By: Azhar Azam
More than 50 years ago, Gough Whitlam, a powerful politician in Australia, comprehended China’s importance and advocated establishing diplomatic relations with the government of one of the world’s largest countries. Within weeks of ending the 23-year conservative rule and becoming the Australian prime minister, he recalled ambassador from Taiwan and recognized China on 21-December-1972.
Signing of Joint Communiqué formed the basis for the formation of the Beijing-Canberra formal diplomatic ties. It explicitly stated: “The two Governments agree to develop diplomatic relations, friendship and cooperation between the two countries on the basis of the principles of mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, mutual non-aggression, non-interference in each other’s internal affairs, equality and mutual benefit and peaceful co-existence.”
In the coming decades, relations blossomed and unleashed growth opportunities to Australia, immunizing it from the shocks of the 1997 Asian and 2008 global financial crises. China’s urbanization, growth in manufacturing and infrastructure investments in 1970s followed by rapid industrialization, especially in the mid 2000s, also helped to accelerate the Australian economic expansion.
Chinese President Xi Jinping’s address in 2014 to the Australian parliament and characterization of the bilateral relationship as "comprehensive strategic partnership” by the two leaderships described how politically close the two countries were. Canberra continues to believe the relationship’s based on “strong economic and trade complementarities and longstanding community and cultural links.”
Moved by US perception of the China threat, Australia’s sense of insecurity is still relatively a late phenomenon; two countries had no outstanding grievances by 2017. The relations ebbed under the Morrison government after Australia worked in collaboration with America to publicly bar Huawei from building its 5G network on national security grounds.
The Kiwi government’s criticism of China over Hong Kong and Xinjiang, termination of Victoria's agreement with Beijing on the Belt and Road Initiative through the Commonwealth veto legislation, racist incidents against Chinese students and tourists in Australia and confrontational pitch precipitated the downfall.
While Morrison danced on the US tune by “siding with the US anti-China campaign” and risked Australia’s trade surplus and the Australians’ well-being , Canberra’s allies including Washington captured its market with America protecting its exporters through the phase-one trade deal with China. His offensive posture cost him a defeat in the election, according to a domestic review that also found the concerns of the Chinese community as “genuine.”
Nevertheless, the advent of Anthony Albanese as Australia’s prime minister and meetings between the Chinese and Australian defense and foreign ministers indicated a “critical first step” to thaw the ice, stabilize the relationship and start over again. Beijing’s inclination to attune bilateral ties, citing Canberra’s “irresponsible” statement, offered prospects to rescue the crucial Sino-Kiwi relationship.
The meeting between Xi and Albanese on the sidelines of the G20 summit rekindled more hope. The Labor Party leader reminisced about the Whitlam era when he sought to guide the relationship “equality, mutual respect and peaceful coexistence.” As Albanese emphasized all these principles were important, he didn’t support the core element of the 1972 diplomatic deal, non-intervention in each other’s domestic matters, which might muddle his stabilization strategy.
“Stabilization” of relations is the latest fad of the Albanese government vis-à-vis China. The country’s Defense Minister Richard Marles and Foreign Minister Penny Wong have been consistently using the term (stabilise) to put the relations back on track or build on the “recent (Xi-Albanese) constructive meeting.”
But a fact-based assessment suggests it will not be that easy to patch things up unless Australia demonstrates some sort of respect to China’s sovereignty. As long as Australia drags on the fait accomplis and keeps denouncing China, it will be much harder to “navigate” differences and strengthen bilateral relationship pursuant to the comprehensive strategic partnership.
Former Kiwi ambassador to Beijing David Ambrose warns Washington can’t be objective about Beijing and that Australia and China are “natural partners.” Others argue the AUKUS will trick Australia of an independent defense policy and trigger a “dramatic escalation” of the trend of Canberra as a “sub-imperial power.”
Commencement or resumption of dialogue including on trade, consular affairs, climate change and defense is a welcome sign; Australia needs to tread carefully on sensitive issues that China believes are critical to its national security. In order to stabilize and rejuvenate relations, Canberra should chart its own path and shy away from piling on with Washington in slating Beijing.
After returning from Beijing, Wong said her administration had a “lot of work to do” but she was happy the communication channels were open to reconsolidate and “stabilize” the relationship. Albanese himself on Friday told Australians he’s engaging China “constructively” without a “loud hailer,” in a “marked difference” to the previous government.
Prioritization of the economic interests is Albanese' key goal and he knows this objective can't be achieved if he continues challenging China at the whim of the US. Labor leader seeks to normalize relations by seeking China to lift economic sanctions first; unfortunately, he doesn't have the leverage Donald Trump had.
For a long-term mutually-beneficial relationship, Australia will have to get back to the principles of the 1972 communiqué, increase high-level engagement, respect Chinese national interests and promote economic, education, cultural, investment and technology cooperation to benefit businesses, tourist operators and people in the country.
December 31, 2022
December 27, 2022
Where does Pakistan stand in Mideast realignment?
By: Azhar Azam
Amid a flurry of activity between China and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), Pakistan looked the growing rapprochement positively for this close affinity would make the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) a preferred conduit for their bilateral trade over reduced transportation cost, bringing two million jobs and billions in revenues to the cash-starved country through the Gwadar port.
Earlier this year, Pakistan's role between Beijing and the GCC was described as facilitative when it for the first time invited the Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi to attend the Organization of Islamic Conference, the second largest multilateral institution after the United Nations, with 57 member states. It was also seen as “a reminder of the high value" the Muslim-majority states placed on commercial relations with CHina.
Both China and Saudi Arabia have expressed interest and are keen to set up oil refineries in Balochistan's Hub and Gwadar yet red tape, excessive regulations, unfavorable policies and extensive documentation procedures continue to pose threats to Pakistan’s development. Absence of a strong federal government will likely put these and other investments at bay.
While Pakistan remains jolted by political and economic crises, China and the GCC are strengthening their all-round relationship. The largest and high-level diplomatic dialogue between Beijing and the Arab world drew praise from the bloc; Adoption of a joint statement including signing of 34 agreements (9+25) and memoranda of understanding denoted a new regional formation.
In the backdrop of the complex global landscape, leaders emphasized strengthening strategic partnership, concluding a free trade agreement (FTA) and advancing toward holding the Meeting of Ministers of Economy and Trade 6+1 between six GCC states and China. The consensus will accelerate negotiations on the FTA, helping the GCC build logistics and shipping hubs in the neighboring countries and attract more capital and technology.
Even for the countries in Middle East and North Africa region: from Algeria, Egypt, Djibouti, Iraq, Libya, Mauritania and Morocco to Sudan, Palestine, the Comoros, Tunisia and Yemen – the summit was a dawn of a multipolar world, a qualitative shift, a new starting point for economic cooperation, a new path in history, a platform of common concerns, a new era in existing strategic partnership, an opportunity to add a new brick to the relationship, a unified vision for sustainable development and an effort of political and economic integration.
As the GCC viewed China as an “essential” partner and showed keenness to jointly address the global economic challenges including food and energy security, integration in future projects through investment in innovation, technology and energy and collaboration in regional security and stability will diversify regional economies and deliver benefits to the people.
China’s rapid economic growth and technological development has transformed the country into one of the leading global powers. The bloc commended the versatility in the strategic cooperation in trade, investment, energy, education, scientific research, environment and health and sought to exchange experiences and expand partnerships with Beijing in the light of ambitious GCC development plans.
All the resource-rich GCC countries – Bahrain (Economic Vision 2030), Kuwait (Vision 2035), Oman (Vision 2040), Qatar (National Vision 2030), Saudi Arabia (Vision 2030) and the UAE (We the UAE 2031) – have announced their respective long-term visions to cut reliance on hydrocarbons in an effort to diversify their economies.
Given the GCC goals such as development of the port infrastructure and a strong high-tech sector for national economic diversification are also the key components of the Belt and Road Initiative, the Chinese infrastructural and technological chef-d'oeuvre offers promising opportunities for regional development.
Beijing and the GCC enjoy a close, historic trade relationship. The Economist Intelligence Unit in 2011 predicted Beijing to be the GCC's top trading partner in 2020. Over the last 10 years, bilateral trade has exceeded $300 billion, the balance of mutual direct investment amounts to $27 billion and more than 200 projects are being implemented within the framework of the BRI.
Twenty-one regional states have joined the BRI including Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), touted as the top destinations of Chinese construction projects by volume. Riyadh has agreed to synergize its vision with the BRI; a collaboration between the GCC economic plans and the BRI will further boost the Gulf significance and evolution as a “modern Arab region.”
The US human rights intervention and the western characterization of other governance systems as “autocratic” is one of the major concerns of China and the GCC. Beijing avoids intervening in regional conflicts and calls for resolving differences through dialogue and peace talks. The middle position allows China and the GCC to bolster and expand strategic cooperation and provide diplomatic support to each other's national sovereignty.
A reaffirmation to support mutual core interests, territorial integrity and defend the principle of non-interference in internal affairs was explicitly reflected in the Riyadh Declaration. It marked the signing of the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership Agreement between China and Saudi Arabia as well as a pledge to strengthen strategic partnership with the other GCC countries. The trend is gaining traction across the Middle East as some 12 Arab countries have so far entered into such a partnership with China.
Expansion of the BRICS – the bloc of the world’s largest emerging economies – is another realm where goals of China and the GCC are consistent. Saudi Arabia, the UAE and other regional states have shown interest to join the grouping. The BRICS enlargement in the years to come could bring economic and political benefits to the region as well as contribute to the formation of equitable relations based on mutual interests.
In an era of engagement and interdependence, America is pursuing a policy of decoupling and isolation, threatening to make other states “pariah.” The US has also been exploiting the regional flashpoints to its advantage. By seeking economic and industrial integration between China and the Gulf, committing unwavering support for regional security and denouncing the malicious campaign against Qatar, Beijing has captured the GCC attention.
Upset by the failure of its pivot to Asia, the US has been pressuring Gulf countries to curb their relations with China. As Beijing and the GCC pull out all the stops to broaden cooperation through strategic partnership and develop congruence on key issues, America is mindful of the growing Chinese influence in the Middle East and strategic accords with the GCC.
But it's too late to block the new regional alignments for the infrastructure development and technological advancement is a new marvel of the GCC that underpins its economic diversification, national security and strategic interests and will potentially lift the grouping’s international importance, expanding its influence in global institutions and decision-making.
Unfortunately, Pakistan, like in Afghanistan, is relying largely on playing the role of a facilitator simply because the South Asian state has nothing to offer in business terms. Foreign remittances, a cornerstone of the sharp-plunging foreign exchange reserves, are on the decline as virtually all political parties wax lyrical about economic successes in their respective ruling eras.
There is an absolute, glaring and sheer divergence between the thought and approach of the government and public. From the perspective of almost every political and national representative, Pakistan has got an enormous potential and is strategically well-placed. From the point of view of the professionals including engineers and technology experts, the country is losing its charm over inflation, economic and political instability and dearth of employment.
Nobody seems to be affronted by the heart-wrenching scenes of human capital flight and talent outflow, which may increasingly obfuscate Pakistan's dystopian future. The unskilled labor, mismatched with the GCC visions, puts economic security further in peril. Meanwhile, India and the Gulf states are bridging differences on the long-inert FTA including food and energy security and technology transfers.
More worryingly, the successive national leaders in Pakistan remain oblivious to the exacting challenges in the offing and are ecstatic triumphing a consolation win through sporadic debt relief or getting a pat from the US without making effective measures and efforts to stimulate the economy, let alone modernize it. This is an alarming sign for the country's national security that ranks economic security as a top priority.
*My opinion piece (unedited), first appeared in "The Express Tribune."
Amid a flurry of activity between China and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), Pakistan looked the growing rapprochement positively for this close affinity would make the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) a preferred conduit for their bilateral trade over reduced transportation cost, bringing two million jobs and billions in revenues to the cash-starved country through the Gwadar port.
Earlier this year, Pakistan's role between Beijing and the GCC was described as facilitative when it for the first time invited the Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi to attend the Organization of Islamic Conference, the second largest multilateral institution after the United Nations, with 57 member states. It was also seen as “a reminder of the high value" the Muslim-majority states placed on commercial relations with CHina.
Both China and Saudi Arabia have expressed interest and are keen to set up oil refineries in Balochistan's Hub and Gwadar yet red tape, excessive regulations, unfavorable policies and extensive documentation procedures continue to pose threats to Pakistan’s development. Absence of a strong federal government will likely put these and other investments at bay.
While Pakistan remains jolted by political and economic crises, China and the GCC are strengthening their all-round relationship. The largest and high-level diplomatic dialogue between Beijing and the Arab world drew praise from the bloc; Adoption of a joint statement including signing of 34 agreements (9+25) and memoranda of understanding denoted a new regional formation.
