By: Azhar Azam
In 2008, Chinese demand drove a commodity supercycle in Latin America, helping the region withstand the global financial crisis. International trade in 2020 collapsed due to the pandemic, yet the resilient trade with China provided a key source of external growth to Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) as their bilateral trade grew 26-fold from $12 billion to $315 billion between 2000 and 2020 with a forecast to more than double to $700 billion by 2035.
A much-needed impetus in 2020 to the region, which accounts for 30 percent of global COVID-19 mortality and witnessed 7.4 percent of GDP contraction last year, came from Beijing, which rallied around LAC to support its efforts to outride the storm and fast-track economic recovery through Chinese imports of beef, copper, oil and a number of other products from several South American states such as Brazil, Chili, Colombia and Uruguay.
The bracing China-LAC trade relationship, Beijing's investments to develop regional infrastructure and successive Chinese leaders' visits and signings of partnership agreements have alarmed U.S. policymakers about China's growing engagement in America's backyard. Passing over opportunities that the Chinese economy presents, the panic-stricken U.S. officials claimed that diplomatic overtures underpin Beijing's economic activities, and assist it to institutionalize cooperation and garner support in international fora.
China, the most important market for South America and second-biggest market for LAC overall, is crucial to reverse the trend of the region's economic downturn. As investments are likely to rebound in 2021, Beijing's offer of $1 billion in loans for vaccine purchases would give vaccine shots to a population where 37 percent of the people are inoculated. Argentina is also actively pursuing to expedite talks with China for implementation of an ambitious $30 billion investment program encompassing 15 infrastructure, energy and transport projects.
Nearly half of the countries in LAC, including three of the four largest regional economies, have seen China as their biggest trading partner. Through an estimated $140 billion investment, including $8 billion in six Caribbean states, Chinese companies have built dams, roads, railways, bridges, ports and telecommunication networks. Latin America's prominence for China was evidenced by Chinese President Xi Jinping's 11 visits to the region since assuming power in 2012.
The U.S. Southern Command's 2021 posture statement asserted China was gaining global influence and leverage across all its domains: cyber, space, extractive and energy industries, transportation hubs, roads, infrastructure, telecommunications, legal and illegal fishing, agriculture and military training. It bizarrely linked Beijing's donation of security supplies and equipment, health cooperation and the Belt and Road Initiative with winning the favor of regional security forces, pursuing "medical diplomacy," indebting the fragile economies and impinging on the U.S. allies' sovereignty.
Clearly, Washington is petrified by Beijing's burgeoning relationship with the LAC governments, 19 of whom have attached themselves with the transcontinental connectivity and infrastructure project. In 2019, China dethroned the U.S. to become the leading trade partner of Brazil, Chili, Peru and Uruguay. The close China-LAC affinity has pressed American officials to propagate a false narrative, but the regional nations rejected such U.S. warnings, saying there are no indications Beijing is creating a "military sphere of influence" and its primary interests are largely economic and diplomatic.
The so-called world superpower shouldn't coerce the region to make scratchy choices for execution of its malign geopolitical ambitions against China. Some LAC states have already lost their robust economic momentum due to the COVID-19 variants. As Nigel Chalk, acting director of the International Monetary Fund's Western Hemisphere Department, has stated, the trends of uncertain productivity with damage to human capital over "persistent unemployment, increasing informality and school closures" could take many years to reverse, so Washington needs to try not obstructing LAC economic revival.
Even though the U.S. has been a dominant power in Latin America, China is a reliable diplomatic and trade partner of the region. Washington must not bully regional nations just because most of them want to take advantage of Chinese growth or have switched recognition from China's Taiwan region to the Chinese mainland while others are signaling to make a sovereign and fair foreign policy judgment.
China never intended to politically intervene or influence the regional governments over their bilateral relations with other countries. The U.S., however, has been seeing LAC as a source of problems and ratcheting up warnings, cloaked with intimidation about the alleged region's dependence on China.
The U.S. arrogance was reflected when Secretary of States Anthony Blinken in October took a trip to Ecuador, giving an ominous warning to the region that working with Beijing could bring risks in "narrowly defined areas" albeit claiming no country would be forced to choose between China and the U.S. In September, U.S. President Joe Biden sent a diplomatic team on the first "listening tour" to South America in a bid to trumpet his Build Back Better World as a credible international initiative, though Margaret Myers, a China-Latin American expert at the Inter-American Dialogue, commented that "it's very hard to compete with China at this juncture."
Other than that, Blinken mostly wasted his visit criticizing leaders of other regional states, such as Venezuelan President's Nicolas Maduro's "deeply unfortunate" actions, discussing mass migration across the Americas, demanding accountability on human rights abuses, calling for preservation of democracy and boasting the U.S. vaccine donations without making any real investment commitments, something the regional countries need the most. Reaching Washington, he railed against Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega for trying to establish "authoritarian dynasty."
Notwithstanding Washington's animosity toward Beijing, diplomatic and trade ties between China and Latin America – particularly South America, thanks to pent-up historic Chinese demand – even during the pandemic blossomed. The relationship would further strengthen as after a decade of China-CELAC (Community of Latin American and Caribbean States) cooperation – China is now considered as a natural partner of the bloc that has a history of supporting the regional countries at trying times, and was the only country where LAC exports registered an increase in 2020 by 2 percent against an overall drop of 13 percent.
