Some thoughts on the issue of transparency in building trust between China and Europe

Editor’s note: This article is is intended to be read alongside “Rethinking nuclear transparency: a European model for engaging China.”

Transparency is an institutionalized mechanism that emerged primarily in the realm of arms control and disarmament. The implementation of military transparency is governed by international treaties and national regulations regarding the disclosure of domestic information. Military transparency is an essential element of confidence-building measures. In fact, such measures have long been a secondary aspect of arms control and disarmament negotiations.

The two world wars served as the backdrop for the establishment of the military transparency framework among European nations. Military transparency not only forms the cornerstone but also represents a crucial element of the confidence-building measures countries can undertake. This framework, which began to take shape during the two world wars, was institutionalized over that period. Subsequently, during the Cold-War era, it was refined into a more sophisticated form.

The historical development of military transparency reveals that world powers have typically been both the proponents of this concept and the formulators of rules in this domain. Firstly, transparency represents a common practice that has gained the endorsement of most developed countries. Secondly, it is also evident that transparency serves as a tool for stronger countries to deter weaker ones or to restrain potential adversaries.

Since the end of the Cold War, the international security landscape has undergone substantial transformation. As a result, the practice of military transparency has gradually extended beyond the realm of arms control to encompass broader aspects of military-to-military contacts and cooperation. Moreover, it has been increasingly embraced by a growing number of countries.

Based on shared ideological traditions and practical experience, experts from China and Europe have both agreement and divergence in their understanding of transparency. Chinese experts place greater emphasis on the impact of state-to-state relations on transparency, arguing that the balance of military capabilities constitutes a key determinant of transparency—with stronger parties being more inclined to embrace transparency. They attach importance to the relativity of transparency, stressing that transparency of intentions outweighs transparency of capabilities. It is also held that transparency and mutual trust are mutually reinforcing, and there is no mandatory or uniform standard for transparency.

Chinese perspectives on transparency are subtly shaped by the nation’s cultural heritage, with the concept of trust lying at its core. This notion of trust encompasses three dimensions: First, self-confidence. The Chinese nation has long upheld the values of good faith, amity, and peace; it refrains from flaunting military prowess and will never resort to armed intimidation against other countries. As a nation that honors its commitments, China has full confidence in its own practices of transparency, always ensuring that its words are matched by decisive actions.

Second, mutual trust. China maintains that transparency is underpinned by strategic or security-based mutual trust, which differs fundamentally from the institutionalized frameworks favored by European countries (such as confidence-building measures). Instead, it prioritizes trust rooted in shared perceptions and national security imperatives.

Third, historical experience. Having experienced both glorious eras and a century of colonial subjugation and aggression in modern history, the Chinese people have developed a strong sense of national self-esteem and a profound commitment to safeguarding national independence, reunification, and freedom from external interference or infringement. This historical legacy fosters a naturally defensive posture when it comes to transparency, particularly in the military domain.

Despite the divergent views between China and Europe, the two sides can expand common ground and enhance mutual understanding of their respective perspectives through exchanges of academic viewpoints and practical experience. To build trust in the current global security situation, China and the EU should focus on the transparency of strategic intentions, both through dialogue among experts and in high-level defense and security discussions. These talks would allow European countries and China to communicate strategic intentions in depth, to inform each other after major adjustments of defense policies, and to provide advance information on major military activities. China and European countries could also foster mutual trust by collaborating on the transparency of military capabilities via reciprocal visits to military facilities and opportunities to observe each other’s military exercises.

China-EU consensus on and practice of transparency. In the contemporary era, the international security landscape is characterized by complexity and rapid change. Enhancing transparency within the military and security domains is of paramount importance for fostering mutual trust among nations.

There is a general consensus among Chinese and European scholars that acknowledges the positive role of transparency in international relations. They also share similar perspectives on the essence of transparency and the fundamental approaches to achieving it. This consensus includes three major points of agreement.

First, transparency is not just a process but also an institutionalized arrangement. Its purpose is to alleviate international tension and enhance mutual trust in the security sphere. Transparency also serves as a crucial tool for strengthening state-to-state relations. Countries have the option to make information about their military intentions, capabilities, and actions public. This can be done through unilateral voluntary disclosures, or via bilateral or multilateral arrangements between specific countries. There is a common consensus that transparency plays a vital and positive role in averting misunderstandings and misjudgments, thereby helping to avoid conflicts and confrontations.