In the backdrop of the complex global landscape, leaders emphasized strengthening strategic partnership, concluding a free trade agreement (FTA) and advancing toward holding the Meeting of Ministers of Economy and Trade 6+1 between six GCC states and China. The consensus will accelerate negotiations on the FTA, helping the GCC build logistics and shipping hubs in the neighboring countries and attract more capital and technology.
Even for the countries in Middle East and North Africa region: from Algeria, Egypt, Djibouti, Iraq, Libya, Mauritania and Morocco to Sudan, Palestine, the Comoros, Tunisia and Yemen – the summit was a dawn of a multipolar world, a qualitative shift, a new starting point for economic cooperation, a new path in history, a platform of common concerns, a new era in existing strategic partnership, an opportunity to add a new brick to the relationship, a unified vision for sustainable development and an effort of political and economic integration.
As the GCC viewed China as an “essential” partner and showed keenness to jointly address the global economic challenges including food and energy security, integration in future projects through investment in innovation, technology and energy and collaboration in regional security and stability will diversify regional economies and deliver benefits to the people.
China’s rapid economic growth and technological development has transformed the country into one of the leading global powers. The bloc commended the versatility in the strategic cooperation in trade, investment, energy, education, scientific research, environment and health and sought to exchange experiences and expand partnerships with Beijing in the light of ambitious GCC development plans.
All the resource-rich GCC countries – Bahrain (Economic Vision 2030), Kuwait (Vision 2035), Oman (Vision 2040), Qatar (National Vision 2030), Saudi Arabia (Vision 2030) and the UAE (We the UAE 2031) – have announced their respective long-term visions to cut reliance on hydrocarbons in an effort to diversify their economies.
Given the GCC goals such as development of the port infrastructure and a strong high-tech sector for national economic diversification are also the key components of the Belt and Road Initiative, the Chinese infrastructural and technological chef-d'oeuvre offers promising opportunities for regional development.
Beijing and the GCC enjoy a close, historic trade relationship. The Economist Intelligence Unit in 2011 predicted Beijing to be the GCC's top trading partner in 2020. Over the last 10 years, bilateral trade has exceeded $300 billion, the balance of mutual direct investment amounts to $27 billion and more than 200 projects are being implemented within the framework of the BRI.
Twenty-one regional states have joined the BRI including Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), touted as the top destinations of Chinese construction projects by volume. Riyadh has agreed to synergize its vision with the BRI; a collaboration between the GCC economic plans and the BRI will further boost the Gulf significance and evolution as a “modern Arab region.”
The US human rights intervention and the western characterization of other governance systems as “autocratic” is one of the major concerns of China and the GCC. Beijing avoids intervening in regional conflicts and calls for resolving differences through dialogue and peace talks. The middle position allows China and the GCC to bolster and expand strategic cooperation and provide diplomatic support to each other's national sovereignty.
A reaffirmation to support mutual core interests, territorial integrity and defend the principle of non-interference in internal affairs was explicitly reflected in the Riyadh Declaration. It marked the signing of the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership Agreement between China and Saudi Arabia as well as a pledge to strengthen strategic partnership with the other GCC countries. The trend is gaining traction across the Middle East as some 12 Arab countries have so far entered into such a partnership with China.
Expansion of the BRICS – the bloc of the world’s largest emerging economies – is another realm where goals of China and the GCC are consistent. Saudi Arabia, the UAE and other regional states have shown interest to join the grouping. The BRICS enlargement in the years to come could bring economic and political benefits to the region as well as contribute to the formation of equitable relations based on mutual interests.
In an era of engagement and interdependence, America is pursuing a policy of decoupling and isolation, threatening to make other states “pariah.” The US has also been exploiting the regional flashpoints to its advantage. By seeking economic and industrial integration between China and the Gulf, committing unwavering support for regional security and denouncing the malicious campaign against Qatar, Beijing has captured the GCC attention.
Upset by the failure of its pivot to Asia, the US has been pressuring Gulf countries to curb their relations with China. As Beijing and the GCC pull out all the stops to broaden cooperation through strategic partnership and develop congruence on key issues, America is mindful of the growing Chinese influence in the Middle East and strategic accords with the GCC.
But it's too late to block the new regional alignments for the infrastructure development and technological advancement is a new marvel of the GCC that underpins its economic diversification, national security and strategic interests and will potentially lift the grouping’s international importance, expanding its influence in global institutions and decision-making.
Unfortunately, Pakistan, like in Afghanistan, is relying largely on playing the role of a facilitator simply because the South Asian state has nothing to offer in business terms. Foreign remittances, a cornerstone of the sharp-plunging foreign exchange reserves, are on the decline as virtually all political parties wax lyrical about economic successes in their respective ruling eras.
There is an absolute, glaring and sheer divergence between the thought and approach of the government and public. From the perspective of almost every political and national representative, Pakistan has got an enormous potential and is strategically well-placed. From the point of view of the professionals including engineers and technology experts, the country is losing its charm over inflation, economic and political instability and dearth of employment.
Nobody seems to be affronted by the heart-wrenching scenes of human capital flight and talent outflow, which may increasingly obfuscate Pakistan's dystopian future. The unskilled labor, mismatched with the GCC visions, puts economic security further in peril. Meanwhile, India and the Gulf states are bridging differences on the long-inert FTA including food and energy security and technology transfers.
More worryingly, the successive national leaders in Pakistan remain oblivious to the exacting challenges in the offing and are ecstatic triumphing a consolation win through sporadic debt relief or getting a pat from the US without making effective measures and efforts to stimulate the economy, let alone modernize it. This is an alarming sign for the country's national security that ranks economic security as a top priority.
*My opinion piece (unedited), first appeared in "The Express Tribune."
December 26, 2022
Kunming-Montreal biodiversity deal is a tremendous achievement
By: Azhar Azam
Biodiversity is the variability among living organisms from all sources and includes diversity within and between species and of ecosystems. It encompasses millions of distinct species, crops varieties and several types of marine and terrestrial ecosystems in which humans live and depend on, such as coastal areas, forests, wetlands, grasslands, mountains and deserts. It's essential for sustainable development and processes that help life organisms to survive on earth.
At the close of the second phase of the 15th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (COP15) in Montreal, Canada, delegates adopted the highly-anticipated Kunming-Montreal Global Diversity Framework. The agreement following two weeks of Beijing's efforts to negotiate a deal among 196 parties under its presidency to restore biodiversity loss.
China has built a global consensus on biodiversity protection. At the first phase of the COP15 in Kunming, Beijing blazed a trail by calling on all parties to demonstrate flexibility, continue on with momentum to fulfill commitments of the Kunming Declaration and prepare for the adoption of an ambitious biodiversity framework. In Montreal, it came to fruition and that would be consequential to achieve global biodiversity targets.
Beijing's fundamental role, as well as attempts to engage parties and organize bilateral and multilateral events and discussions to clinch a compromise recently drawing praise from Elizabeth Maruma Mrema, Executive Secretary of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and Marco Lambertini, Director General of the World Wildlife Fund International.
According to the CBD, China is among the world's 12 mega biodiverse countries. Alongside forest cover of 22.96 percent of the total land area and perhaps the largest stock volume of forest plantations, it harbors abundant and diverse wildlife. China is also one of the eight centers of origin for crops with about 10,000 species of crops and their relatives and rich in marsh, lake and river wetlands. Grasslands cover about 41.7 percent. Marine areas shelter some 20, 278 species (10 percent of world). Deserts account for 27.46 percent.
Just months after the CBD entered into effect on December 29, 1993, laying out three main objectives – conservation of biodiversity, sustainable use of components of biodiversity and fair and equitable sharing of benefits from genetic resource utilization – the Chinese State Council in June 1994 released the Biodiversity Conservation Action Plan to take effective measures to prevent biodiversity losses by reducing the rate of biodiversity loss.
At around the release of China's National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (2011-2030) to implement the provisions of the CBD and strengthen the biodiversity in the country, seven goals of the prior strategy had been mostly achieved and most of 26 priority actions were implemented. "The implementation of the Action Plan has strongly promoted biodiversity conservation in China," said the CBD report.
The successive plan enshrining principles – such as conservation, sustainable use, public participation and benefit-sharing – has gotten implemented, while offering guidance on 10 priority areas including policy and legal framework for biodiversity conservation and sustainable utilization of bio-resources and 30 actions including inter-departmental coordination mechanism.
The Chinese Ministry of Environmental Protection had teamed up with more than 20 ministries and departments to update the new strategy. Regarding the 2020 global biodiversity (the Aichi) targets, Beijing has contributed to the UN Sustainable Development Goals and 2020 global biodiversity targets by fulfilling its obligations and advancing 13 targets, even exceeding three others: establishing terrestrial nature reserves, restoring ecosystem services and elevating ecosystem resilience and carbon storage.
The country's proposal, drawing a "red line" for ecological protection to mitigate and adapt to climate change, was selected by the UN as one of 15 best nature-based solutions the world over. In a bid to further conserve biodiversity, China has designated 25 percent of its land as ecological conservation and would push forward on the global process of biodiversity protection.
During the gathering, countries pledged to revive one billion hectares of land and coasts, an area larger than China. The UN recently evaluated and recognized 10 groundbreaking initiatives, the World Restoration Flagships, from around the planet that could restore more than 68 million hectares, and generate almost 15 million jobs.
Nonetheless, a smear campaign is underway to dampen China's contributions to biodiversity conservation by accusing it of illegal fishing and trivializing Chinese actions over protecting wildlife. But such efforts will not gather steam, since the CBD acknowledges China has introduced a fishing licensing system and fishing ban season, enacted considerable policy measures for the use of wildlife resources such as a 10-year prohibition in the Yangtze River and conducted special campaigns against illegal fishing.
China has acted in a phenomenal manner and continues to demonstrate leadership not just in global biodiversity protection but has inspired the world to converge on common interests and to tackle shared challenges.
The adoption of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, an indivisible (and) ambitious package and a crucial deal named after the two host cities of China and Canada, is a tremendous achievement that exemplifies engagement and dialogue is a key to resolve differences to counter global threats and Beijing remains a vital global player to tackle all issues and build universal consensus.
Biodiversity is the variability among living organisms from all sources and includes diversity within and between species and of ecosystems. It encompasses millions of distinct species, crops varieties and several types of marine and terrestrial ecosystems in which humans live and depend on, such as coastal areas, forests, wetlands, grasslands, mountains and deserts. It's essential for sustainable development and processes that help life organisms to survive on earth.
At the close of the second phase of the 15th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (COP15) in Montreal, Canada, delegates adopted the highly-anticipated Kunming-Montreal Global Diversity Framework. The agreement following two weeks of Beijing's efforts to negotiate a deal among 196 parties under its presidency to restore biodiversity loss.
China has built a global consensus on biodiversity protection. At the first phase of the COP15 in Kunming, Beijing blazed a trail by calling on all parties to demonstrate flexibility, continue on with momentum to fulfill commitments of the Kunming Declaration and prepare for the adoption of an ambitious biodiversity framework. In Montreal, it came to fruition and that would be consequential to achieve global biodiversity targets.
Beijing's fundamental role, as well as attempts to engage parties and organize bilateral and multilateral events and discussions to clinch a compromise recently drawing praise from Elizabeth Maruma Mrema, Executive Secretary of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and Marco Lambertini, Director General of the World Wildlife Fund International.
According to the CBD, China is among the world's 12 mega biodiverse countries. Alongside forest cover of 22.96 percent of the total land area and perhaps the largest stock volume of forest plantations, it harbors abundant and diverse wildlife. China is also one of the eight centers of origin for crops with about 10,000 species of crops and their relatives and rich in marsh, lake and river wetlands. Grasslands cover about 41.7 percent. Marine areas shelter some 20, 278 species (10 percent of world). Deserts account for 27.46 percent.
Just months after the CBD entered into effect on December 29, 1993, laying out three main objectives – conservation of biodiversity, sustainable use of components of biodiversity and fair and equitable sharing of benefits from genetic resource utilization – the Chinese State Council in June 1994 released the Biodiversity Conservation Action Plan to take effective measures to prevent biodiversity losses by reducing the rate of biodiversity loss.
At around the release of China's National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (2011-2030) to implement the provisions of the CBD and strengthen the biodiversity in the country, seven goals of the prior strategy had been mostly achieved and most of 26 priority actions were implemented. "The implementation of the Action Plan has strongly promoted biodiversity conservation in China," said the CBD report.
The successive plan enshrining principles – such as conservation, sustainable use, public participation and benefit-sharing – has gotten implemented, while offering guidance on 10 priority areas including policy and legal framework for biodiversity conservation and sustainable utilization of bio-resources and 30 actions including inter-departmental coordination mechanism.
The Chinese Ministry of Environmental Protection had teamed up with more than 20 ministries and departments to update the new strategy. Regarding the 2020 global biodiversity (the Aichi) targets, Beijing has contributed to the UN Sustainable Development Goals and 2020 global biodiversity targets by fulfilling its obligations and advancing 13 targets, even exceeding three others: establishing terrestrial nature reserves, restoring ecosystem services and elevating ecosystem resilience and carbon storage.