*This is my opinion piece that originally appeared at "China Global Television Network (CGTN)":
https://news.cgtn.com/news/2021-10-24/U-S-warnings-cannot-impinge-on-the-China-LAC-relationship-14Cwin3jPck/index.html
"How do you worship besides Allah something which has no power either to harm or benefit you." Seek truth @ peacetv.tv and islamqa.info
October 29, 2021
October 25, 2021
Deepening Algeria-Morocco rivalry and US role
The US recognition of Moroccan sovereignty on Western Sahara in December 2020 and plan to forge ahead on a $1 billion of arms deal against Morocco mending its ties with Israel under the Abraham Accords deepened rifts and exasperated Algeria that viewed the move targeted stability of the country. The Polisario also strongly reacted to a “flagrant violation of the UN Charter” and said the political gambit won’t help to find a peaceful solution to the conflict.
Even as the border between the Maghreb states was closed since 1994, diplomatic channels continued to operate since they were restored in 1988 over another dispute. With an unchanged US position and no signs from the Biden administration to roll back the decision of accepting Morocco’s jurisdiction on the former Spanish colony, tensions spiraled once Algiers in August accused Rabat for using Israel’s Pegasus spyware against Algerian officials and broke off diplomatic relations with Rabat.
Contending Kabylie separatist MAK group was getting support from “Morocco and the Zionist entity,” Algiers further tightened the screws on Rabat and restricted access of the Moroccan flights to its airspace, indicating not to extend the Maghreb-Europe Gas (MEG) pipeline. The stringent measure, if implemented, would deprive Morocco of 7% of the gas transported to the Spanish and Portuguese markets through the country.
Morocco is a key market for France with an added importance to serve as a linchpin to establish the French economic, political and cultural influence in the postcolonial African states. Unless Paris (and Washington) scale back their diplomatic protection for Rabat at the UN Security Council, peace in the region would hang by thread for many more years.
Spain’s economic interests in Morocco, alongside strong support for the Sahrawi independence movement in the Spanish public, has pressed it to stay neutral in the standoff. However, after Madrid allowed Polisario leader Brahim Ghali admit in a Spanish hospital in Ceuta over humanitarian reasons, Rabat labeling of the permission as a “reckless and totally unacceptable act” blew the whistle for the relationship. Morocco has territorial claims over Ceuta and another Spanish enclave, Melilla.
But Washington’s ambiguous stance is the major source threatening to escalate tensions as the conflict could spill over across the Sahara-Sahel region. Warning about destabilization of the entire North Africa, the Polisario is sticking to its decision to call off the 1991 ceasefire and fight across the 2,700-km long Berm wall if the international community to deliver on its unfulfilled promise of self-determination for the Sahrawi people.
The US President Joe Biden may judge it politically difficult to undo Donald Trump’s violation of international law and UN Security Council Resolutions but he cannot remain a silent specter. Washington’s belief “an independent Sahrawi State is not a realistic option” shouldn’t be an excuse for settling dispute since its recognition doesn’t affect position of the UN, EU and dozens of other countries, which recognize Polisario-proclaimed Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR) as an independent state although some have withdrawn their recognition and the Republic remains a full member of the African Union.
Last month, the Luxembourg-based EU top court determined the Polisario was “recognized internationally as a representative of the people of Western Sahara" and the territory wasn’t part of Morocco. The far-reaching verdict, establishing desert waters weren’t part of the EU-Morocco agreement and repealing bloc’s agricultural and fishing agreements with Rabat, gave a sense of great achievement for the Polisario internationally.
Coupled with the pandemic, the deteriorating situation has changed the operational environment of the UN Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara, whose mandate was to oversee a referendum 30 year ago in 1992. On the other hand, Washington’s proposal for a “just and lasting solution” clearly fails to bring a peaceful resolution to the conflict and is pushing regional stability into further uncertainty.
Earlier in his speech at the UN General Assembly, Algeria’s Foreign Minister Ramtane Lamamra reiterated his country’s “permanent stance” to give the right of self-determination” to the Sahrawi people and backed the African Peace and Security Council’s proposal that the warring should parties should hold direct negotiations; an idea sounds good considering aggravation of the peace environment.
Upon winning the election, the Biden administration pledged to review a slew of Trump’s controversial foreign policy choices. But once took power, the US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, despite endorsing the political negotiations, reassured Morocco his country wouldn't backtrack from the prior president’s dramatic shift of recognizing Rabat’s sovereignty over Western Sahara.
The Biden administration has so far failed to come out with a coherent framework that can blow at least some steam off in Western Sub Sahara. Still there’s time for the US and the international community to facilitate peaceful and meaningful talks between the Polisario and Rabat, which will inevitably calm Algeria-Morocco tensions. Once France and the US pull back their diplomatic shield for Morocco at the UN Security Council, both the claimants will be compelled to sit at the negotiation table and resolve the dispute in a nonviolent way.