Second, absolute transparency does not exist; it has its own boundaries and limitations. Chinese experts have their own understanding of the relativity of transparency. They believe that national sovereignty, security interests, and the realities of international politics dictate that military information cannot be fully disclosed, and no country can achieve absolute transparency. They hold the view that the nature of inter-country relations, the disparities of military power, and the international political environment, all influence the parameters of transparency. Countries with good bilateral relations are more likely to increase transparency in security matters. In contrast, countries with strained relations tend to reduce mutual transparency. And countries with superior military capabilities often display a higher degree of transparency as a means of deterring opponents. Conversely, countries with relatively weaker military strength are more inclined to exercise prudent control over security information. Moreover, the international community typically has high expectations for transparency during peacetime, while these expectations may decline when the international situation becomes tense.

Third, specific measures of military transparency can contribute to enhancing security among countries. A range of actions, including the issuance of security or military policy statements, the strengthening of military personnel exchanges, the public disclosure or exchange of military information, and the conduct of observation and inspection activities are all common means to increase transparency and build mutual trust. These actions play a significant role in elaborating on a country’s strategic plans and military developments, clarifying its military stance and its intent of effectively managing crises. In turn, they foster communication and mutual understanding among military personnel.

The practice of transparency to date. Confidence-building measures in Europe started with the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) and finally solidified after three conferences in Helsinki, Stockholm, and Vienna. European countries have successfully established a standardized military transparency system that encompasses the entire European continent. This system exhibits the following distinct characteristics: First, it places a strong emphasis on institutionalized transparency measures and strict adherence to relevant rules and procedures to ensure the orderly implementation of these measures. Second, it is tailored to the specific security situation in Europe, taking full account of regional realities by considering the geographical, political, and military disparities across the region. The longstanding European practice in military transparency has accumulated valuable experience that can be beneficial to the militaries of other countries.

China’s pursuit of military transparency commenced relatively late. However, as China’s understanding of the significance of transparency has continuously deepened, it has become increasingly proactive in implementing transparency-related practices. These practices are multifaceted. First, China has released policy-related documents, including 10 editions of national defense white papers, which serve as important channels for the international community to understand China’s national defense policies and military strategies.

Second, China has made institutional arrangements to enhance transparency, establishing a spokesperson system for the Ministry of National Defense and various military services and also launching a Ministry of National Defense website. These platforms promote communication between the Chinese military and the public, both at home and abroad.

In addition, China has strengthened military-to-military communication and crisis management. It has established defense hot-lines with Russia, the United States, and Vietnam, as well as an operational hot-line with the South Korean military. These hot-lines play an important role in preventing misunderstandings, managing potential crises, and promoting military trust among relevant countries. Furthermore, China has actively participated in the international arms control, disarmament, and non-proliferation regime. To date, China has acceded to 25 major international treaties in this regard, including the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).

Transparency issues that Chinese and EU experts should further discuss. Influenced by historical, cultural, and contemporary factors, China and European countries hold both common understandings and differences in regard to the concept of transparency.

European and Chinese views differ in terms of relative transparency and absolute transparency.

Chinese scholars assert that military transparency is not an absolute concept but a relative one, with defined boundaries that should not be crossed. First, they believe, absolute transparency is an unattainable goal. Fundamentally, no nation can achieve complete military transparency. National sovereignty is a sacred and inviolable principle, and safeguarding national security interests stands as the core requirement of every country. At the same time, the practical logic of international politics dictates that military information cannot be disclosed without restraint.

Second, Chinese experts assert, the nature of the relationship between countries—whether cooperative, confrontational, or somewhere in between—significantly affects the level of military transparency that is appropriate. When two countries have a cooperative relationship, both sides are likely to proactively increase military transparency. Conversely, if the relationship between two countries is confrontational, both sides will tend to limit the scope of military information disclosure out of concern for their own security.

Third, the relative military strength of countries matters. When there is a substantial gap in military power between two countries, the country with superior military capabilities may choose to display a higher degree of military transparency in certain military domains. However, countries with relatively weaker military strength will undoubtedly adopt a cautious stance towards the disclosure of military information.

Fourth, the international political environment has an impact on transparency. In an era where peace and development are the prevailing trends, the international community generally has high expectations for military transparency. If the international situation becomes tense and geopolitical conflicts intensify, however, the security pressure on countries will rise sharply, and security anxiety will spread rapidly. At such times, to ensure their own safety, countries often opt to reduce military transparency.

There is also a difference between European and Chinese views on transparency and mutual trust. European experts commonly assert that transparency serves as the cornerstone of and prerequisite for mutual trust among countries. In the military realm, this concept is reflected in the adoption of confidence building measures. According to this perspective, without a certain level of transparency, it would be difficult for countries to engage in military cooperation. When a nation proactively implements military transparency measures, especially when it is willing to disclose information regarding its military capabilities, this gesture is seen as an indication of the country’s aspiration to establish a trusted relationship. It also serves as a crucial sign that the country has no aggressive intentions, thereby dispelling potentially untrue speculations from the outside world about its military might.