The country's proposal, drawing a "red line" for ecological protection to mitigate and adapt to climate change, was selected by the UN as one of 15 best nature-based solutions the world over. In a bid to further conserve biodiversity, China has designated 25 percent of its land as ecological conservation and would push forward on the global process of biodiversity protection.
During the gathering, countries pledged to revive one billion hectares of land and coasts, an area larger than China. The UN recently evaluated and recognized 10 groundbreaking initiatives, the World Restoration Flagships, from around the planet that could restore more than 68 million hectares, and generate almost 15 million jobs.
Nonetheless, a smear campaign is underway to dampen China's contributions to biodiversity conservation by accusing it of illegal fishing and trivializing Chinese actions over protecting wildlife. But such efforts will not gather steam, since the CBD acknowledges China has introduced a fishing licensing system and fishing ban season, enacted considerable policy measures for the use of wildlife resources such as a 10-year prohibition in the Yangtze River and conducted special campaigns against illegal fishing.
China has acted in a phenomenal manner and continues to demonstrate leadership not just in global biodiversity protection but has inspired the world to converge on common interests and to tackle shared challenges.
The adoption of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, an indivisible (and) ambitious package and a crucial deal named after the two host cities of China and Canada, is a tremendous achievement that exemplifies engagement and dialogue is a key to resolve differences to counter global threats and Beijing remains a vital global player to tackle all issues and build universal consensus.
*This is my opinion piece that first appeared at "China Global Television Network (CGTN)":
December 24, 2022
Friend-shoring is a new symbolism of protectionism
Assessment found America lacked “sufficient capacity” to produce semiconductors and relied primarily on Taiwan, South Korea and China for leading-edge logic and mature node chips. The review identified China and European Union (EU) had “developed and deployed” ambitious government-led industrial policies to support their success through battery supply chain.
It noted US drug manufacturing, particularly for generic and common drugs, was “often undercut” by foreign competition from China and India. Only after realizing America “cannot” manufacture all products at home or address its supply chain susceptibilities alone, Biden administration dropped pursuing onshoring and mooted "friend-shoring" to strengthen US resilience.
Ever since, US officials have been trying to put flesh on the concept. Once Biden made it clear to allies he wasn’t interested in joining the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, his Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo said Washington was “very interested” to increase the domestic supply of semiconductors through the friend-shoring.
America desperately wanted to bring manufacturing at home; it couldn’t make, mine or manufacture everything over high labor prices. The domestic pitfalls led to US promotion of friend-shoring to bolster the country's resilience. In recent months, US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen acknowledged America’s supply chains were “very efficient and excellent at reducing business costs” and backed friend-shoring in South Korea to develop strong supply chains for key components like electric vehicle (EV) batteries and semiconductors.
Washington also counted on New Delhi to friend-shore semiconductor production. But India is reluctant to restrict trade with Russia and has opted against signing up the trade pillar of Biden’s Indo-Pacific Economic Framework. While Indian stubborn attitude weakens the Quad position vis-à-vis Europe, her stand thins out its attractiveness as a trusted partner for friend-shoring.
Meanwhile, world leaders are taking the liberty to call out the US proposal. In May, Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong openly criticized friend-shoring and described it as an action to “shut off avenues for regional growth and cooperation” and drive a wedge between other states. More recently, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said deglobalization wasn't an option and dubbed such efforts as protectionism.
Friend-shoring enshrouds some serious implications for globalization and multilateral trading system. Experts warn it’s part of a deglobalization process that will bring further supply chocks, higher prices and lower growth.
Cecilia Malmström – nonresident fellow at Peterson Institute for International Economics and former member of the European Commission and European Parliament – reckons EU and Indo-Pacific account for 70% of global trade and 60% of direct investment flows. Emphasizing further integration between the economies of the regions could strengthen stability, security, prosperity and sustainable development, she described friend-shoring as "more protectionist."
Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, WTO Director-General warned against relying too heavily on friend-shoring and hypothesized breaking the world into two trading blocs would slash global GDP by 5%. After meeting with Scholz, she and Kristalina Georgieva, MD IMF, recalled protectionism, decoupling and fragmentation could negatively impact global economy as well as developing and emerging markets whose economies could contract by double-digit.
In a new report, the UNCTAD warned friend-shoring could weigh on global trading system with US and EU plans potentially fragmenting the international commerce. “If you try to get away from one part of the world, you create a huge disruption to the system. Everything changes,” said Secretary General Rebeca Grynspan.
After reshoring and onshoring, friend-shoring is the latest wheeze of the Biden administration; in practice, it’s a de facto and defunct American protectionist approach, which is launched under the veil of the new symbolism with support of the controversial legislation to steal away major allies' high-tech production facilities and quality jobs. Cracking the tail end of the concept is as easy as winking: rip up existing global supply chains and build a whole new, US-dominated manufacturing and trading system.
*My opinion piece (unedited), first appeared in "The Express Tribune."
December 23, 2022
US should avoid making Africa a battleground of geopolitical rivalry
By: Azhar Azam
In efforts to reset ties with Africa, former U.S. President Barack Obama in 2014 greeted dozens of African leaders at the first U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit and promised, "We are here not just to talk. We are here to take action, assuring them to take "tangible steps to deliver more prosperity, more security and more justice to our citizens."
Amid complaints from African diplomats about a "drifting" U.S. policy that ignores Africa's objectives, U.S. President Joe Biden hosted leaders and delegates of 49 African countries and the African Union in the second U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit 2022 and struck similar remarks that Africans had heard eight years ago, "The United States is all in on Africa's future."
Before the summit, the White House announced plans to commit $55 billion of investments in economic, security and health sectors in Africa over the next three years. This is a welcome gesture, but the U.S. shouldn't smear China when trying to reassert its influence across the continent.
U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, during a panel discussion with African leaders, said China was expanding its footprint in Africa "on a daily basis" through its growing economic influence and accusing other countries of destabilizing the region. African representatives cannot be hoodwinked and are keen to know what the Biden administration has to offer for peace and development in the region.
Investment, infrastructure development and trade with Africa ought to remain the U.S. focus. Since Biden entered the White House, through the country's foreign aid agency, Millennium Challenge Corporation has announced $1.2 billion of investments in Africa. Biden promotes the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment for the continent's energy transition and infrastructure development. Africa wonders whether he will live up to his promises given Obama era's five-year Power Africa initiative is only 25 percent complete.
Biden said America was signing a memorandum of understanding with the new African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) to unlock new opportunities. U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris boasted the country would invest $3.3 billion in medium- and long-term agriculture and food security investments, but U.S. leaders paid lip-service to bilateral trade, which have fallen sharply over the years.
In 2014 when trade was one of three key pillars of the Obama administration's engagement with Africa, two-way trade was about $73 billion, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. In 2021, the Africa-U.S. trade shrank to about $64 billion. In comparison, China is Africa's largest trade partner with bilateral trade of $254 billion in 2021.
Security is the shared goal of the Obama and Biden administrations. This raises doubts about the securitization of development or developmentalization of security, which remains a focus of the U.S. since 9/11 with militarization of development in Afghanistan and the creation of U.S. Africa Command in Africa in 2006.
The subordination of growth and development objectives over security priorities has failed to deliver security to Africa, undermining development and destabilizing the continent. It will do good to neither security nor development in Africa except for holding up the net-zero transition and limiting AfCFTA benefits.
Peace and prosperity are crucial for Africa and the world. This should be pursued through international support to build the capacity of African forces. Foreign meddling in continental affairs have exacerbated regional peace and prolonged conflicts. The U.S. is estimated to run several dozen outposts across the East, West and North to launch military operations.
America's intervention in African elections to promote democracy and U.S. National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan's framing Africa as a "key geopolitical player" cast doubt on Washington's commitment to peace and prosperity in Africa and increases risk that Africa's development will be overshadowed by U.S. security objectives.
A dramatic increase in high-intensity conflicts and consequent deaths that coincides with the expansion of transnational terrorist organizations underscores the efforts to make Africa the battleground of geopolitical rivalries through military deployment or other means.
Geopolitical tensions have been aggravated by U.S. concerns over narrowing income gaps between developed and emerging economies. Former U.S. President Donald Trump's tariffs on China in 2018 provoked retaliation and precipitated a trade war, impacting global trade and growth, especially Africa's.
While a study at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in May 2020 found the trade war reduced the market capitalization of the U.S. listed firm by $1.7 trillion and would lower investment by 1.9 percent by the end of 2020, the African Development Bank in 2019 warned trade frictions could trigger a 2.5 percent decline in resource-intensive African countries by 2021.
Africa has about 850 million young people and it's expected to reach 1.2 billion by 2050. A continent with such an enormous youth population and potential shouldn't be an arena of great-power or geopolitical competition. African leaders want to make the continent attractive place and to end its characterization as a region plagued by diseases, poverty, hunger and illegal migration. They will not become a pawn of the U.S. larger geopolitical strategy.
In efforts to reset ties with Africa, former U.S. President Barack Obama in 2014 greeted dozens of African leaders at the first U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit and promised, "We are here not just to talk. We are here to take action, assuring them to take "tangible steps to deliver more prosperity, more security and more justice to our citizens."
Amid complaints from African diplomats about a "drifting" U.S. policy that ignores Africa's objectives, U.S. President Joe Biden hosted leaders and delegates of 49 African countries and the African Union in the second U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit 2022 and struck similar remarks that Africans had heard eight years ago, "The United States is all in on Africa's future."
Before the summit, the White House announced plans to commit $55 billion of investments in economic, security and health sectors in Africa over the next three years. This is a welcome gesture, but the U.S. shouldn't smear China when trying to reassert its influence across the continent.
U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, during a panel discussion with African leaders, said China was expanding its footprint in Africa "on a daily basis" through its growing economic influence and accusing other countries of destabilizing the region. African representatives cannot be hoodwinked and are keen to know what the Biden administration has to offer for peace and development in the region.
Investment, infrastructure development and trade with Africa ought to remain the U.S. focus. Since Biden entered the White House, through the country's foreign aid agency, Millennium Challenge Corporation has announced $1.2 billion of investments in Africa. Biden promotes the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment for the continent's energy transition and infrastructure development. Africa wonders whether he will live up to his promises given Obama era's five-year Power Africa initiative is only 25 percent complete.
Biden said America was signing a memorandum of understanding with the new African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) to unlock new opportunities. U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris boasted the country would invest $3.3 billion in medium- and long-term agriculture and food security investments, but U.S. leaders paid lip-service to bilateral trade, which have fallen sharply over the years.
In 2014 when trade was one of three key pillars of the Obama administration's engagement with Africa, two-way trade was about $73 billion, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. In 2021, the Africa-U.S. trade shrank to about $64 billion. In comparison, China is Africa's largest trade partner with bilateral trade of $254 billion in 2021.
Security is the shared goal of the Obama and Biden administrations. This raises doubts about the securitization of development or developmentalization of security, which remains a focus of the U.S. since 9/11 with militarization of development in Afghanistan and the creation of U.S. Africa Command in Africa in 2006.
The subordination of growth and development objectives over security priorities has failed to deliver security to Africa, undermining development and destabilizing the continent. It will do good to neither security nor development in Africa except for holding up the net-zero transition and limiting AfCFTA benefits.
Peace and prosperity are crucial for Africa and the world. This should be pursued through international support to build the capacity of African forces. Foreign meddling in continental affairs have exacerbated regional peace and prolonged conflicts. The U.S. is estimated to run several dozen outposts across the East, West and North to launch military operations.
America's intervention in African elections to promote democracy and U.S. National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan's framing Africa as a "key geopolitical player" cast doubt on Washington's commitment to peace and prosperity in Africa and increases risk that Africa's development will be overshadowed by U.S. security objectives.
A dramatic increase in high-intensity conflicts and consequent deaths that coincides with the expansion of transnational terrorist organizations underscores the efforts to make Africa the battleground of geopolitical rivalries through military deployment or other means.
Geopolitical tensions have been aggravated by U.S. concerns over narrowing income gaps between developed and emerging economies. Former U.S. President Donald Trump's tariffs on China in 2018 provoked retaliation and precipitated a trade war, impacting global trade and growth, especially Africa's.
While a study at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in May 2020 found the trade war reduced the market capitalization of the U.S. listed firm by $1.7 trillion and would lower investment by 1.9 percent by the end of 2020, the African Development Bank in 2019 warned trade frictions could trigger a 2.5 percent decline in resource-intensive African countries by 2021.
Africa has about 850 million young people and it's expected to reach 1.2 billion by 2050. A continent with such an enormous youth population and potential shouldn't be an arena of great-power or geopolitical competition. African leaders want to make the continent attractive place and to end its characterization as a region plagued by diseases, poverty, hunger and illegal migration. They will not become a pawn of the U.S. larger geopolitical strategy.