*This is my opinion piece (unedited) that originally appeared in "The Express Tribune":
Morrison’s diplomatic gaffe mortgages Australia’s economic future
By: Azhar Azam
Australia has not done much well in the Pacific (excluding Papua New Guinea’s independence and the RAMSI force in the Solomon Islands) since the Second World War. It’s about time. But recent history has not been without a gaffe. It was a great shame that Morrison’s first foray into Australia’s Pacific policies featured a needless mistake. This Australian non-confrontation approach coincides in part with that of the EU.
The reverberations of Australia’s submarine deal cancelation with France are unlikely to simmer down any time soon, especially the way Australian President Scott Morrison scrapped the contract and informed French President Emmanuel Macron through a text message.
Kiwis’ efforts to mollify Paris and push for closer economic ties with the European Union (EU) faced challenges as the bloc gave a nod to the French request and delayed a long-planned Brussels-Canberra trade deal for one month, casting doubts on the future of the far-reaching treaty.
It’s an outcome in the offing
The last-minute Australia’s ditch to France had already put trade negotiations at risk and left the European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen wondering whether the EU would be able to strike a trade deal with Australia in a show of solidarity with France.
The AUKUS rebuttal was so shocking; it forced France, usually a savvy country toward allies and foes, to turn bitter diplomatically. Paris compared US President Joe Biden’s “unilateral, brutal, unpredictable decision” through presser with Donald Trump who often wittingly vilified the US partners on Twitter including Macron whom he privately belittled as “a wuss guy.”
Washington hoped the phone call between Macron and Biden and the return of the French ambassador to America would bring the fraught France-US relationship back to normal, anticipating the former to soften his stance on Europe’s strategic autonomy. But the French president continues to be stubborn in his urge as he seeks Europeans to “stop being naïve” and is speaking expressively on defending regional interests and developing military capacity.
In Australia, the postponement of the trade talks sparked a contentious debate
Opposition lambasted Morrison over his failure “to do the diplomatic leg work required to manage the relationship with our French partners.” The criticism followed after former Kiwi Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull warned the candid-free “appalling episode” will “endure to our disadvantage for a very long time.”
Turnbull’s fears aren’t unsubstantiated. While breach of “contract of the century” would have economic implications for the French defense sector, the deserted submarine deal also pitted against Macron’s campaign for a second term just less than seven months ahead of the presidential elections in the country.
France is the 7th largest global economy and a permanent member of the UN Security Council. Paris’ economic and strategic importance as well as strong defense characteristics – a nuclear-armed nation with the 6th largest defense budget in the world, which has the most powerful military in Europe and is an important factor in the Pacific– as a whole takes the shine off Australia in the ongoing fracas and outlines French critical role in regional and transnational affairs.
Canberra’s lackluster attempts in conveying a defiant message to Paris, which would flabbergast the entire EU, has led to this diplomatic brinkmanship. Morrison’s reluctance to talk to Macron and insistence to follow his schedule further compelled Élysée Palace to hold only “conversation of substance.” This communication breakdown elicited hyperalgesia in French, urging them to dub their abandonment as “Australian punch, an American late-tackle and a British eye-gouging.”
All isn’t well for Canberra either
The reason why Australia dumped a $43 billion deal with Paris, Morrison argues is nuclear submarine technology that wasn’t previously available. But with the first of the French subs supposed to be in waters in 2032, Australia won’t have new subs for the next 20 years. That means the Australian sub-program would hang by thread for at least a couple of decades and by that time, even nuclear submarines could be obsolete or visible by countries such as China whose technology will have reached an advanced level to detect and destroy the Australian sub.
The US, UK and Australia have pitched the novel strategic alliance, the AUKUS, against China. Don’t forget the Australian strategic strategy in 2016 admired Beijing’s continued economic growth and opportunities it brought for Canberra and other nations in the Indo-Pacific. Canberra had even pledged to expand defense relations with Beijing through personnel exchanges, military exercises and practical cooperation in areas of mutual interest.
Although Australia’s 2020 defense strategic update seems to toe the line of the US’ China policy and accused Beijing of pursuing greater influence in the region, Canberra circumvented to antagonize Beijing and kept the focus on China-US strategic competition its immediate region: “ranging from the north-eastern Indian Ocean through maritime and mainland Southeast Asia to Papua New Guinea and the southwest Pacific.”
Even as Australia has jumped on the US America’s bandwagon to counter China in the region, Morrison says the AUKUS would ensure stability in the Indo-Pacific. Clearly, Australia doesn’t want to sandwich itself between existing and emerging superpowers of the world in the event of any military flare-up. This Australian non-confrontation approach coincides in part with that of the EU where a vast European majority sees the growing China-US rivalry for Beijing’s emergence as a new geopolitical reality.
Canberra’s economic stakes in Beijing are much higher than in Brussels
China has been the biggest export market for Australia and it remains the major destination for Australian goods despite the ongoing trade and political tensions. In comparison, China is the biggest source of imports for the EU with which it runs a trade deficit; still, the bloc is committed to securing the Beijing-Brussels trade and investment relationship.
