Seven Years of The 16+1: An Assessment of China’s ‘Multilateral Bilateralism’ in Central Europe
Since mid-2012, in the wake of the global financial crisis, China has sought to reinvigorate relations with Central and Eastern Europe (CEE), notably through the creation of the 16+1 formula.
After seven years of existence, and in the context of growing concerns about China’s assertiveness, deepening US-China rivalry, and the EU’s more cautious engagement with the PRC, the time is right to assess the effectiveness of this formula as seen both from the Chinese and CEE perspectives. The 16+1 is another example of China-led multilateralism, which is an indispensable element of PRC foreign policy. This paper aims to assess the rationales, evolution and results of the 16+1 format, but also to imagine the future development of this formula.
The three main Chinese rationales behind this format are economic, political and normative. For the CEE, the reasons for taking part in this initiative were to find new export markets and sources of investment. Taking into account the fact that the Western EU – the main economic partner for the CEE – was seriously hit by the financial crisis, the decision to open up new channels for contact with China was reasonable. But not less important were political rationales, such as catching up on relations with China as a rising global power and in that sense upgrading the CEE’s political position in Europe and within the EU.
The 16+1 has evolved as a result of CEE and EU pressure, but also because of China’s changing political motivations. In this sense, the formula is rather dynamic. Among new features of the 16+1 are the processes of “EU-ization”, stronger bilateralism, loose institutionalization, and CEE attempts to make the format less China-centric. Among other changes are China-led endeavors that suggest the possibility of enlarging the formula (e.g. recent rumors about including Greece), expand its flexibility, multiply lower-level formulas and areas of cooperation, and also use the 16+1 as a political tool for furthering China’s (but also the CEE’s) interests. Both China and the CEE have proven eager to upgrade or downgrade the relevance of the 16+1 due to their own particular interests at a particular moment.
Results of the 16+1 to date have been both positive and negative as seen from China and the CEE. It seems apparent that the 16+1 has led to more political and normative results than economic ones. Indeed, economic outcomes mostly involve a trade surplus for China, which means an expanding deficit on the CEE side, and relatively insignificant Chinese investments in the region, with a small exception for the non-EU CEE members. When it comes to political and normative achievements, a positive outcome for China is the fact that the 16+1 was set up and functions normally, including examples of CEE countries that might be described as China’s political friends (e.g. Serbia and Hungary). China has become a significant player in Europe thanks to this format. While this could be assessed as a positive outcome for CEE countries that have managed to strengthen their relations with China, it also raises concerns about China’s increasing assertiveness. These concerns have given rise to doubts within the EU about this formula and the PRC’s role in CEE, but also a lack of willingness among CEE countries to institutionalize the 16+1 on the European side. Normative achievements that should be considered include political ‘slogans’ and initiatives that have been added to the 16+1 agenda. Among these are the Chinese-led Belt & Road Initiative (BRI) or connectivity, and the CEE-led Three Seas Initiative or Eastern Partnership.
This paper concludes by assessing the future prospects of the 16+1. Bearing in mind the rising global concerns about China, including increasing US-China rivalry in Europe but also the EU’s more cautious approach to China and some 16+1 countries’ disappointment with this formula (especially Poland), the PRC is unlikely to seek an augmented role for the 16+1. What China is (and will be) trying to do is to improve relations with the EU and placate Brussels in the midst of the disputes with the US. In this sense, the profile of the 16+1 will likely be kept low so as to avoid inflaming concerns in Brussels and Western Europe. Rumors about Greece’s accession to the formula, if proven true at the Dubrovnik summit on 11-12 April 2019, might be promoted as the result of a Greek initiative (which vindicates the 16+1 relevance) and a consensus reached by all participants, but not as a Chinese attempt to divide Europe. At the same time, the format could be used by China to convince CEE countries not only to avoid decoupling with China but also to improve China’s image and gather support for Chinese-led initiatives. It seems that this is the reason why the next 16+1 summit is scheduled in April 2019 (this time in Dubrovnik, Croatia, where an EU-funded bridge is being built by a Chinese company, a project that will be presented as a success story of the 16+1 and EU-China relations), a few days after the EU-China summit (9 April) and just before the second international BRI forum, to be held in Beijing at the end of April.
Justyna Szczudlik is Head of the Asia-Pacific Program (since 2016) and China analyst (since 2009) at the Polish Institute of International Affairs (PISM).
Download the full analysis
This page contains only a summary of our work. If you would like to have access to all the information from our research on the subject, you can download the full version in PDF format.
Seven Years of The 16+1: An Assessment of China’s ‘Multilateral Bilateralism’ in Central Europe
Author(s)
Related centers and programs
Discover our other research centers and programs
Center for Asian Studies
Asia is a nerve center for multiple global economic, political and security challenges. The Center for Asian Studies provides documented expertise and a platform for discussion on Asian issues to accompany decision makers and explain and contextualize developments in the region for the sake of a larger public dialogue.
The Center's research is organized along two major axes: relations between Asia's major powers and the rest of the world; and internal economic and social dynamics of Asian countries. The Center's research focuses primarily on China, Japan, India, Taiwan and the Indo-Pacific, but also covers Southeast Asia, the Korean peninsula and the Pacific Islands.
The Centre for Asian Studies maintains close institutional links with counterpart research institutes in Europe and Asia, and its researchers regularly carry out fieldwork in the region.
The Center organizes closed-door roundtables, expert-level seminars and a number of public events, including an Annual Conference, that welcome experts from Asia, Europe and the United States. The work of Center’s researchers, as well as that of their partners, is regularly published in the Center’s electronic journal Asie.Visions.
Find out more
Discover all our analyses
Taiwan’s Rising Space Program: Building Up Industry, Supporting National Security
Taiwan, known for its leadership in semiconductors and information and communications technology (ICT), is now making significant strides in the space industry. While historically modest, Taiwan’s space program has seen a transformation since 2020, driven by President Tsai Ing-wen’s commitment to expanding the country’s space capabilities. Key milestones include the passage of the Space Development Act and the creation of the Taiwan Space Agency (TASA), which has bolstered the resources and visibility of Taiwan’s space ambitions.
AI and Technical Standardization in China and the EU: Diverging priorities and the need for common ground
Given the highly disruptive potential of AI, global cooperation on AI safety and governance is imperative, and yet the deeply transformational potential of AI also ensures that a high level of competition and systemic rivalry is likely unavoidable. How can the EU best manage its complex relationship with China in the field of AI so as to ensure a necessary level of cooperation in spite of competition and rivalry?
China’s Quest for a Quantum Leap
The global race to harness quantum science is intensifying. Recognizing the strategic potential of quantum technology for economic, military, and scientific advancement, China is focusing on quantum breakthroughs as a way to shift the balance of power, especially in its competition with the United States. President Xi Jinping has emphasized the importance of scientific innovation, particularly in quantum fields, to fuel national development and ensure security.
Taiwan's Energy Supply: The Achilles Heel of National Security
Making Taiwan a “dead island” through “a blockade” and “disruption of energy supplies” leading to an “economic collapse.” This is how Colonel Zhang Chi of the People’s Liberation Army and professor at the National Defense University in Beijing described the objective of the Chinese military exercises in May 2024, following the inauguration of Taiwan’s new president, Lai Ching-te. Similar to the exercises that took place after Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taipei in August 2022, China designated exercise zones facing Taiwan’s main ports, effectively simulating a military embargo on Taiwan. These maneuvers illustrate Beijing’s growing pressure on the island, which it aims to conquer, and push Taiwan to question its resilience capacity.