*This is my opinion piece that first appeared at "China Global Television Network (CGTN)":
December 22, 2022
21 years in WTO: China stands by its commitments
By: Azhar Azam
This year's December 11 marks the 21st anniversary of China's entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO). When China was not a member of the WTO, its exports were subject to discriminatory treatment from the overseas markets. The country saw its exporting enterprises facing anti-dumping actions. After 15 years of negotiations, China acceded to the WTO.
Before entering the WTO, China was making a rapid transition to a market economy. According to a study by the International Monetary Fund, China from 1979-1994 recorded an average real economic growth rate of more than 9 percent per annum, exceeding 13 percent in some years.
The IMF recognized that the sustained increase in productivity (increased worker efficiency), started from 1978.
Washington supported Beijing's candidacy for WTO membership and urged Congress to approve Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) with China that had been passed every year since 1980 to "choose" economic growth for the country.
China's ambitious reforms, opening up of its economy and innovations boosted productivity and raised living standards for all Chinese. Hence, Beijing joined the WTO to emerge as one of the world leading trading nations.
Beijing's WTO membership and PNTR status allowed the U.S. and other foreign companies to produce goods in China and export them back and to the world. A study by the National Bureau of Economic Research in 2017 found China's entry to the WTO reduced prices of Chinese manufactured goods in the U.S. by an estimated 7.6 percent between 2000 and 2006. It saved roughly $340 billion for the domestic manufacturing sector in 2014.
Two analyses in 2017 and 2019 claimed that China's development supported $216 billion, or 1.2 percent of U.S. GDP in 2015, as well as a total of 2.6 million jobs with Chinese imports pushing the purchasing power of each U.S. household by $1,500 between 2000 and 2007.
Another study for 1980-2016 described the U.S. as a greater beneficiary of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT-WTO) membership in terms of growth in manufacturing output and exports compared to China. After China joined the WTO, the U.S. manufacturing sustained its growth momentum until the Great Recession in 2007 and has maintained record levels ever since.
The American agriculture sector had more access to the 1.4 billion market and lifted U.S. agricultural exports to China by 700 percent between 2000 and 2017, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. In 2021, Washington's farm exports witnessed a steep rise of 25 percent to about $33 billion, supporting millions of on-farm employment.
U.S. companies also have strong performance in China. In a 2021 survey by the U.S.-China Business Council, 95 percent of respondents reported their China operations were profitable and hoped to bolster innovation and competitiveness in the country and around the world. Most companies expected their revenue to surge in the future.
Some former and current U.S. officials indict China for violating its WTO obligations and exploiting gaps in WTO rules. Actually, the U.S. has shown disregard for this organization. After the Donald Trump administration levied punitive tariffs on Chinese goods, inconsistent with the WTO rules, U.S. President Joe Biden continues to break protocol by keeping these duties intact.
While subsidies and tax credits under the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act threaten the rules-based international order, they undermine the interests of the countries deemed close to America. The European Union believes the tax breaks contravene the WTO rules and put their businesses at a disadvantage against U.S. rivals. Germany has warned of a trade war with the U.S. over the latter's "enormously protectionist" policy.
Over the last two decades, China has met its WTO accession commitments. As of 2021, Beijing had cut the overall tariff rate to 7.4 percent from 15.3 percent in 2001, and opened 120 service industry sub-sectors, more than the binding commitment of 9.8 percent and 100 respectively. China had pledged to advance trade and investment liberalization and take measures for the development of a market economy.
The latest research noticed the Chinese exports were experiencing growth due to domestic reforms that increased productivity and the WTO entry had boosted the efficiency. An analysis of the "China Shock" came to a conclusion: although some U.S. regions lost manufacturing jobs as a result of trade with China in early 2000s, the trend has ended and it's "likely" China is leading to an increase in America's service sector employment or may have even increased total U.S. employment.
In its 2004 report, the U.S. Trade Representative acknowledged China's regulations were "substantially" in compliance with its WTO obligations; the most recent report alleges Beijing hasn't embraced the WTO rules. This is a distortion of the truth. Beijing is building a market-oriented business environment.
China's maturation into the "world's factory" has reinforced the U.S. global economic dominant position in the world by playing a central role in the country's supply chains, bringing hundreds of dollars to American investors, sending the most students and creating millions of jobs in the U.S. exports sectors. In comparison, Washington continues to downplay the role of the WTO and is enforcing protectionism over its allies that could force them to safeguard their own economic interests.
This year's December 11 marks the 21st anniversary of China's entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO). When China was not a member of the WTO, its exports were subject to discriminatory treatment from the overseas markets. The country saw its exporting enterprises facing anti-dumping actions. After 15 years of negotiations, China acceded to the WTO.
Before entering the WTO, China was making a rapid transition to a market economy. According to a study by the International Monetary Fund, China from 1979-1994 recorded an average real economic growth rate of more than 9 percent per annum, exceeding 13 percent in some years.
The IMF recognized that the sustained increase in productivity (increased worker efficiency), started from 1978.
Washington supported Beijing's candidacy for WTO membership and urged Congress to approve Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) with China that had been passed every year since 1980 to "choose" economic growth for the country.
China's ambitious reforms, opening up of its economy and innovations boosted productivity and raised living standards for all Chinese. Hence, Beijing joined the WTO to emerge as one of the world leading trading nations.
Beijing's WTO membership and PNTR status allowed the U.S. and other foreign companies to produce goods in China and export them back and to the world. A study by the National Bureau of Economic Research in 2017 found China's entry to the WTO reduced prices of Chinese manufactured goods in the U.S. by an estimated 7.6 percent between 2000 and 2006. It saved roughly $340 billion for the domestic manufacturing sector in 2014.
Two analyses in 2017 and 2019 claimed that China's development supported $216 billion, or 1.2 percent of U.S. GDP in 2015, as well as a total of 2.6 million jobs with Chinese imports pushing the purchasing power of each U.S. household by $1,500 between 2000 and 2007.
Another study for 1980-2016 described the U.S. as a greater beneficiary of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT-WTO) membership in terms of growth in manufacturing output and exports compared to China. After China joined the WTO, the U.S. manufacturing sustained its growth momentum until the Great Recession in 2007 and has maintained record levels ever since.
The American agriculture sector had more access to the 1.4 billion market and lifted U.S. agricultural exports to China by 700 percent between 2000 and 2017, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. In 2021, Washington's farm exports witnessed a steep rise of 25 percent to about $33 billion, supporting millions of on-farm employment.
U.S. companies also have strong performance in China. In a 2021 survey by the U.S.-China Business Council, 95 percent of respondents reported their China operations were profitable and hoped to bolster innovation and competitiveness in the country and around the world. Most companies expected their revenue to surge in the future.
Some former and current U.S. officials indict China for violating its WTO obligations and exploiting gaps in WTO rules. Actually, the U.S. has shown disregard for this organization. After the Donald Trump administration levied punitive tariffs on Chinese goods, inconsistent with the WTO rules, U.S. President Joe Biden continues to break protocol by keeping these duties intact.
While subsidies and tax credits under the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act threaten the rules-based international order, they undermine the interests of the countries deemed close to America. The European Union believes the tax breaks contravene the WTO rules and put their businesses at a disadvantage against U.S. rivals. Germany has warned of a trade war with the U.S. over the latter's "enormously protectionist" policy.
Over the last two decades, China has met its WTO accession commitments. As of 2021, Beijing had cut the overall tariff rate to 7.4 percent from 15.3 percent in 2001, and opened 120 service industry sub-sectors, more than the binding commitment of 9.8 percent and 100 respectively. China had pledged to advance trade and investment liberalization and take measures for the development of a market economy.
The latest research noticed the Chinese exports were experiencing growth due to domestic reforms that increased productivity and the WTO entry had boosted the efficiency. An analysis of the "China Shock" came to a conclusion: although some U.S. regions lost manufacturing jobs as a result of trade with China in early 2000s, the trend has ended and it's "likely" China is leading to an increase in America's service sector employment or may have even increased total U.S. employment.
In its 2004 report, the U.S. Trade Representative acknowledged China's regulations were "substantially" in compliance with its WTO obligations; the most recent report alleges Beijing hasn't embraced the WTO rules. This is a distortion of the truth. Beijing is building a market-oriented business environment.
China's maturation into the "world's factory" has reinforced the U.S. global economic dominant position in the world by playing a central role in the country's supply chains, bringing hundreds of dollars to American investors, sending the most students and creating millions of jobs in the U.S. exports sectors. In comparison, Washington continues to downplay the role of the WTO and is enforcing protectionism over its allies that could force them to safeguard their own economic interests.
*This is my opinion piece that first appeared at "China Global Television Network (CGTN)":
December 21, 2022
Integrated deterrence: a coercive cold war approach
By: Azhar Azam
In the contemporary past, states involved in serious international crises or wars have used military power and undertaken coercive strategies to punish people to deter or force other governments to do their bidding. As the policy recurrently led to “coercive failures,” they contemplated on the effectiveness of the military and non-military sanctions as instruments of coercion.
The debate on adopting coercive strategies resurfaced in America during the 1990s. A study, at the US Department of Defense (DOD) website offered strategic coercion (a military strategy encompassing the “art of coercion”, intimidation and deterrence) as a solution to quandary of avoiding the “cyclical” dangers of brute force.
It underlined strategic coercion might require a fusion of both coercive apparatuses: Denial (compel target nation to concede to “coercer demands”) and Second Order Change (“impose the threat” of high order costs on target nation). A subsequent paper would further the discussion of how best to exploit the military as a coercive tool and inserted “coercive diplomacy” to an “effective national coercion.”
Yet the effort to change the behavior of a target state or group through the threat or limited use of force in the coming years failed more often than not. Diplomacy may be anything but non-coercive to reach a solution by peaceful means; the US policymakers value it only on coercive footing, using such measures to impose sanctions and military overuse.
Coercive diplomacy is part and parcel of the US foreign policy in a modern era. Jake Sullivan and William Burns, now National Security Adviser and Director Central Intelligence Agency in the Biden administration, in May 2019 called Donald Trump’s strategy “all coercion and no diplomacy”; they stressed on careful synchronization of both elements of the approach: coercion and diplomacy.
Of late, the US has turned to practicing coercion in the guise of deterrence. Through its 2018 National Defense Strategy (NDS), America changed course from terrorism to long-term strategic competition to compete, deter and win in an increasingly complex security environment by “seamless integration” of all dimensions of national power, attributing coercion to China.
Labeling China as the US strategic competitor, the NDS accused Beijing of “leveraging” military modernization, influence operations and predatory economics to intimidate its neighbors and seek Indo-Pacific hegemony. Still, the Pentagon insisted it wasn’t a strategy of confrontation instead something that recognized the reality of competition.
A congressional mandated commission to examine the NDS used the two terms interchangeably and found the deterrent or “coercive value” of the DOD's unpredictability and creativity as limited. It nevertheless supported the priority NDS placed on preparing for “major-power competition and conflict,” recalling the cold war era when the US possessed greater military power than “any rival or group of rivals.” The 2018 NDS shared similar concerns as the country emerged from "strategic atrophy" and believed its military edge was eroding.
The 2022 NDS primary focus is again China and great power competition continues to be the “defining feature” of the China-US relationship for the Biden administration. The new doctrine describes Beijing as Washington’s “most consequential strategic competitor” and the DOD’s “pacing challenge” for the Chinese economy and defense is quickly expanding and modernizing in every aspect and threatens to “offset” the US advantages.
America’s officials do understand what coercion or deterrence is and that two concepts are different in nature. They deliberately muddle them to describe their coercive actions as a deterrent to avoid the world looking at these measures as coercion. In the new NDS, the DOD astutely aims to achieve its objectives through integrated deterrence: a “coordinated, multifaceted” approach, “backstopped” by a safe, secure and effective nuclear deterrent. Guam contributes to the “overall integrity” of integrated deterrence and builds a bedrock for the US intervention in Asia-Pacific and Taiwan.
Integrated (across conventional, nuclear, cyber, space and informational domains and allies and partners) and deterrence (deny the “rapid fait accompli scenarios” that has been at the heart of the US defense policy since the cold war) is the cornerstone of the 2022 NDS. The US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin called it a new way of approaching deterrence whose implementation required nuclear weapons to play a unique role in the Pentagon's defense strategy.
One of the NDS’ major concerns is the “scope and pace” of China’s nuclear expansion. Washington seems not to believe Beijing’s “solemn” commitment of no preemptive nuclear strike but the problem is the key Indo-Pacific states don’t see the US nuclear submarine cooperation with Australia and the UK (AUKUS) positively, fearing it could trigger an arms race in the region. Remember, America is the only country that has the history of dropping nuclear bombs and erasing two Japanese cities using nuclear bombs
What blows the whistle for the Indo-Pacific states is the NDS chooses their region as a cold war theater by alleging Beijing for trying to leverage its economic influence and military strength to “refashion” the Indo-Pacific and describing China as “the most comprehensive and serious challenge” to the US national security. Indonesia, the leading regional economy, deciphered the veiled nod and refused to be a “pawn” in the new cold war.