But when it comes to diplomacy and realistically balancing relationships with China and the US, Australia fares poorly against the EU. Unlike Brussels that endured pressure however didn’t take sides to protect its ties with the major economies, kept communication lines open and sought deepening cooperation with Beijing in the Indo-Pacific amid differences, the Morrison administration has completely failed to do the necessary groundwork to prevent Canberra from being caught between the two behemoths. The tally rises to three with the addition of the EU.
Morrison’s diplomatic gaffe has a cost, which Turnbull says will dog Australian relationship with Europe for years. As this impasse could even prolong to decades and Canberra is yet to take a real pinch of the trade war with Beijing, the Kiwi government is on the brink of losing more than two dozen allies in Europe and has effectively mortgaged his country’s economic future just at the stroke of a pen in Washington.
*This is my opinion piece that originally appeared at "Global Village Space":
https://www.globalvillagespace.com/morrisons-diplomatic-gaffe-mortgages-australias-economic-future/
Australia has not done much well in the Pacific (excluding Papua New Guinea’s independence and the RAMSI force in the Solomon Islands) since the Second World War. It’s about time. But recent history has not been without a gaffe. It was a great shame that Morrison’s first foray into Australia’s Pacific policies featured a needless mistake. This Australian non-confrontation approach coincides in part with that of the EU.
The reverberations of Australia’s submarine deal cancelation with France are unlikely to simmer down any time soon, especially the way Australian President Scott Morrison scrapped the contract and informed French President Emmanuel Macron through a text message.
Kiwis’ efforts to mollify Paris and push for closer economic ties with the European Union (EU) faced challenges as the bloc gave a nod to the French request and delayed a long-planned Brussels-Canberra trade deal for one month, casting doubts on the future of the far-reaching treaty.
It’s an outcome in the offing
The last-minute Australia’s ditch to France had already put trade negotiations at risk and left the European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen wondering whether the EU would be able to strike a trade deal with Australia in a show of solidarity with France.
The AUKUS rebuttal was so shocking; it forced France, usually a savvy country toward allies and foes, to turn bitter diplomatically. Paris compared US President Joe Biden’s “unilateral, brutal, unpredictable decision” through presser with Donald Trump who often wittingly vilified the US partners on Twitter including Macron whom he privately belittled as “a wuss guy.”
Washington hoped the phone call between Macron and Biden and the return of the French ambassador to America would bring the fraught France-US relationship back to normal, anticipating the former to soften his stance on Europe’s strategic autonomy. But the French president continues to be stubborn in his urge as he seeks Europeans to “stop being naïve” and is speaking expressively on defending regional interests and developing military capacity.
In Australia, the postponement of the trade talks sparked a contentious debate
Opposition lambasted Morrison over his failure “to do the diplomatic leg work required to manage the relationship with our French partners.” The criticism followed after former Kiwi Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull warned the candid-free “appalling episode” will “endure to our disadvantage for a very long time.”
Turnbull’s fears aren’t unsubstantiated. While breach of “contract of the century” would have economic implications for the French defense sector, the deserted submarine deal also pitted against Macron’s campaign for a second term just less than seven months ahead of the presidential elections in the country.
France is the 7th largest global economy and a permanent member of the UN Security Council. Paris’ economic and strategic importance as well as strong defense characteristics – a nuclear-armed nation with the 6th largest defense budget in the world, which has the most powerful military in Europe and is an important factor in the Pacific– as a whole takes the shine off Australia in the ongoing fracas and outlines French critical role in regional and transnational affairs.
Canberra’s lackluster attempts in conveying a defiant message to Paris, which would flabbergast the entire EU, has led to this diplomatic brinkmanship. Morrison’s reluctance to talk to Macron and insistence to follow his schedule further compelled Élysée Palace to hold only “conversation of substance.” This communication breakdown elicited hyperalgesia in French, urging them to dub their abandonment as “Australian punch, an American late-tackle and a British eye-gouging.”
All isn’t well for Canberra either
The reason why Australia dumped a $43 billion deal with Paris, Morrison argues is nuclear submarine technology that wasn’t previously available. But with the first of the French subs supposed to be in waters in 2032, Australia won’t have new subs for the next 20 years. That means the Australian sub-program would hang by thread for at least a couple of decades and by that time, even nuclear submarines could be obsolete or visible by countries such as China whose technology will have reached an advanced level to detect and destroy the Australian sub.
The US, UK and Australia have pitched the novel strategic alliance, the AUKUS, against China. Don’t forget the Australian strategic strategy in 2016 admired Beijing’s continued economic growth and opportunities it brought for Canberra and other nations in the Indo-Pacific. Canberra had even pledged to expand defense relations with Beijing through personnel exchanges, military exercises and practical cooperation in areas of mutual interest.
Although Australia’s 2020 defense strategic update seems to toe the line of the US’ China policy and accused Beijing of pursuing greater influence in the region, Canberra circumvented to antagonize Beijing and kept the focus on China-US strategic competition its immediate region: “ranging from the north-eastern Indian Ocean through maritime and mainland Southeast Asia to Papua New Guinea and the southwest Pacific.”
