The European Union’s aim of holding more decisive, constructive summits with strategic partners will stand its first test on 17 December, when High Representative for Foreign Affairs Catherine Ashton presents three reports on progress in the relationships with three key third countries. In documents seen by Europolitics, she outlines the next practical steps for each relationship but also paints a vivid picture of a happy union with Washington DC, a marriage of convenience with Beijing and a complex, but potentially productive, partnership with Russia.

CHINA

Ashton presents the relationship with China as one of necessity, stating starkly that “in the age of globalisation neither the EU nor China can maintain sustainable prosperity without the other”. She acknowledges serious challenges, saying “the present relationship falls some way short of its potential”. Her assessment that the relationship needs to develop “on the understanding that partnership involves rights as well as duties” hints at the determination within the EU that it must stand firm on its key priorities, most notably on trade, despite Beijing’s new-found economic power.

Ashton acknowledges that China still has extensive poverty and needs rapid economic growth for its population, concluding that “securing these goals against impediments from the outside – real or perceived – will remain the cornerstone of China’s foreign policy”. She also acknowledges areas of common interest, such as development and international security, but repeatedly returns to trade as the dominant challenge. “Our relationship is often dominated by periodic tensions over trade and economic issues,” she explains, specifying conflicts over intellectual property rights, government procurement and the Chinese currency.

UNITED STATES

If the Chinese paper has the weakly optimistic tone of a relationship counseling session, the United States report is written closer to the ebullient style of a marriage proposal. Starting enthusiastically “our relationship with the US is unlike any other,” Ashton happily details the two sides’ historical closeness and speculates on a long and productive future relationship. “It is difficult for either to find another partner that is closer in terms of core values and interests and that has more resources to bring to the partnership,” Ashton reports before suggesting the relationship develop on multiple fronts, starting with energy, cyber security, development and crisis management. Ashton also reports that the US “appreciated” her efforts on global issues since taking office, including her participation in the Middle East peace process, leading the recent nuclear talks with Iran and overseeing Serbia’s recognition of Kosovo. As a result, she proposes that the EU-US collaborative relationship “go global” more often. Acknowledging the increasing number of demands on the US overseas, Ashton concludes that “simply put, the US needs help to achieve its global objectives” and proposes the EU fills this gap as much as possible.

RUSSIA

Unlike the two other papers, the EU’s strategy on Russia focuses predominantly on the need to “act in concert”. In many cases in the past, the EU’s leverage was reduced by the individual, self-interested approach to Moscow by certain member states. Ashton warns that failure to put an end to this phenomenon “risks fostering perceptions of internal contradictions within the EU, which external partners will understandably seek to exploit, including by not honouring commitments”. She calls for greater consistency in two dimensions: between the EU and member states’ policies, and across the various strands of EU policies. “To get the maximum impact, we need trust and transparency among each other and in working with the EEAS,” says the paper. On a more practical note, it urges the improvement in exchange of information and a systematic use of agreed EU positions in contacts between member states and Russia. The strategy criticises the current “rather narrow, compartmentalised” way of dealing with Russia in certain fields, proposing instead “a more joined-up approach”.