The NDS reasoning about China fares poorly after the US Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley’s recent comments. In a press briefing alongside Austin, he unfolded America’s ambitions to contain China for its emergence as the only country – which because of its large population and growth in the areas of economy, technology and information – had the power and potential to challenge the US globally.
A Pentagon official of late reached out to some European countries to promote the NDS concept of China as a “pacing challenge” and discussed their “key role” in the NDS. Milley’s statement and the visit may raise concerns in the Indo-Pacific about the US intent to play up the China threat for advancing its policy goals.
The DOD sees integrated deterrence as a novel vision; it is an outdated US grand strategy of coercion that on several instances in the last three decades hasn’t come off. This overarching focus of the Biden administration on great power competition draws resources as well as the attention away from climate change, which the DOD itself characterized as a national security risk.
According to an estimate by the US National Intelligence Council, climate change will increasingly exacerbate risks to America’s national security interests. At that instant, the DOD Climate Risk Analysis (DCRA) also committed to “integrate” climate considerations into strategic, planning and other documents as well as engagements with allies by working within the whole-of-government and in concert with partners.
Both White House and the DCRA acknowledged climate change was “reshaping” the world and the “geostrategic, operational and tactical environment” with some major security implications for the US national security and defense. The NDS too frames climate change as a threat to the homeland and a transboundary challenge but doesn’t analyze the DOD own contributions to increasing temperature, changing precipitation patterns, rising sea levels and unpredictable extreme weather conditions.
The status of the US military as the single-largest consumer of energy in the US and the world’s largest institutional consumer of petroleum is a worst-kept secret. Citing this fact, a couple of the US Congressmen in January 2021 urged the US President Joe Biden to uphold his climate goals by requiring the DOD to commit to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. “Since 2001, the military has accounted for 77 to 80 percent of federal energy use. According to the White House’s December 2021 Federal Sustainability Plan, 56 percent of federal government emissions come from the DOD,” they wrote.
Even as Austin called climate change an “existential threat,” experts contest the initiatives are too late and it’s hard to align military expansion with climate goals. That’s because the US military over the decades has inherited an acrimonious legacy of harming the environment as a US federal agency discovered at least one million civilian and military staff and their families were exposed to the contaminated drinking water at North Carolina’s Camp Lejeune military base since 1982.
Neta Crawford, a professor at the University of Oxford and co-director of Brown University’s Cost of War Project, in his latest groundbreaking book “The Pentagon, Climate Change, and War” delved into the human-caused climate change and found the US economy and military together had created a “deep and long-term cycle of economic growth, fossil fuel and dependency.” Accusing the Pentagon of resisting reporting its own greenhouse gas emissions, she concluded America faced more risk from climate change than military conflicts and saw a “lack of urgency and agency” from an institution, which believed it could do “almost anything.”
Roughly every US president has boasted about America’s economic and military primacy over the world. The desire for “number one” comes with a responsibility: play an integrated role to bring peace and stability in the world and protect Americans and poor countries from serious fallouts of climate change. The US interagency instruments such as economic sanctions, export controls and diplomatic measures are neither the purview of the DOD nor a right way to secure Americans, expand “economic prosperity” and defend the homeland.
Integrated deterrence, the “centerpiece” of the 2022 NDS, is even more dangerous for international peace considering threats to the US national security spring from climate change rather than the potential foes. Countries including American allies may not endorse such a lousy idea that bears resemblance to the US post-world war coercion and instills a new cold war approach.
*My opinion piece (unedited), first appeared in "The Express Tribune."
In the contemporary past, states involved in serious international crises or wars have used military power and undertaken coercive strategies to punish people to deter or force other governments to do their bidding. As the policy recurrently led to “coercive failures,” they contemplated on the effectiveness of the military and non-military sanctions as instruments of coercion.
The debate on adopting coercive strategies resurfaced in America during the 1990s. A study, at the US Department of Defense (DOD) website offered strategic coercion (a military strategy encompassing the “art of coercion”, intimidation and deterrence) as a solution to quandary of avoiding the “cyclical” dangers of brute force.
It underlined strategic coercion might require a fusion of both coercive apparatuses: Denial (compel target nation to concede to “coercer demands”) and Second Order Change (“impose the threat” of high order costs on target nation). A subsequent paper would further the discussion of how best to exploit the military as a coercive tool and inserted “coercive diplomacy” to an “effective national coercion.”
Yet the effort to change the behavior of a target state or group through the threat or limited use of force in the coming years failed more often than not. Diplomacy may be anything but non-coercive to reach a solution by peaceful means; the US policymakers value it only on coercive footing, using such measures to impose sanctions and military overuse.
Coercive diplomacy is part and parcel of the US foreign policy in a modern era. Jake Sullivan and William Burns, now National Security Adviser and Director Central Intelligence Agency in the Biden administration, in May 2019 called Donald Trump’s strategy “all coercion and no diplomacy”; they stressed on careful synchronization of both elements of the approach: coercion and diplomacy.
Of late, the US has turned to practicing coercion in the guise of deterrence. Through its 2018 National Defense Strategy (NDS), America changed course from terrorism to long-term strategic competition to compete, deter and win in an increasingly complex security environment by “seamless integration” of all dimensions of national power, attributing coercion to China.
Labeling China as the US strategic competitor, the NDS accused Beijing of “leveraging” military modernization, influence operations and predatory economics to intimidate its neighbors and seek Indo-Pacific hegemony. Still, the Pentagon insisted it wasn’t a strategy of confrontation instead something that recognized the reality of competition.
A congressional mandated commission to examine the NDS used the two terms interchangeably and found the deterrent or “coercive value” of the DOD's unpredictability and creativity as limited. It nevertheless supported the priority NDS placed on preparing for “major-power competition and conflict,” recalling the cold war era when the US possessed greater military power than “any rival or group of rivals.” The 2018 NDS shared similar concerns as the country emerged from "strategic atrophy" and believed its military edge was eroding.
The 2022 NDS primary focus is again China and great power competition continues to be the “defining feature” of the China-US relationship for the Biden administration. The new doctrine describes Beijing as Washington’s “most consequential strategic competitor” and the DOD’s “pacing challenge” for the Chinese economy and defense is quickly expanding and modernizing in every aspect and threatens to “offset” the US advantages.
America’s officials do understand what coercion or deterrence is and that two concepts are different in nature. They deliberately muddle them to describe their coercive actions as a deterrent to avoid the world looking at these measures as coercion. In the new NDS, the DOD astutely aims to achieve its objectives through integrated deterrence: a “coordinated, multifaceted” approach, “backstopped” by a safe, secure and effective nuclear deterrent. Guam contributes to the “overall integrity” of integrated deterrence and builds a bedrock for the US intervention in Asia-Pacific and Taiwan.
Integrated (across conventional, nuclear, cyber, space and informational domains and allies and partners) and deterrence (deny the “rapid fait accompli scenarios” that has been at the heart of the US defense policy since the cold war) is the cornerstone of the 2022 NDS. The US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin called it a new way of approaching deterrence whose implementation required nuclear weapons to play a unique role in the Pentagon's defense strategy.
One of the NDS’ major concerns is the “scope and pace” of China’s nuclear expansion. Washington seems not to believe Beijing’s “solemn” commitment of no preemptive nuclear strike but the problem is the key Indo-Pacific states don’t see the US nuclear submarine cooperation with Australia and the UK (AUKUS) positively, fearing it could trigger an arms race in the region. Remember, America is the only country that has the history of dropping nuclear bombs and erasing two Japanese cities using nuclear bombs
What blows the whistle for the Indo-Pacific states is the NDS chooses their region as a cold war theater by alleging Beijing for trying to leverage its economic influence and military strength to “refashion” the Indo-Pacific and describing China as “the most comprehensive and serious challenge” to the US national security. Indonesia, the leading regional economy, deciphered the veiled nod and refused to be a “pawn” in the new cold war.
The NDS reasoning about China fares poorly after the US Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley’s recent comments. In a press briefing alongside Austin, he unfolded America’s ambitions to contain China for its emergence as the only country – which because of its large population and growth in the areas of economy, technology and information – had the power and potential to challenge the US globally.
A Pentagon official of late reached out to some European countries to promote the NDS concept of China as a “pacing challenge” and discussed their “key role” in the NDS. Milley’s statement and the visit may raise concerns in the Indo-Pacific about the US intent to play up the China threat for advancing its policy goals.
The DOD sees integrated deterrence as a novel vision; it is an outdated US grand strategy of coercion that on several instances in the last three decades hasn’t come off. This overarching focus of the Biden administration on great power competition draws resources as well as the attention away from climate change, which the DOD itself characterized as a national security risk.
According to an estimate by the US National Intelligence Council, climate change will increasingly exacerbate risks to America’s national security interests. At that instant, the DOD Climate Risk Analysis (DCRA) also committed to “integrate” climate considerations into strategic, planning and other documents as well as engagements with allies by working within the whole-of-government and in concert with partners.
Both White House and the DCRA acknowledged climate change was “reshaping” the world and the “geostrategic, operational and tactical environment” with some major security implications for the US national security and defense. The NDS too frames climate change as a threat to the homeland and a transboundary challenge but doesn’t analyze the DOD own contributions to increasing temperature, changing precipitation patterns, rising sea levels and unpredictable extreme weather conditions.
The status of the US military as the single-largest consumer of energy in the US and the world’s largest institutional consumer of petroleum is a worst-kept secret. Citing this fact, a couple of the US Congressmen in January 2021 urged the US President Joe Biden to uphold his climate goals by requiring the DOD to commit to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. “Since 2001, the military has accounted for 77 to 80 percent of federal energy use. According to the White House’s December 2021 Federal Sustainability Plan, 56 percent of federal government emissions come from the DOD,” they wrote.
Even as Austin called climate change an “existential threat,” experts contest the initiatives are too late and it’s hard to align military expansion with climate goals. That’s because the US military over the decades has inherited an acrimonious legacy of harming the environment as a US federal agency discovered at least one million civilian and military staff and their families were exposed to the contaminated drinking water at North Carolina’s Camp Lejeune military base since 1982.
Neta Crawford, a professor at the University of Oxford and co-director of Brown University’s Cost of War Project, in his latest groundbreaking book “The Pentagon, Climate Change, and War” delved into the human-caused climate change and found the US economy and military together had created a “deep and long-term cycle of economic growth, fossil fuel and dependency.” Accusing the Pentagon of resisting reporting its own greenhouse gas emissions, she concluded America faced more risk from climate change than military conflicts and saw a “lack of urgency and agency” from an institution, which believed it could do “almost anything.”
Roughly every US president has boasted about America’s economic and military primacy over the world. The desire for “number one” comes with a responsibility: play an integrated role to bring peace and stability in the world and protect Americans and poor countries from serious fallouts of climate change. The US interagency instruments such as economic sanctions, export controls and diplomatic measures are neither the purview of the DOD nor a right way to secure Americans, expand “economic prosperity” and defend the homeland.
Integrated deterrence, the “centerpiece” of the 2022 NDS, is even more dangerous for international peace considering threats to the US national security spring from climate change rather than the potential foes. Countries including American allies may not endorse such a lousy idea that bears resemblance to the US post-world war coercion and instills a new cold war approach.
*My opinion piece (unedited), first appeared in "The Express Tribune."
December 20, 2022
China contributes to make FIFA World Cup in Qatar an epic Arab moment
By: Azhar Azam
China's companies play a crucial role to keep domestic and international audiences engaged in sports. The country is home to a market of about 1.4 billion people. Sporting events, such as the Formula One Sinopec Chinese Grand Prix started in 2004, the International Basketball Federation's World Cup 2019, have taken place here and the country hosted the Summer and Winter Olympics in 2008 and 2022.
The Chinese are big soccer fans as well. According to estimates, China accounted for the second-biggest turnout from a non-qualifying country in FIFA World Cup Russia 2018 with each Chinese traveler spending about $7,500.
There's a rising middle class in China. In 2000, the Chinese middle class made up just 3 percent of its population. By 2018, the figure exceeded 50 percent to nearly 707 million people. There are economic opportunities for the rest of the world, since China, before the pandemic, was the world's largest spender on global tourism.
China's mobile, real estate and dairy giants including Vivo, Wanda and Mengniu sponsored the 2018 FIFA tournament and generated over one-third of the event's $2.4 billion advertising revenue. In the FIFA World Cup Qatar 2022, the Chinese team isn't playing but the country's conglomerates are the biggest sponsors, outspending the world's leading brands. A London-based data analytics and consulting company estimates that Chinese firms have amassed a whopping $1.4 billion compared to $1.1 billion by U.S. companies.
Large spending from China-based enterprises helped expand football on international and domestic levels. Additionally, basketball and badminton are among the most popular sports in China. Football doesn't lag far behind. FIFA's viewership data in 2018 showed the Chinese' great interest and was the largest territory for its global reach.
