I wrote, in the wake of the shameful Chinese performance in Copenhagen, about China, Climate and Trade. A couple of days after that post, there was an excellent analysis in the “FT” and I wrote a letter to the editor, alas unpublished. Here’s the letter now:
Geoff Dyer rightly wonders “…whether China’s political system is compatible with the international respect it craves.” (Beijing’s push for soft power runs up against hard absolutes – Jan. 4.) The High Panjandrums of the CCP may think so, but it’s past time for the liberal democracies to spell it out: Closed political systems, aka police states, should not be given full access to the hard-won benefits of the international system until they are willing to play by the rules. The Chinese broke nearly all the rules in Copenhagen, and they have been brazen in their own defense when called on it by Gordon Brown and others. One of the reasons they get away with murder in China – literally and figuratively – when it comes to environmental protection and public health is because civil society is non-existent or neutered. I quoted John Ikenberry recently in this regard: China “… faces a Western-centered system that is open, integrated, and rule-based, with wide and deep political foundations.” We simply have to remember, don’t we, that there are rules and China does not get a free pass. I also quoted Christopher Patten to the effect that when we do give them a free pass “…it encourages China to think that it can become part of the modern world entirely on its own terms.” Thus, this can well “…make the world a more dangerous and less prosperous place.”
Here is another excellent recent analysis about China from the “FT” – Full circle by James Kynge. He asks some pretty probing and important questions, among them “…how can an international system created under Pax Americana to serve the interests of the west accommodate a rising giant that is set to remain different in almost every aspect – politics, values, history, natural endowments and per capita wealth – from the incumbent ruling order?”
Kynge quotes James Mann, a former Beijing bureau chief for the “LA Times” from his 2007 book, The China Fantasy: “America hasn’t thought much about what it might mean for the United States and the rest of the world to have a repressive, one-party state in China three decades from now because it is widely assumed that China is destined for a political liberalisation, leading eventually to democracy.” (This is an assumption that I used to share, but now, for the most part, disavow.)
John Ikenberry, in this brilliant essay at “Foreign Affairs” two years ago, says, however, that “The rise of China does not have to trigger a wrenching hegemonic transition.” It is in China’s best interests, he asserts, for them to play by the rules.
Whatever the future holds for China, the shape of its internal politics, and its relationship to the rest of the world, it’s incumbent on us now to take some blinders off. Kynge notes “During the Copenhagen negotiations, China allied itself with some 77 developing countries to resist a legally binding treaty on climate change and opposed a mechanism of independent inspections that was intended to confirm emission control targets were being met. Frustration with China’s role was clear both during the summit and in comments by western participants afterwards. As a senior official from one developed country put it: ‘China cannot be allowed to appropriate the developing world like this again.'” They’ve been doing that for many years on human rights, in case you hadn’t noticed.
To add insult to injury, China’s most senior negotiator on climate change now says that we should keep “…an open mind on whether global warming was man-made or the result of natural cycles.” Damn the avalanche of science which, not incidentally, the Chinese Academy of Sciences has fully endorsed, along with the Academies of 12 other G-20 nations. From the joint statement of the Academies: “…large reductions in the emissions of greenhouse gases, principally CO2, are needed soon to slow the increase of atmospheric concentrations, and avoid reaching unacceptable levels.” Xie Zhenhua was speaking after meeting with his counterparts from India, Brazil and South Africa. All of the national science academies of these three countries, by the way, also signed the joint statement. To his credit, the host of the four-nation meeting on climate change, the Indian environment minister, Jairam Ramesh, tried to play down any suggestions of dissent over the science of climate change.