Even as Australia has jumped on the US America’s bandwagon to counter China in the region, Morrison says the AUKUS would ensure stability in the Indo-Pacific. Clearly, Australia doesn’t want to sandwich itself between existing and emerging superpowers of the world in the event of any military flare-up. This Australian non-confrontation approach coincides in part with that of the EU where a vast European majority sees the growing China-US rivalry for Beijing’s emergence as a new geopolitical reality.
Canberra’s economic stakes in Beijing are much higher than in Brussels
China has been the biggest export market for Australia and it remains the major destination for Australian goods despite the ongoing trade and political tensions. In comparison, China is the biggest source of imports for the EU with which it runs a trade deficit; still, the bloc is committed to securing the Beijing-Brussels trade and investment relationship.
But when it comes to diplomacy and realistically balancing relationships with China and the US, Australia fares poorly against the EU. Unlike Brussels that endured pressure however didn’t take sides to protect its ties with the major economies, kept communication lines open and sought deepening cooperation with Beijing in the Indo-Pacific amid differences, the Morrison administration has completely failed to do the necessary groundwork to prevent Canberra from being caught between the two behemoths. The tally rises to three with the addition of the EU.
Morrison’s diplomatic gaffe has a cost, which Turnbull says will dog Australian relationship with Europe for years. As this impasse could even prolong to decades and Canberra is yet to take a real pinch of the trade war with Beijing, the Kiwi government is on the brink of losing more than two dozen allies in Europe and has effectively mortgaged his country’s economic future just at the stroke of a pen in Washington.
*This is my opinion piece that originally appeared at "Global Village Space":
https://www.globalvillagespace.com/morrisons-diplomatic-gaffe-mortgages-australias-economic-future/
China is poised to take the role of global environmental leader
By: Azhar Azam
From a variety of animals, plants, fungi and microorganisms that make up our natural world, each of the species and microbes help to maintain balance in the world by working together in ecosystems. They form biodiversity, which supports everything humans need to survive, including food, clean water, medicine and shelter.
But with a 60-percent decline in the global population of mammals, fish, birds, reptiles and amphibians since 1970, scientists believed the world was heading, if it hadn't reached, toward a sixth mass extinction after the first five extinctions that wiped out about half of all species in a relatively short period.
As biodiversity remains one of the tipping points in the environmental system and hasn't been considered the greatest threat, the first phase of the 15th meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP15) to the United Nations (UN) Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD) – as well as 10th meeting of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and 4th meeting of the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from Their Utilization – kicked off in the city of Kunming in China on October 11.
It is the biggest UN summit in 10 years, and a crucial one, after countries failed to meet a single target in the previous decade of the goals agreed in Aichi, Japan in 2010. Days ahead of the 26th UN Climate Change Conference of the Parties (COP26) in Glasgow, Scotland, COP15 has a unique value for several reasons.
Chinese President Xi Jinping promised to strengthen man's relationship with nature by protecting animals, rivers, mountains, lands and deserts. He also highlighted the need to build a green, low-carbon and circular economy and step up green international cooperation and share the benefits of green development with developing countries.
At the virtual summit, governments will renegotiate targets under the global biodiversity framework before an in-person summit in Kunming from April 25 to May 8, 2022. The push Beijing gave through "the Paris Agreement for Nature" would translate into protecting biodiversity for this decade, halting and reversing rampant biodiversity loss the world over and realizing the UN vision of "living in harmony with nature" by 2050.
The U.S. has never signed the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), which was originally signed at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 and ratified by 195 countries. The U.S. is unlikely to endorse the most important international treaty to protect species, ecosystems and genetic diversity over political divisions and strong resistance from conservative nationalists in the country. The Donald Trump administration had ripped more than 125 environmental rules and policies during his four-year term.
In contrast, China's Ecological Conservation Red Line (ECLR) initiative within a decade has succeeded in designating one-fourth of its land area for protection, allowing the country to emerge as a global leader in deploying data-driven conservation. Xi's announcement at the UN General Assembly to no longer finance new coal-fired power plants abroad is also being viewed as an encouraging sign for Beijing's action on biodiversity.
A white paper, released recently by China, revealed that the East Asian country had over-fulfilled three of the Aichi targets – establishing terrestrial nature reserves, restoring and ensuring important ecosystem services and increasing ecosystem resilience and carbon storage – with progress made on 13 other targets including mainstreaming biodiversity, sustainable management of agriculture, forestry and fishery and sustainable production and consumption.
China's placement of eco-civilization as one of its fundamental socio-economic development principles and robust efforts to control the trend of eco-degradation – such as a logging ban, returning farmlands to forests and grasslands, establishing national parks, controlling water pollution and banning fishing in the Yangtze basin – are admired internationally and emphasize Beijing's valuable inputs to protect the largely-neglected biodiversity issue in other parts of the world.
Stressing that the issues of biodiversity and climate change were intertwined, environmental advocates sought to link the two and find solutions to solve these crises. David Cooper, the CBD deputy secretary, said, "By conserving our ecosystems, wetlands, forests and grasslands and by restoring our ecosystems, we can contribute to both reducing greenhouse gas emissions and also helping people adapt to the unavoidable climate change."