Qatar has poured over $200 billion to build seven new stadiums, a new metro system, roads, new airport and other major infrastructure. China has been there all the way through.
The landmark Lusail Stadium was constructed by China Railway Construction Corporation in a joint venture with a Qatari contractor, while its featured on a 22 Qatari Riyal commemorative banknote. The stadium is the country's largest, expected to host 10 games including the chanpionship game. A solar farm, incorporating cooling systems to help players and spectators adjust to the local climate, supplying power from outside the city.
The construction of Lusail Stadium deepened China-Qatar relationship, boosting trade to the economy and infrastructure development, building on the leaderships' decision to develop ties on strategic partnership after Qatar's Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani visited Beijing in 2014. Bilateral relations continue to witness significant development as Doha has strengthened the strategic relationship through cooperation including in energy, reservoirs, ports and wireless communication networks.
An estimated 1,500 projects, including 888 electric buses, souvenirs and the Al-Kharsaahsolar power plant are representing China, as well as complementing Qatar's commitment to deliver a "green World Cup." Laee'b, meaning super-skilled player in Arabic and the official mascot of the FIFA World Cup Qatar 2022, was mass-produced in China's Dongguan city. Beijing also gifted two giant pandas to Doha.
The diplomatic blockade of the Asian states has worsened ever since Joe Biden was sworn in as U.S. president. Some Western countries didn't exempt sports and embraced the America-led diplomatic boycott of the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics. As the "hypocrite West" applies the same strategy regarding Qatar, this prejudice should be opposed.
From Afghanistan and Iraq to Syria and Libya, the U.S. has led wars or masterminded unrest in the Middle East and North Africa. While political meddling in the region along the lines of Asia-Pacific, China will continue to support Qatar and other Gulf allies to prevent this epic Arab moment from spoiling. The "longest" 27-year deal in the history of the liquefied natural gas industry between the two countries will increase Beijing-Doha ties and take forward the bilateral relations to a long-term strategic partnership.
China's companies play a crucial role to keep domestic and international audiences engaged in sports. The country is home to a market of about 1.4 billion people. Sporting events, such as the Formula One Sinopec Chinese Grand Prix started in 2004, the International Basketball Federation's World Cup 2019, have taken place here and the country hosted the Summer and Winter Olympics in 2008 and 2022.
The Chinese are big soccer fans as well. According to estimates, China accounted for the second-biggest turnout from a non-qualifying country in FIFA World Cup Russia 2018 with each Chinese traveler spending about $7,500.
There's a rising middle class in China. In 2000, the Chinese middle class made up just 3 percent of its population. By 2018, the figure exceeded 50 percent to nearly 707 million people. There are economic opportunities for the rest of the world, since China, before the pandemic, was the world's largest spender on global tourism.
China's mobile, real estate and dairy giants including Vivo, Wanda and Mengniu sponsored the 2018 FIFA tournament and generated over one-third of the event's $2.4 billion advertising revenue. In the FIFA World Cup Qatar 2022, the Chinese team isn't playing but the country's conglomerates are the biggest sponsors, outspending the world's leading brands. A London-based data analytics and consulting company estimates that Chinese firms have amassed a whopping $1.4 billion compared to $1.1 billion by U.S. companies.
Large spending from China-based enterprises helped expand football on international and domestic levels. Additionally, basketball and badminton are among the most popular sports in China. Football doesn't lag far behind. FIFA's viewership data in 2018 showed the Chinese' great interest and was the largest territory for its global reach.
Qatar has poured over $200 billion to build seven new stadiums, a new metro system, roads, new airport and other major infrastructure. China has been there all the way through.
The landmark Lusail Stadium was constructed by China Railway Construction Corporation in a joint venture with a Qatari contractor, while its featured on a 22 Qatari Riyal commemorative banknote. The stadium is the country's largest, expected to host 10 games including the chanpionship game. A solar farm, incorporating cooling systems to help players and spectators adjust to the local climate, supplying power from outside the city.
The construction of Lusail Stadium deepened China-Qatar relationship, boosting trade to the economy and infrastructure development, building on the leaderships' decision to develop ties on strategic partnership after Qatar's Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani visited Beijing in 2014. Bilateral relations continue to witness significant development as Doha has strengthened the strategic relationship through cooperation including in energy, reservoirs, ports and wireless communication networks.
An estimated 1,500 projects, including 888 electric buses, souvenirs and the Al-Kharsaahsolar power plant are representing China, as well as complementing Qatar's commitment to deliver a "green World Cup." Laee'b, meaning super-skilled player in Arabic and the official mascot of the FIFA World Cup Qatar 2022, was mass-produced in China's Dongguan city. Beijing also gifted two giant pandas to Doha.
The diplomatic blockade of the Asian states has worsened ever since Joe Biden was sworn in as U.S. president. Some Western countries didn't exempt sports and embraced the America-led diplomatic boycott of the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics. As the "hypocrite West" applies the same strategy regarding Qatar, this prejudice should be opposed.
From Afghanistan and Iraq to Syria and Libya, the U.S. has led wars or masterminded unrest in the Middle East and North Africa. While political meddling in the region along the lines of Asia-Pacific, China will continue to support Qatar and other Gulf allies to prevent this epic Arab moment from spoiling. The "longest" 27-year deal in the history of the liquefied natural gas industry between the two countries will increase Beijing-Doha ties and take forward the bilateral relations to a long-term strategic partnership.
*This is my opinion piece that first appeared at "China Global Television Network (CGTN)":
December 5, 2022
China holds promise to APEC energy security and transition
By: Azhar Azam
From November 18 to 19, the 29th Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Economic Leaders' Meeting will be held in Bangkok, Thailand. Established in 1989, it seeks to "leverage the growing interdependence" of regional countries to bring prosperity to its people by accelerating economic integration and promoting balanced, inclusive, sustainable, innovative and secure growth.
The APEC region accounts for nearly 60 percent of world energy demand and includes four of the world's five largest energy-consuming countries: China, Japan, Russia and the U.S. According to the seventh edition of the APEC Demand and Supply Outlook, the regional energy demand by 2050 will increase by 21 percent from 2016 levels.
As 64 percent of the APEC members' energy consumption in 2050 will likely be met by fossil fuels, there is an urgency within the group to strengthen energy security, which can be attained by making a rapid transition to renewable energy. The APEC is on the way to reach its aspirational goal of reducing energy intensity to 45 percent by 2029, six years ahead of the scheduled 2035; however, it remains uncertain whether the organization can achieve another objective on doubling the share of renewables in energy mix by 2030 through the "business-as-usual" approach.
China holds promise for the APEC's energy security and clean-energy ambitions. The country's installed capacities of hydropower, wind power and solar power generation all exceeded 300 million kilowatts in 2021, which led the world for another year, offering potential to deepen the China-APEC cooperation in renewables to the benefit of billions of people in the region.
In 2014, the 22nd APEC Economic Leaders' Declaration, titled "Beijing Agenda for an Integrated, Innovative and Interconnected Asia-Pacific," showed the way to strengthen the Asia-Pacific partnership, jointly coping with international challenges, and pursuing mutual growth. It also encouraged members to eliminate trade protection and restrictive measures, focus on innovation and cooperation to ensure energy security, economic growth and poverty alleviation and upgrade energy infrastructure, as well as endorsed the vision of doubling the share of renewables by 2030.
Pursuing a free and open trade and investment was one of the key conduits to advance regional economic integration and energy security. China has met the pledge, investing aggressively in the renewable sector. For example, China in 2017 cemented its position as a leader in global renewable energy, supporting technologies through investments both at home and abroad.
In 2022, Beijing stays on track to reach its target of producing one-fifth of its electricity consumption from non-fossil reserves over the next eight years and can be a source of help to APEC's goal to double its renewables share, contributing to the members' energy security.
China's commitment to clean energy has been recognized by the non-partisan global energy organizations. A commentary at the International Energy Administration in 2019 declared China as the "undisputed global leader" in renewable energy expansion worldwide. The Paris-based institution forecasted that China, by 2021, will be housing more than one-third of global solar photovoltaic (PV) and onshore wind capacity.
With a significant decline in the cost of onshore wind and solar photovoltaic (PV) power in China over the past decade, the APEC energy goals can be met through Chinese experiences in the renewables in addition to generating more energy jobs.
A report recently published by the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) in collaboration with the International Labor Organization noted that worldwide employment in renewable energy last year had reached 12.7 million. China, a preeminent manufacturer and installer of solar PV panels, alone comprised 42 percent of the global total.
China has become Southeast Asia's biggest partner in international renewable energy cooperation and is willing to share its achievements in energy security and transition via the Belt and Road Initiative with the states across Asia-Pacific. Beijing's instrumental role in cutting down solar PV costs provides an added advantage to the regional countries.
Several Chinese companies are playing a vital role in Asia-Pacific's solar and wind power industries, high-voltage transmission lines and electric vehicle manufacturing. For a diverse and dynamic region – encompassing small island economies that are amongst the most vulnerable to the threats of climate change – the China-APEC cooperation in renewables has the potential not only to ensure regional energy security and accelerate energy transition, but jointly mitigate the harsh environmental risks to Asia-Pacific.
From November 18 to 19, the 29th Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Economic Leaders' Meeting will be held in Bangkok, Thailand. Established in 1989, it seeks to "leverage the growing interdependence" of regional countries to bring prosperity to its people by accelerating economic integration and promoting balanced, inclusive, sustainable, innovative and secure growth.
The APEC region accounts for nearly 60 percent of world energy demand and includes four of the world's five largest energy-consuming countries: China, Japan, Russia and the U.S. According to the seventh edition of the APEC Demand and Supply Outlook, the regional energy demand by 2050 will increase by 21 percent from 2016 levels.
As 64 percent of the APEC members' energy consumption in 2050 will likely be met by fossil fuels, there is an urgency within the group to strengthen energy security, which can be attained by making a rapid transition to renewable energy. The APEC is on the way to reach its aspirational goal of reducing energy intensity to 45 percent by 2029, six years ahead of the scheduled 2035; however, it remains uncertain whether the organization can achieve another objective on doubling the share of renewables in energy mix by 2030 through the "business-as-usual" approach.
China holds promise for the APEC's energy security and clean-energy ambitions. The country's installed capacities of hydropower, wind power and solar power generation all exceeded 300 million kilowatts in 2021, which led the world for another year, offering potential to deepen the China-APEC cooperation in renewables to the benefit of billions of people in the region.
In 2014, the 22nd APEC Economic Leaders' Declaration, titled "Beijing Agenda for an Integrated, Innovative and Interconnected Asia-Pacific," showed the way to strengthen the Asia-Pacific partnership, jointly coping with international challenges, and pursuing mutual growth. It also encouraged members to eliminate trade protection and restrictive measures, focus on innovation and cooperation to ensure energy security, economic growth and poverty alleviation and upgrade energy infrastructure, as well as endorsed the vision of doubling the share of renewables by 2030.
Pursuing a free and open trade and investment was one of the key conduits to advance regional economic integration and energy security. China has met the pledge, investing aggressively in the renewable sector. For example, China in 2017 cemented its position as a leader in global renewable energy, supporting technologies through investments both at home and abroad.
In 2022, Beijing stays on track to reach its target of producing one-fifth of its electricity consumption from non-fossil reserves over the next eight years and can be a source of help to APEC's goal to double its renewables share, contributing to the members' energy security.
China's commitment to clean energy has been recognized by the non-partisan global energy organizations. A commentary at the International Energy Administration in 2019 declared China as the "undisputed global leader" in renewable energy expansion worldwide. The Paris-based institution forecasted that China, by 2021, will be housing more than one-third of global solar photovoltaic (PV) and onshore wind capacity.
With a significant decline in the cost of onshore wind and solar photovoltaic (PV) power in China over the past decade, the APEC energy goals can be met through Chinese experiences in the renewables in addition to generating more energy jobs.
A report recently published by the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) in collaboration with the International Labor Organization noted that worldwide employment in renewable energy last year had reached 12.7 million. China, a preeminent manufacturer and installer of solar PV panels, alone comprised 42 percent of the global total.
China has become Southeast Asia's biggest partner in international renewable energy cooperation and is willing to share its achievements in energy security and transition via the Belt and Road Initiative with the states across Asia-Pacific. Beijing's instrumental role in cutting down solar PV costs provides an added advantage to the regional countries.
Several Chinese companies are playing a vital role in Asia-Pacific's solar and wind power industries, high-voltage transmission lines and electric vehicle manufacturing. For a diverse and dynamic region – encompassing small island economies that are amongst the most vulnerable to the threats of climate change – the China-APEC cooperation in renewables has the potential not only to ensure regional energy security and accelerate energy transition, but jointly mitigate the harsh environmental risks to Asia-Pacific.
*This is my opinion piece that first appeared at "China Global Television Network (CGTN)":
November 18, 2022
America set to slid into a political chaos
Even though Democrats have dashed Republicans’ hopes to control the Senate after flipping an upper-house seat in Pennsylvania, the balance of power in the House of Representatives is complex rather than elusive as elephants are to gain a small majority in the House of Representatives, so far sealing 218 seats against donkeys’ 2211.
