The strategist’s dilemma: Global dynamic density and the making of US ‘China policy’

Meijer, Hugo; Jensen, Benjamin

doi:10.1017/eis.2017.17

Cited by 7 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…8 In either case, the existence or non-existence of a grand strategy would not affect the argument, which is that the U.S. does not link the two strategic layers. Meijer and Jensen's (2018) work on contemporary grand strategies provides several alternative explanations for why an interlinkage might not have happened. The authors mention that 'growing volume, velocity, and diversity of interactions within international societyalters states' strategy formation processes' (1).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Linking cyber strategy with grand strategy: the case of the United States

Weber

2018

Journal of Cyber Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this article is to study whether U.S. cyber strategy is integrated into U.S. grand strategy. In consideration of cyber strategy documents, three case studies and elite interviews find that a link between the two strategic layers is largely missing. Even though U.S. cyber strategy documents contain higher political goals, they do not meet other criteria that indicate links to a grand strategy. Those are a unified list of geopolitical challenges, a balance of ends and means, the integration of military, economic and political means, and the provision of a strategic narrative. Thereby, the documents leave the articulation of grand strategy at the initial stages and do not develop it further. The lack of grand strategy in cyberspace is also visible in U.S. tactical behaviour. The three chosen case studies show that the various U.S. military, economic and political actions taking place under the Obama administration were isolated from each other. Hence, they failed to create a combined impact greater than the sum of their separate effects. This study fills the demonstrated gap in U.S. strategy and concludes by presenting a cyber strategy that is integrated into U.S. grand strategy. ARTICLE HISTORY

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Linking cyber strategy with grand strategy: the case of the United States

Weber

2018

Journal of Cyber Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, from the Chinese side, bilateral relations to distinct EU member states play a more profound role than region-to-state relations-in politics as in research. With the US' changing international role, a shift can be detected away from prioritizing US-Sino relations towards exploring possibilities and constraints for cooperation within the Sino-EU Partnership (Gabriel and Schmelcher 2017;Ross et al 2010;Meijer and Jensen 2018).…”

Section: Existing Cleavages In Eu-china Research: Breaking the Dichotomymentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond dichotomy?

Gurol

2020

Z Politikwiss

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

J. Gurol the conceptual implications of the state of art and points towards possible future avenues for research. 2 Empirical shortcomings in EU-China research While a lot has been written about EU-China economic affairs, their relationship in the security realm is a controversial and highly debated, yet under-researched issue. Taken that few world regions are under such scrutiny in current global politics as the EU and China, this is surprising. Albeit in very different manners, the two actors form central pillars of international politics, not only because they account for one third of global trade, but also because they represent a decisive axis in the current world order, as rightly pointed to by Shambaugh (D. Shambaugh 2005). Despite diverging political principles of interstate and region-to-state relations, including state sovereignty, territorial integrity, and intervention policies, the EU and China have developed solid and recurrent interactions in a variety of policy fields. These range from people-to-people, social and cultural contacts, over economic negotiations to foreign and security policy. In doing so, they have substantially institutionalized their relations over time (Christiansen et al. 2019). Although the main drivers of EU-China relations remain of an economic kind, meaning primarily concerns with trade, investment and intellectual property issues (Kirchner et al. 2015; Huotari et al. 2017), the security dimension of their relationship has become more significant over time. It has by now developed into a vital pillar of EU-China relations. With respect to the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership (CSP) of 2003, and the Strategic Agenda for Cooperation of 2013, China and the EU have expressed the will to coordinate their foreign and security policy matters. Moreover, under the framework of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) they agreed to align their security policies to create a "secure and stable environment from China to Europe, including Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and Syria" (Schweisgut 2015). The expansion of EU-China security relations over time and concerning the array of security issues is an interesting and puzzling phenomenon. Although economic matters still dominate the EU-China agenda, the security domain is all but tenuous (Kirchner et al. 2015), not only because of the deepening economy-security nexus but also because of the rise of transnational security challenges like climate and energy security, maritime security or food security that equally affect the EU and China. Yet, for decades, EU-China security cooperation has been hindered by contradicting principles of foreign and security policymaking (D. L. Shambaugh et al. 2008). Although these principles are still adhered today and lead to increasing political frictions, the intensity and scope of EU-China security cooperation have widened over time. Within an overall relationship dominated by increasing mistrust and political tensions, this is interesting to look at. Despite this fact, the security domain of EU-China relations has ...

show abstract

“…Without doubt, these circumstances are proliferating across the world, due to their growing intensity, velocity and diversity within an era of power diffusion, ushering in a status quo of instability. 1 The impact has called into question states’ strategies and their ability if not their culpability in coping with the emerging stresses when interacting with these two leviathans [ 71 ]: 211. Although the Asia-Pacific region canalizes scholarly attention as the primary theatre for this rivalry, shifting power dynamics have entrapped a plethora of European states within the wider scope of the Washington-Beijing clash [ 84 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%