His call for investing in biodiversity received an affirmative response as China announced it will launch a 1.5-billion-yuan Kunming Biodiversity Fund for developing countries to help them protect nature.
While the fund "should jump-start an urgently needed conversation on biodiversity finance," Beijing by laying out strong domestic biodiversity protection measures didn't disappoint the world watching it to contribute to global conservation and add "momentum in the run-up to COP26."
For the European Union, COP15 is as crucial as COP26 vis-a-vis life on earth. Brussels Commissioner for Environment, Oceans and Fisheries Virginijus Sinkevicius, representing the bloc, clubbed the two crises together that pose existential implications to mankind.
China is not only committed to achieving carbon neutrality by 2060; it has been on the way to playing its part in coping with climate change, reducing carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP by more than 48 percent from the 2005 levels.
The COP15 isn't over as yet but it has already established its worth in the world and underscored Beijing's vital role in neutralizing both existential threats, setting the tone for China's environmental leadership.
From a variety of animals, plants, fungi and microorganisms that make up our natural world, each of the species and microbes help to maintain balance in the world by working together in ecosystems. They form biodiversity, which supports everything humans need to survive, including food, clean water, medicine and shelter.
But with a 60-percent decline in the global population of mammals, fish, birds, reptiles and amphibians since 1970, scientists believed the world was heading, if it hadn't reached, toward a sixth mass extinction after the first five extinctions that wiped out about half of all species in a relatively short period.
As biodiversity remains one of the tipping points in the environmental system and hasn't been considered the greatest threat, the first phase of the 15th meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP15) to the United Nations (UN) Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD) – as well as 10th meeting of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and 4th meeting of the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from Their Utilization – kicked off in the city of Kunming in China on October 11.
It is the biggest UN summit in 10 years, and a crucial one, after countries failed to meet a single target in the previous decade of the goals agreed in Aichi, Japan in 2010. Days ahead of the 26th UN Climate Change Conference of the Parties (COP26) in Glasgow, Scotland, COP15 has a unique value for several reasons.
Chinese President Xi Jinping promised to strengthen man's relationship with nature by protecting animals, rivers, mountains, lands and deserts. He also highlighted the need to build a green, low-carbon and circular economy and step up green international cooperation and share the benefits of green development with developing countries.
At the virtual summit, governments will renegotiate targets under the global biodiversity framework before an in-person summit in Kunming from April 25 to May 8, 2022. The push Beijing gave through "the Paris Agreement for Nature" would translate into protecting biodiversity for this decade, halting and reversing rampant biodiversity loss the world over and realizing the UN vision of "living in harmony with nature" by 2050.
The U.S. has never signed the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), which was originally signed at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 and ratified by 195 countries. The U.S. is unlikely to endorse the most important international treaty to protect species, ecosystems and genetic diversity over political divisions and strong resistance from conservative nationalists in the country. The Donald Trump administration had ripped more than 125 environmental rules and policies during his four-year term.
In contrast, China's Ecological Conservation Red Line (ECLR) initiative within a decade has succeeded in designating one-fourth of its land area for protection, allowing the country to emerge as a global leader in deploying data-driven conservation. Xi's announcement at the UN General Assembly to no longer finance new coal-fired power plants abroad is also being viewed as an encouraging sign for Beijing's action on biodiversity.
A white paper, released recently by China, revealed that the East Asian country had over-fulfilled three of the Aichi targets – establishing terrestrial nature reserves, restoring and ensuring important ecosystem services and increasing ecosystem resilience and carbon storage – with progress made on 13 other targets including mainstreaming biodiversity, sustainable management of agriculture, forestry and fishery and sustainable production and consumption.
China's placement of eco-civilization as one of its fundamental socio-economic development principles and robust efforts to control the trend of eco-degradation – such as a logging ban, returning farmlands to forests and grasslands, establishing national parks, controlling water pollution and banning fishing in the Yangtze basin – are admired internationally and emphasize Beijing's valuable inputs to protect the largely-neglected biodiversity issue in other parts of the world.
Stressing that the issues of biodiversity and climate change were intertwined, environmental advocates sought to link the two and find solutions to solve these crises. David Cooper, the CBD deputy secretary, said, "By conserving our ecosystems, wetlands, forests and grasslands and by restoring our ecosystems, we can contribute to both reducing greenhouse gas emissions and also helping people adapt to the unavoidable climate change."
His call for investing in biodiversity received an affirmative response as China announced it will launch a 1.5-billion-yuan Kunming Biodiversity Fund for developing countries to help them protect nature.
While the fund "should jump-start an urgently needed conversation on biodiversity finance," Beijing by laying out strong domestic biodiversity protection measures didn't disappoint the world watching it to contribute to global conservation and add "momentum in the run-up to COP26."
For the European Union, COP15 is as crucial as COP26 vis-a-vis life on earth. Brussels Commissioner for Environment, Oceans and Fisheries Virginijus Sinkevicius, representing the bloc, clubbed the two crises together that pose existential implications to mankind.
China is not only committed to achieving carbon neutrality by 2060; it has been on the way to playing its part in coping with climate change, reducing carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP by more than 48 percent from the 2005 levels.