On the other hand, Chinese experts contend that transparency and mutual trust are mutually complementary—but mutual trust is the fundamental element. The achievement of military transparency must be based on a certain degree of mutual trust and should never come at the cost of a country’s core security interests. Particularly, in the view of Chinese experts, when a country views another as an adversary, a potential adversary, or as a systematic or pacing challenge, it is obviously challenging for both sides to exhibit a high level of transparency and engage in substantial negotiations related to confidence building measures.

Chinese and European experts differ on a third issue: the transparency of intentions versus the transparency of military capabilities.

European experts tend to hold the view that transparency regarding military capabilities take precedence over that of military intentions. They consider military intentions to be changeable and unreliable, while military capabilities are relatively stable, more trustworthy, and to a large extent, determinative of a nation’s actions and policies. This perspective may overlook the concerns of countries with relatively weaker military strength. These countries worry that disclosing their military capabilities might undermine their own security interests.

Chinese experts emphasize the great significance of transparency in military intentions and policies. Although military intentions and capabilities are complementary, under most circumstances, transparency of intentions holds greater importance in the Chinese view. The Chinese military has always demonstrated a higher degree of military transparency to countries with close relations. And China’s adherence to the “no first use of nuclear weapons” policy serves as a prime example, demonstrating transparency in both nuclear-related intentions and capabilities.

At the same time, the Chinese military fully acknowledges the role of transparency of capabilities in enhancing mutual trust among nations. On the premise that its core security interests are not compromised, China is actively taking various measures to be more transparent in its military capabilities.

A fourth difference in views involves binding versus voluntary transparency measures.

During the Cold War, the two major blocs led by the United States and the former Soviet Union faced a situation of low political trust and intense military confrontation. In this context, they stressed the establishment of a military transparency regime through binding transparency measures, including verification and enforcement mechanisms. European countries, for their part, implemented institutionalized transparency measures that were explicitly mandatory and binding.

After the Cold War, Asian countries have managed to maintain a relative equilibrium between binding transparency and voluntary transparency. For instance, countries belonging to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations have voluntarily adopted transparency measures. And China holds the view that each country should adopt differentiated transparency measures and set its priorities according to its own military strength, military scale, strategic objectives, and security environment.

Building transparency and confidence-building measures between China and Europe. China has always believed that Europe is a key pole in a multipolar world, and that China and European countries should be partners. China is dedicated to deepening strategic communication and mutually beneficial cooperation with the EU and collaborating to contribute to global peace and stability. In this process, broadening confidence-building measures between China and the EU and taking concrete actions to enhance mutual transparency can play a positive role. The following steps pertaining to transparency would be highly worthwhile:

1) Different international security development contexts—such as periods of peace and stability and those marked by frequent geopolitical conflicts—impose completely different requirements and have distinct impacts on transparency. China and the EU may jointly conduct research on how to define and promote transparency in a flexible and reasonable manner under the current global security situation.

China and the EU could also profitably engage in discussions on how to strike a balance between safeguarding their own security interests and making headway in enhancing transparency. This balance-seeking is crucial for enhancing mutual trust and improving bilateral relations. And within the frameworks of their respective defense policies and military strategies, China and the EU may want to explore how to accurately and appropriately demonstrate military transparency to each other. This exploration is necessary to avoid misunderstandings arising from differences in strategic thinking.

2) In view of the current status of China-EU relations, it is feasible and practical to focus on the transparency of strategic intentions in the foreseeable future. The two sides may consider institutionalizing track 2 dialogues on confidence building measures, with transparency as a topic for discussion, and can also embed this topic into high-level defense and security dialogues to communicate strategic intentions in depth, and timely inform each other after major adjustments of defense and military policies, so as to help the other party to correctly understand the goals and intentions of those policies, and the two sides may also inform each other of respective major military activities to avoid misperceptions.

3) Recognizing that the transparency of military capabilities is an essential component of overall military transparency, China and European countries can collaborate to gradually forge a broader consensus on military capabilities transparency. For instance, reciprocal visits to military facilities provide service members from both sides with opportunities to gain in-depth knowledge of each other. Similarly, observing each other’s military exercises can undoubtedly bolster mutual trust. Academic exchanges, which are less sensitive, may provide some help.

The arrangements just described not only have the potential to enhance military transparency for both China and the EU but also contribute to the establishment of China-EU confidence-building measures and thereby play a positive role in fostering a more stable China-EU strategic partnership.