The US President Joe Biden may blow his own horn of having “lost fewer seats” in the House that any Democrat president over the last 40 years; he cannot get away with the fact Americans have voted Democrats out from the House for his failure to meet economic pledges and efforts to lift his global stature by representing himself as the international guardian of democracy or touching flashy subjects relating to the sovereignty of other countries.
Americans were grappling with soaring inflation, the US was sliding into polarization and the country encountered serious economic and human fallouts of the Covid-19, Biden put all energy into defining an era of great power competition, promoting the US governance system and outcompeting China in economy and technology. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan almost pushed the world into the cold-war camps.
Contrary to expectations he would moderate his view over time, Biden clung to a lose-lose proposition of a new cold war to counter economically and technologically powerful China. The approach didn’t solve the US real domestic problems or restore Americans’ trust in democracy, instead increased their cost of living, compounded the US economic anxieties and made a majority of Americans pessimistic about the state of democracy in the country.
Once failed to lure voters despite his reassuring talk on economy and inflation and realized the US democracy crisis was homegrown, the Democrat president acknowledged: the country’s governance system faced risks from within. Of late, he believed democracy was in danger from the threats of “dangerous rise of political violence and voter intimidation.”
Biden, of course, seemed worried about the reelection of hundreds of Republican lawmakers who earlier rejected the outcome of the 2020 presidential election and may be joined by a new group of the Congressmen to refuel controversies and question the integrity of America’s electoral system and his win.
Just a few hours after the deadly January 6 riots on the US Capitol in Washington, some 147 Republican lawmakers (139 House Representatives and 8 Senators) would dispute the reliability of the US presidential election and sought to overturn it over remarkable allegations of voter fraud and cheating.
Democrats went into the elections with their president posing perpetual threats to international peace, stability and prosperity. In midterms, the “red wave” didn’t materialize but there are more challenges to come and test the US democracy with more than 140 Trump-backed Republican candidates winning their races. These election deniers had a big night and the number indicates “an erosion of trust” in the country’s governance system and institutions.
In 2022, the US is far more polarized and divided following the Supreme Court’s revocation of its landmark 1973 verdict that guaranteed abortion rights in all states. The widening gulf between the right and the left, amid conservative-liberal race to grab power, won’t stop post-midterm election and could spark another political crisis, raising alarms about crime surge, inflation, economic slowdown and a possible recession.
Polls revealed inflation and the economy were the top voters’ issues. Republicans read the pulse and campaigned against Democrats’ poor record on economy, blasting their rival’s economic approach to whip "individual prosperity." Biden offers nothing on the economy or other challenges and keeps portraying threats to the US democracy, if Republicans win.
Eventually, it is Biden’s approach that has allowed Republicans to hammer him on high inflation and increased crime. Given control of even one chamber would embolden Republicans to thrash Biden’s legislative measures; the US could head toward an economic and political turmoil in the coming months. Biden boasted democracy and job growth but just a fraction of Americans approved of his performance and wanted something practical to relieve them from harrowing inflation.
He considered removing some tariffs on China to tame inflation; the Federal Reserve chose to slash prices through higher interest rates, which are making Americans poorer by bringing their asset value down. Former US Treasury Secretary Larry Summers last month warned the recession was “almost inevitable” once inflation exceeds 5% and reducing prices would require a jobless rate of more than 6%, which likely meant millions of Americans losing their jobs.
In 2020, Biden vowed to unite America and Americans hoped he would defeat the pandemic, protect lives and communities and revitalize economy. Yet by focusing on building unholy international alliances, advocating democracy abroad and embracing his predecessor’s frame of great power competition with China, the US president soon abandoned his promises and voters and let the real US challenges dilate.
Just two years later Republicans campaigned on the economy and upended Democrats' majority in the House, though by a thin margin. But even a small lead will authorize the elephants to muck up donkeys’ legislative enactments. This makes the emerging political scenario in the Congress extraordinarily complex in which partisan politics will peak and Biden may not be able to deliver benefits to Americans as well as protect them and the US economy from the forthcoming eternal and horrific economic consequences.
November 17, 2022
Why is Biden's security doctrine self-defeating and self-destructive?
By: Azhar Azam
The U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken unveiled the U.S. strategy toward China last May and summed up the Biden administration's cold war mindset in three terms: invest, align and compete. America's new National Security Strategy (NSS) interlinked all three elements to reestablish a unipolar international order to outcompete China across the realms of technological, economic, political, military, intelligence and global governance.
The White House Fact Sheet insists the U.S. doesn't see the world "through a competitive lens." This is an empty-worded statement, since Biden's doctrine identifies China as America's "most consequential geopolitical challenge" and "most consequential competitor" for it's the "only competitor," which can stymie the American hallucination through a collaborative arrangement of promotion of international peace and global economic growth.
In his NSS, former U.S. President Donald Trump portrayed Beijing as a "strategic competitor" and wanted to transform the Asia-Pacific into a region of "geopolitical competition." By accusing China's economic and peaceable approach vis-a-vis states in the Asia-Pacific as an effort to stretch its "sphere of influence," describing the region as the "epicenter of 21st century geopolitics" and declaring its competition with China more pronounced in the region – there are broad echoes of his predecessor's rhetoric in Biden's strategy to undermine the regional economy and peace.
Biden's White House wants the Asia-Pacific to play a vanguard role for the U.S. to implement its unruly policy across the wider expanse. But threats to its regional autonomy, security and prosperity do not emanate from China, since the U.S. is blowing up regional harmony, growth and peace by conducting high-wire acts of military exercises, challenging the sovereignty of China and meddling in its internal affairs.
Trump's NSS argued that the U.S. showed "strategic complacency" in the 1990s when the country assumed the collapse of the Soviet Union had guaranteed its military superiority and the world would chart the course of a liberal-democratic engagement. He alleged that China attempted to erode the U.S. security and prosperity and stole U.S. intellectual property to justify his tariff and tech crusade against the Chinese government, companies and people including science students.
The belief was misleading. It has been America's arrogance and craving for global dominance through its invasions of independent nations with the intent to impose its governance system on them, which devoured trillions of American taxpayers' dollars.
Biden is treading on the same dangerous path. His "strategic competition with major powers," according to his NSS, is a much riskier proposition than his predecessor's "great power competition." Indeed, the latest NSS is a continuation of the U.S. aspiration of world dominance and goes beyond China, since it intends to coerce an "unrivaled" network of allies and partners to advance America's interests the world over.
Apparently, Washington is too optimistic in expecting sovereign nations to cede their own national interests and act as the U.S. instrument to challenge its rivals on America's behalf. Hence, the growing notion of a multipolar world can be receded to the distance and a U.S.-centric international order could be restituted. The U.S. containment strategy against China, particularly in technology and economy, is just a foot in the door to implement a sweeping U.S. global offensive plan.
The U.S. pledges to replenish the "reservoirs" of national power through "targeted" investments in areas such as foundational technologies and innovation; the "targeted" export controls from the U.S. Commerce Department just a week prior to the release of the NSS pointed out America was putting full-throttle attacks to limit Chinese peaceable technology advancement.
At a time when the world needs global cooperation on science, technology and innovation to achieve economic diversification and higher levels of productivity, a slew of new aggressive restrictions on Chinese companies impedes international tech collaboration and threatens the global industrial and supply chains. The high-tech containment could backfire over non-support from the U.S. allies and partners and will inflict harm to America's innovation from the growing muscle of this increasing nationalism.
China's phenomenal growth rates in the past have allowed it to lift over 800 million people out of extreme poverty and improve their quality of life. The achievements fascinate the developing countries to draw closer to the country and learn how to handle the complex development challenges including transitioning to a new growth model, building a cost-effective health system and promoting a low-carbon energy path, all of which the world's second largest economy has successfully encountered.
Despite concerns over a slowdown in China's growth, it continues to exceed the leading economies, holding a bright spot for multinational consumer conglomerates. Given that the developed world's markets are stagnated by rising interest rates and higher energy costs, the Chinese economy is estimated to account for about one-third of the global growth next year, more than three times than the U.S.
China's economy is projected to take over the U.S. within this decade. In order to prevent this shock from happening, Biden's NSS declares the next 10 years as "decisive" and tries to replace global values with America's.
Biden's NSS can be anything but rational. It strives to stir dissent among the regions yet provides no layout to unite the divided America and doesn't address the plight of inflation-battered Americans. The U.S. cannot secure itself by defining the era of international development and economic and technological cooperation as a contest between "democracy and autocracy;" the new strategy is self-defeating and self-destructive right from the outset.
The U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken unveiled the U.S. strategy toward China last May and summed up the Biden administration's cold war mindset in three terms: invest, align and compete. America's new National Security Strategy (NSS) interlinked all three elements to reestablish a unipolar international order to outcompete China across the realms of technological, economic, political, military, intelligence and global governance.
The White House Fact Sheet insists the U.S. doesn't see the world "through a competitive lens." This is an empty-worded statement, since Biden's doctrine identifies China as America's "most consequential geopolitical challenge" and "most consequential competitor" for it's the "only competitor," which can stymie the American hallucination through a collaborative arrangement of promotion of international peace and global economic growth.
In his NSS, former U.S. President Donald Trump portrayed Beijing as a "strategic competitor" and wanted to transform the Asia-Pacific into a region of "geopolitical competition." By accusing China's economic and peaceable approach vis-a-vis states in the Asia-Pacific as an effort to stretch its "sphere of influence," describing the region as the "epicenter of 21st century geopolitics" and declaring its competition with China more pronounced in the region – there are broad echoes of his predecessor's rhetoric in Biden's strategy to undermine the regional economy and peace.
Biden's White House wants the Asia-Pacific to play a vanguard role for the U.S. to implement its unruly policy across the wider expanse. But threats to its regional autonomy, security and prosperity do not emanate from China, since the U.S. is blowing up regional harmony, growth and peace by conducting high-wire acts of military exercises, challenging the sovereignty of China and meddling in its internal affairs.
Trump's NSS argued that the U.S. showed "strategic complacency" in the 1990s when the country assumed the collapse of the Soviet Union had guaranteed its military superiority and the world would chart the course of a liberal-democratic engagement. He alleged that China attempted to erode the U.S. security and prosperity and stole U.S. intellectual property to justify his tariff and tech crusade against the Chinese government, companies and people including science students.
The belief was misleading. It has been America's arrogance and craving for global dominance through its invasions of independent nations with the intent to impose its governance system on them, which devoured trillions of American taxpayers' dollars.
Biden is treading on the same dangerous path. His "strategic competition with major powers," according to his NSS, is a much riskier proposition than his predecessor's "great power competition." Indeed, the latest NSS is a continuation of the U.S. aspiration of world dominance and goes beyond China, since it intends to coerce an "unrivaled" network of allies and partners to advance America's interests the world over.
Apparently, Washington is too optimistic in expecting sovereign nations to cede their own national interests and act as the U.S. instrument to challenge its rivals on America's behalf. Hence, the growing notion of a multipolar world can be receded to the distance and a U.S.-centric international order could be restituted. The U.S. containment strategy against China, particularly in technology and economy, is just a foot in the door to implement a sweeping U.S. global offensive plan.
The U.S. pledges to replenish the "reservoirs" of national power through "targeted" investments in areas such as foundational technologies and innovation; the "targeted" export controls from the U.S. Commerce Department just a week prior to the release of the NSS pointed out America was putting full-throttle attacks to limit Chinese peaceable technology advancement.
At a time when the world needs global cooperation on science, technology and innovation to achieve economic diversification and higher levels of productivity, a slew of new aggressive restrictions on Chinese companies impedes international tech collaboration and threatens the global industrial and supply chains. The high-tech containment could backfire over non-support from the U.S. allies and partners and will inflict harm to America's innovation from the growing muscle of this increasing nationalism.
China's phenomenal growth rates in the past have allowed it to lift over 800 million people out of extreme poverty and improve their quality of life. The achievements fascinate the developing countries to draw closer to the country and learn how to handle the complex development challenges including transitioning to a new growth model, building a cost-effective health system and promoting a low-carbon energy path, all of which the world's second largest economy has successfully encountered.
Despite concerns over a slowdown in China's growth, it continues to exceed the leading economies, holding a bright spot for multinational consumer conglomerates. Given that the developed world's markets are stagnated by rising interest rates and higher energy costs, the Chinese economy is estimated to account for about one-third of the global growth next year, more than three times than the U.S.
China's economy is projected to take over the U.S. within this decade. In order to prevent this shock from happening, Biden's NSS declares the next 10 years as "decisive" and tries to replace global values with America's.
Biden's NSS can be anything but rational. It strives to stir dissent among the regions yet provides no layout to unite the divided America and doesn't address the plight of inflation-battered Americans. The U.S. cannot secure itself by defining the era of international development and economic and technological cooperation as a contest between "democracy and autocracy;" the new strategy is self-defeating and self-destructive right from the outset.