The COP15 isn't over as yet but it has already established its worth in the world and underscored Beijing's vital role in neutralizing both existential threats, setting the tone for China's environmental leadership.
*This is my opinion piece that originally appeared at "China Global Television Network (CGTN)":
October 15, 2021
Liberal internationalism should end with all its manifestations
By: Azhar Azam
In the aftermath of the Cold War, the U.S. described its role in four key elements: global leadership; defense and promotion of the liberal international order; defense and promotion of freedom, democracy and human rights; and prevention of the emergence of regional hegemons in Eurasia.
All these essential components of U.S. foreign policy are closely intertwined with each other. Washington claims the liberal international order respects territorial integrity, and values international law. America actually has used the clumsy mechanism of liberal internationalism or liberal hegemony for military intervention in remote areas to impose its democratic form of government and control the world.
Washington's invasion of Kabul to topple the Taliban government – and offensive on Baghdad, where the U.S. intelligence agencies found no evidence of weapons of mass destruction or Saddam Hussein's prewar links to al-Qaeda – was the last vestige of liberal internationalism that sought to bring democracy by force.
The U.S. falsity about forced political change in Afghanistan and Iraq was revealed by George W. Bush in 2004, when the former American president clearly expressed his goal in Baghdad and Kabul under the pretext of "democratic" allies. Behind delivering on the neocons' democratic demands, Washington's display of brute power had hegemonic ambitions as well.
Some U.S. officials thought restricting retaliation to Afghanistan could be dangerously "limited" and wanted a flamboyant victory. The purpose was to intimidate defiant Syria, Libya, Iran and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and reassert the U.S. waning hegemony in the region by trying to turn all Mideast countries into liberal democracies.
Notions about American exceptionalism are age-old and have been embedded in post-Cold War U.S. administrations. Even before the September 11 attacks, then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright in 1998 arrogantly stated "we are the indispensable nation" and declared to "put force behind the diplomacy" as she was making the case for a possible strike on Iraq.
Donald Trump was contemptuous of the liberal international order and criticized China's ticket to the World Trade Organization, which his predecessors thought would help to turn China into a liberal democracy. He also needed big arms and diplomatic deals with the Mideast kingdoms to showcase in the 2020 U.S. presidential elections.
But Trump wasn't solely responsible for the downturn in liberal internationalism. When he took over, although proponents didn't accept the "death" of the doctrine, they agreed America's authority as the hegemonic leader of the liberal world order had slid into deep crisis.
Realists have been calling for less militarized and more cooperative U.S. foreign policy. They believe America should learn from its practical and moral failures to unilaterally shape the destiny of other nations by force. Putting emphasis on military restraint, diplomatic engagement and cooperation with all nations, they urge changes at the grassroots level of the U.S. overly-militarized foreign policy.
U.S. President Joe Biden's appointments, after Trump's global tumult, signaled a return of normalcy; even then a belief of American supremacy in his team challenged hopes to tweak behavioral change in the White House to ensure "greater military restraint" in the use of military forces.
A total bust of liberal internationalism and rising clout of realists across the U.S., such as those at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, have unnerved liberal internationalists and pressed them to come out in support of liberal internationalism.
Liberal internationalists say the "Quincy Coalition" ideology is driven by common adversaries rather than liberal internationalism. They argue the Coalition offers a "woefully weak response of the undeniable reality" about Beijing's alleged expansion and hegemonic ambitions and its agenda, if implemented, would harm fundamental U.S. interests, dominance and influence.
In response, Anatol Lieven intrinsically linked liberal internationalism to the U.S. hegemony and one form of American ideological nationalism. The senior research fellow at the Quincy Institute opposed liberal internationalists' view that "selective cooperation" with China on climate change should accompany "wider U.S. geopolitical and ideological confrontation." He called for a systematic cooperation with Beijing on a range of key issues, alluding to the fact that the U.S. and allies' share in global GDP had halved and Chinese economy was roughly at par with the U.S.
Biden's speech defending his decision to withdraw troops from Afghanistan may be a "decisive break" or "one of the most eloquent repudiations" to liberal internationalism. Nevertheless, his policy to gang up alliances against China follows the very similar objectives enshrined in liberal internationalism: push the U.S. partners in confrontation with China and reestablish America's hegemony on both allies and rivals.
However, the world is waking up and decoding the cloaked message. The Alliance of Democracies' poll in May indicated majorities in 53 countries saw the U.S. as a bigger threat to democracy and an overwhelming majority in China approved of the democracy they had. The findings suggested nations were mistrustful of the U.S. strategy to trigger internal chaos overseas and advance America's hegemonic ambitions.
The U.S. interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq and several other countries have cost Americans and global people dearly in terms of both treasure and life. The myth, economics and Western democracy are reciprocal, crumbles as 95 percent of Chinese citizens are quite satisfied with the government in Beijing, according to a poll launched by Harvard's Kennedy School of Government in last year. With a new Cold War causing significant losses to the U.S. and the global economy, Biden's idea to rally democracies around China is doomed to fail and it's time to end the liberal internationalism with all its manifestations.
