strategy based on partnership in Eurasia,
and coping with problems in the Asia-Pacifc.
On Eurasian cooperation, China is trying to transform
geo-strategic competition into geo-cooperation. President
Xi Jinping proposed the creation of an economic coopera-
tion belt along the Silk Road from western China through
Central Asia and Russia and all the way to Western Europe.
At this initial stage, China will need to focus on conceptual-
izing the project and making sure that it complements other
proposals such as Russias Eurasian Community and the
United States concept of New Silk Road. In addition, China
is working on a Eurasian railroad and on northern routes
through the Arctic. In the long run, China would like to see
10 China-EU 2020 Strategic Agenda for Cooperation released at 16th China-EU Summit
(November 23, 2013), http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/zxxx/t1101804.shtml
China sees Russia as its most
important geo-strategic partner.
7
Stockholm China Forum
Paper Series
the creation of a cooperative framework that embraces all of
the major actors.
On the Asia-Pacifc regional issues, China has tried to
promote economic ties and interconnectivity of infrastruc-
tures with those with whom it shares land borders, as those
disputes have mostly been resolved. Because maritime
disputes are related to core national interests, they cannot
be solved immediately. China tries to maintain the status
quo by drawing a clear red line.
From Geo-Strategy to Omni-Strategy
In the context of a changing world, the international
community and the United States, Europe, and China in
particular will need to upgrade its conception of geo-
strategy to one that is more comprehensive. Both strategic
vision and strategic patience will be needed to create blue-
print for cooperation that can help facilitate the implemen-
tation of strategic goals.
Strategy embraces long-term and systemic planning an
approach that is ofen difcult to take. Te political systems
in most countries produce election-driven politicians
rather than far-sighted statesmen. As a result, most of the
worlds leaders are more concerned with immediate issues.
To them, geo-strategy is seen more as a tool for analyzing
developments and cultivating electoral support. But great
strategies are the product of great strategists. Although
the world is currently characterized by equally distributed
hard and sof powers, most contemporary geo-strategists
are from Europe and the United States. Present and future
challenges will require globally minded strategists and the
inclusion of strategic talent from around the world.
Our strategic visions and goals should be as comprehen-
sive as possible on order to realize the one-world ideal. No
single actor can think in a way that embraces everything,
however an interdependent international community could
pool its wisdom and strength. To realize this lofy goal, the
international community should work out norms, rules,
regulations, laws, mechanisms, and institutions that go
toward more equality and justice. In terms of subjects and
objectives, the international community will need to use its
imagination in the wildest possible way. In short, to cure the
major ills and issues of our times, we should not stick only
to geo-strategy but think with an omni-strategy.
About the Author
Yang Jiemian is the president emeritus at the Shanghai Institutes for
International Studies (SIIS).
About the Stockholm China Forum
Tis is part of a series of papers informing and informed by discus-
sions at the Stockholm China Forum. Te Stockholm China Forum is
an initiative of the German Marshall Fund, the Swedish Ministry for
Foreign Afairs and the Riksbankens Jubileumsfond. It brings together
policymakers, intellectuals, journalists, and businesspeople from
Europe, the United States, and Asia on a biannual basis for an ongoing
and systematic dialogue to assess the impact of Chinas rise and its
implications for European and U.S. foreign, economic, and security
policy.
About GMF
Te German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMF) strengthens
transatlantic cooperation on regional, national, and global challenges
and opportunities in the spirit of the Marshall Plan. GMF does this by
supporting individuals and institutions working in the transatlantic
sphere, by convening leaders and members of the policy and business
communities, by contributing research and analysis on transatlantic
topics, and by providing exchange opportunities to foster renewed
commitment to the transatlantic relationship. In addition, GMF
supports a number of initiatives to strengthen democracies. Founded
in 1972 as a non-partisan, non-proft organization through a gif from
Germany as a permanent memorial to Marshall Plan assistance, GMF
maintains a strong presence on both sides of the Atlantic. In addition
to its headquarters in Washington, DC, GMF has ofces in Berlin,
Paris, Brussels, Belgrade, Ankara, Bucharest, Warsaw, and Tunis. GMF
also has smaller representations in Bratislava, Turin, and Stockholm.
While the strategic visions and goals should be far-sighted,
the eforts and mentalities should be patient. As the old
Chinese old saying goes, take it easy and get a good resolu-
tion (Shi-Huan-Ze-Yuan). Understanding that fulflling
such an ambitious task will require a prolonged and
protracted process, all the parties concerned should over-
come the modern disease of seeking quick success and
instant benefts. If we approach the trilateral relationship
between China, Europe, and the United States with a time-
line of hundreds of years instead of hundreds of days, we are
certain to yield better achievements.