*This is my opinion piece that originally appeared at "China Global Television Network (CGTN)":
https://news.cgtn.com/news/2021-09-30/Liberal-internationalism-should-end-with-all-its-manifestations-13Z5WdF5Ti0/index.html
In the aftermath of the Cold War, the U.S. described its role in four key elements: global leadership; defense and promotion of the liberal international order; defense and promotion of freedom, democracy and human rights; and prevention of the emergence of regional hegemons in Eurasia.
All these essential components of U.S. foreign policy are closely intertwined with each other. Washington claims the liberal international order respects territorial integrity, and values international law. America actually has used the clumsy mechanism of liberal internationalism or liberal hegemony for military intervention in remote areas to impose its democratic form of government and control the world.
Washington's invasion of Kabul to topple the Taliban government – and offensive on Baghdad, where the U.S. intelligence agencies found no evidence of weapons of mass destruction or Saddam Hussein's prewar links to al-Qaeda – was the last vestige of liberal internationalism that sought to bring democracy by force.
The U.S. falsity about forced political change in Afghanistan and Iraq was revealed by George W. Bush in 2004, when the former American president clearly expressed his goal in Baghdad and Kabul under the pretext of "democratic" allies. Behind delivering on the neocons' democratic demands, Washington's display of brute power had hegemonic ambitions as well.
Some U.S. officials thought restricting retaliation to Afghanistan could be dangerously "limited" and wanted a flamboyant victory. The purpose was to intimidate defiant Syria, Libya, Iran and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and reassert the U.S. waning hegemony in the region by trying to turn all Mideast countries into liberal democracies.
Notions about American exceptionalism are age-old and have been embedded in post-Cold War U.S. administrations. Even before the September 11 attacks, then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright in 1998 arrogantly stated "we are the indispensable nation" and declared to "put force behind the diplomacy" as she was making the case for a possible strike on Iraq.
Donald Trump was contemptuous of the liberal international order and criticized China's ticket to the World Trade Organization, which his predecessors thought would help to turn China into a liberal democracy. He also needed big arms and diplomatic deals with the Mideast kingdoms to showcase in the 2020 U.S. presidential elections.
But Trump wasn't solely responsible for the downturn in liberal internationalism. When he took over, although proponents didn't accept the "death" of the doctrine, they agreed America's authority as the hegemonic leader of the liberal world order had slid into deep crisis.
Realists have been calling for less militarized and more cooperative U.S. foreign policy. They believe America should learn from its practical and moral failures to unilaterally shape the destiny of other nations by force. Putting emphasis on military restraint, diplomatic engagement and cooperation with all nations, they urge changes at the grassroots level of the U.S. overly-militarized foreign policy.
U.S. President Joe Biden's appointments, after Trump's global tumult, signaled a return of normalcy; even then a belief of American supremacy in his team challenged hopes to tweak behavioral change in the White House to ensure "greater military restraint" in the use of military forces.
A total bust of liberal internationalism and rising clout of realists across the U.S., such as those at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, have unnerved liberal internationalists and pressed them to come out in support of liberal internationalism.
Liberal internationalists say the "Quincy Coalition" ideology is driven by common adversaries rather than liberal internationalism. They argue the Coalition offers a "woefully weak response of the undeniable reality" about Beijing's alleged expansion and hegemonic ambitions and its agenda, if implemented, would harm fundamental U.S. interests, dominance and influence.
In response, Anatol Lieven intrinsically linked liberal internationalism to the U.S. hegemony and one form of American ideological nationalism. The senior research fellow at the Quincy Institute opposed liberal internationalists' view that "selective cooperation" with China on climate change should accompany "wider U.S. geopolitical and ideological confrontation." He called for a systematic cooperation with Beijing on a range of key issues, alluding to the fact that the U.S. and allies' share in global GDP had halved and Chinese economy was roughly at par with the U.S.
Biden's speech defending his decision to withdraw troops from Afghanistan may be a "decisive break" or "one of the most eloquent repudiations" to liberal internationalism. Nevertheless, his policy to gang up alliances against China follows the very similar objectives enshrined in liberal internationalism: push the U.S. partners in confrontation with China and reestablish America's hegemony on both allies and rivals.
However, the world is waking up and decoding the cloaked message. The Alliance of Democracies' poll in May indicated majorities in 53 countries saw the U.S. as a bigger threat to democracy and an overwhelming majority in China approved of the democracy they had. The findings suggested nations were mistrustful of the U.S. strategy to trigger internal chaos overseas and advance America's hegemonic ambitions.
The U.S. interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq and several other countries have cost Americans and global people dearly in terms of both treasure and life. The myth, economics and Western democracy are reciprocal, crumbles as 95 percent of Chinese citizens are quite satisfied with the government in Beijing, according to a poll launched by Harvard's Kennedy School of Government in last year. With a new Cold War causing significant losses to the U.S. and the global economy, Biden's idea to rally democracies around China is doomed to fail and it's time to end the liberal internationalism with all its manifestations.
*This is my opinion piece that originally appeared at "China Global Television Network (CGTN)":
https://news.cgtn.com/news/2021-09-30/Liberal-internationalism-should-end-with-all-its-manifestations-13Z5WdF5Ti0/index.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)