*This is my opinion piece that first appeared at "China Global Television Network (CGTN)":
November 15, 2022
Democratic peace theory perpetuates US's invasive and meddlesome foreign policy
By: Azhar Azam
The empirical and theoretical variants of the U.S. political philosophy, democratic peace theory – "monadic" (democracies generally are pacific in their relations with other states), "dyadic" (democracies do not go at war with other democracies) and "systemic" (the existence of more democracies makes a region or the international system more peaceful) as well as the proposition the democracies tend to fight shorter and win wars or avoid military aggression – are conceptually crude and no less than an intellectual gaffe.
Washington's covert intervention in foreign democracies is one fine example. An overriding principle of the democratic peace theory is: the democracies do not use force against each other. But the researches show the U.S. has not only been involved in use of force to topple a number of democracies by use of force; it also attempts to influence the results of foreign elections.
Just a couple of years before the establishment of the UN, the U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt joined British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and the Soviet Union leader Joseph Stalin in the Tehran Conference in 1943. During the summit, he outlined his vision of "Four Policemen" to Stalin, comprising China, Soviet Union, Britain and the U.S. , that "would have the power to deal immediately with any threat to the peace and any sudden emergency which requires action."
Soon the U.S. flouted its own proposal and ganged up an alliance against the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), which it believed posed a challenge to promotion of the so-called liberal democracy around the world. The Soviet Union collapsed, marking the official end of the Cold War; international governments' and the public's concerns about "hypocrisy costs," a "real or perceived disparity between a professed commitment to liberal values and norms and demonstrated actions that contravene such commitment," drove the U.S. decision makers conducting military operations secretly in the post-Cold War.
On the onset of the 21st century, the 9/11 terror attacks on the U.S. strengthened the world's memory that the terrorism was a genuine threat to global peace and security. Yet for America, one of the greatest catastrophes in the country's history provided an opportunity to coerce its democratic peace model on other states. It unlawfully invaded Iraq in 2003 without authorization of the UN Security Council in violation of the organization's UN charter that remained the bedrock of international relations since the end of the World War II.
Quite a few in the U.S. continue to be in a state of denial any other democratic system can offer a better substitute to America's governance model, fearing it will end their already shaking liberal hegemony. They label rivals as "autocratic," "authoritarian" or "totalitarian."
Such observations fail to notice the U.S. was shooting itself in the foot by trying to implement its democratic peace theory internationally. The U.S. covert military actions failed to encourage "democratic accountability" in the post-Cold War countries; its grievous invasions of the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) states left them more destabilized.
This "false promise" to mete out liberal democracy to the world for restoring America's dominance ruined Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and many African countries; the U.S. disregard of the Mideast's grandeur and long history overwhelmed the region's cultural heritage, allowing the terrorist organizations to reconsolidate power.
Another essential tool to push America's democratic peace and strategic interests is the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). The U.S. quasi-governmental organization was created in 1983 and channeled millions of taxpayers' dollar to counter the USSR. In recent years, it has expanded its network to other parts of the world.
But nations and domestic groups are standing up to the U.S. for resorting to democratic interference. While people in Thailand demand America to stop "hybrid war," rights activists of Malaysia seek their political parties to stop accepting funds from the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)'s "soft power front," referring to the NED. The CIA "sidekick" has even ploughed millions into seven British media groups, according to investigative media organization the Declassified UK.
At present, China is the specific target of the NED. Counting on relentless financial support of the White House and Congress, it has been approaching the opposition parties, groups and organizations in Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
For decades, democratic peace theory fueled up the struggling neoliberals to destabilize the world states, allies or non-allies, through global spread of capitalism and expand the U.S. hegemony. Yesterday, Latin America and the Caribbean was the target of the U.S. invasive foreign policy; today it is the MENA region and China and tomorrow, it seems to be Europe. Even as America fails to achieve objectives, international solidarity should be strengthened against threats to state sovereignty and global peace from the U.S. to pressure Washington mend the invasive character of its hawkish and predatory posture.
The empirical and theoretical variants of the U.S. political philosophy, democratic peace theory – "monadic" (democracies generally are pacific in their relations with other states), "dyadic" (democracies do not go at war with other democracies) and "systemic" (the existence of more democracies makes a region or the international system more peaceful) as well as the proposition the democracies tend to fight shorter and win wars or avoid military aggression – are conceptually crude and no less than an intellectual gaffe.
Washington's covert intervention in foreign democracies is one fine example. An overriding principle of the democratic peace theory is: the democracies do not use force against each other. But the researches show the U.S. has not only been involved in use of force to topple a number of democracies by use of force; it also attempts to influence the results of foreign elections.
Just a couple of years before the establishment of the UN, the U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt joined British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and the Soviet Union leader Joseph Stalin in the Tehran Conference in 1943. During the summit, he outlined his vision of "Four Policemen" to Stalin, comprising China, Soviet Union, Britain and the U.S. , that "would have the power to deal immediately with any threat to the peace and any sudden emergency which requires action."
Soon the U.S. flouted its own proposal and ganged up an alliance against the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), which it believed posed a challenge to promotion of the so-called liberal democracy around the world. The Soviet Union collapsed, marking the official end of the Cold War; international governments' and the public's concerns about "hypocrisy costs," a "real or perceived disparity between a professed commitment to liberal values and norms and demonstrated actions that contravene such commitment," drove the U.S. decision makers conducting military operations secretly in the post-Cold War.
On the onset of the 21st century, the 9/11 terror attacks on the U.S. strengthened the world's memory that the terrorism was a genuine threat to global peace and security. Yet for America, one of the greatest catastrophes in the country's history provided an opportunity to coerce its democratic peace model on other states. It unlawfully invaded Iraq in 2003 without authorization of the UN Security Council in violation of the organization's UN charter that remained the bedrock of international relations since the end of the World War II.
Quite a few in the U.S. continue to be in a state of denial any other democratic system can offer a better substitute to America's governance model, fearing it will end their already shaking liberal hegemony. They label rivals as "autocratic," "authoritarian" or "totalitarian."
Such observations fail to notice the U.S. was shooting itself in the foot by trying to implement its democratic peace theory internationally. The U.S. covert military actions failed to encourage "democratic accountability" in the post-Cold War countries; its grievous invasions of the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) states left them more destabilized.
This "false promise" to mete out liberal democracy to the world for restoring America's dominance ruined Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and many African countries; the U.S. disregard of the Mideast's grandeur and long history overwhelmed the region's cultural heritage, allowing the terrorist organizations to reconsolidate power.
Another essential tool to push America's democratic peace and strategic interests is the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). The U.S. quasi-governmental organization was created in 1983 and channeled millions of taxpayers' dollar to counter the USSR. In recent years, it has expanded its network to other parts of the world.
But nations and domestic groups are standing up to the U.S. for resorting to democratic interference. While people in Thailand demand America to stop "hybrid war," rights activists of Malaysia seek their political parties to stop accepting funds from the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)'s "soft power front," referring to the NED. The CIA "sidekick" has even ploughed millions into seven British media groups, according to investigative media organization the Declassified UK.
At present, China is the specific target of the NED. Counting on relentless financial support of the White House and Congress, it has been approaching the opposition parties, groups and organizations in Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
For decades, democratic peace theory fueled up the struggling neoliberals to destabilize the world states, allies or non-allies, through global spread of capitalism and expand the U.S. hegemony. Yesterday, Latin America and the Caribbean was the target of the U.S. invasive foreign policy; today it is the MENA region and China and tomorrow, it seems to be Europe. Even as America fails to achieve objectives, international solidarity should be strengthened against threats to state sovereignty and global peace from the U.S. to pressure Washington mend the invasive character of its hawkish and predatory posture.
*This is my opinion piece that first appeared at "China Global Television Network (CGTN)":
November 14, 2022
Bolsonaro or Lula: Brazil’s real test is about to begin
By: Azhar Azam
*This article was written prior to the final round of the Brazilian election
In the last few years, Brazil, under the President Jair Bolsonaro has degenerated into a diplomatic isolation due to a bolshie, radical foreign policy of attacking China, pursuing an anti-environmental and “anti-globalist” approach and supporting Donald Trump’s voter-fraud theories. This affected Brazil's relations with the coming Biden administration and his ambitions to revitalize the Brazilian economy.
According to the World Bank's updated review, Brazil’s economic recovery including inflation and rising policy rates in 2022 faces significant downside risks over low labor force participation, fewer job opportunities and higher poverty. As fiscal sustainability poses a serious economic challenge, Brazil – set to hold the presidential runoff on October 30 –needs to strengthen ties with China, its most important trade partner since 2009.
Brazil, a key member of the regional economic bloc – the Southern Common Market known as Mercosur in Spanish or Mercosul in Portuguese – boasts a significant trade surplus with China. Several South American countries are Beijing's comprehensive strategic partners; Brasilia stands out from the rest for it became the first regional state to enter in a strategic partnership with Beijing in November 1993.
Much is debated about China’s policy of cooperation and engagement. But it’s a fact the Chinese approach has successfully moderated the brusqueness of some international leaders who seem to be less-friendly to the world’s second largest economy. Brazil’s Bolsonaro is one of such examples.
On his fiery campaign trail in 2018, the outspoken Brazilian leader criticized China for “buying” the country; still, Beijing defended Brasilia’s sovereignty very next year when Bolsonaro faced raging western criticism in wake of Amazon fires. The “grand gesture” buoyed up the Brazilian president to visit China and pronounce it an “ever greater part” of his nation’s future.
Despite scathing opposition on federal level and diplomatic isolation of the “Trump of the Tropics” in the West, China provided “fantastic” vaccines and medical supplies to the Brazilian states and helped Bolsonaro project himself internationally through the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) summits. This again drove him into taking a more pragmatic stance vis-à-vis Beijing.
As the presidential race between Bolsonaro and former Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva draws near – the latter has a long history of being close to China. In his first official trip to China, Lula in 2004 would take along the largest caravan of businessmen ever present abroad to have a foothold in a market of 1.2 billion people and institutionalized the Brazil-China relationship.
During his presidency, China became Brazil’s top trading partner in 2009 and subsequently emerged as the world’s sixth-largest economy in 2011. His then-foreign minister Celso Amorim, who played a role in the BRICS formation and is now Lula’s foreign policy adviser, in January emphasized a “pragmatic” foreign policy regarding China and recently warned “isolation, sanctions, blockades (and) threats of force” were exacerbating the global peace and economic situation.
Even as more than half of the Brazilian networks were built by Huawei, the government caved in to the US pressure and shunted the Chinese telecom giant out of the competition for government sector. The Latin American country, however, allowed Huawei to continue providing service to its 242 million active mobile connections (more than Brazil’s population), leaving the window open for Huawei to enter the game in future.
As the two nations celebrate the 10th anniversary of the China-Brazil Comprehensive Strategic Partnership, bilateral trade between Beijing and Brasilia, according to the Brazilian government’s statistics, has swollen from $9 billion in 2004 to $135 billion in 2021. Brazil is also the top recipient of Chinese foreign investments in Latin America with an accumulated stock of $66 billion between 2007 and 2020.
Brazil seeks to expand and diversify trade and investment with China and Beijing is willing to boost cooperation across all sectors including in agriculture, low-carbon and clean-technology and digital economy. The stage may be set to bolster bilateral economic and strategic ties; further high-level engagements are the key to bridge differences and make fast progress on mutual interests.
As Lula follows the footsteps of Bolsonaro and accuses China of “occupying Brazil” – whether to mobilize electoral support or make Beijing a “scapegoat” of the country’s lack of competitiveness internationally – it appears as if, irrespective of whoever wins, will look at Beijing through the US perspective. Yet the cost may be too high. While this approach can put the Brazilian economy at a disadvantage, it leaves the country at the mercy of America and the West without any guarantee of ending its diplomatic isolation.
According to the World Bank's updated review, Brazil’s economic recovery including inflation and rising policy rates in 2022 faces significant downside risks over low labor force participation, fewer job opportunities and higher poverty. As fiscal sustainability poses a serious economic challenge, Brazil – set to hold the presidential runoff on October 30 –needs to strengthen ties with China, its most important trade partner since 2009.
Brazil, a key member of the regional economic bloc – the Southern Common Market known as Mercosur in Spanish or Mercosul in Portuguese – boasts a significant trade surplus with China. Several South American countries are Beijing's comprehensive strategic partners; Brasilia stands out from the rest for it became the first regional state to enter in a strategic partnership with Beijing in November 1993.
Much is debated about China’s policy of cooperation and engagement. But it’s a fact the Chinese approach has successfully moderated the brusqueness of some international leaders who seem to be less-friendly to the world’s second largest economy. Brazil’s Bolsonaro is one of such examples.
On his fiery campaign trail in 2018, the outspoken Brazilian leader criticized China for “buying” the country; still, Beijing defended Brasilia’s sovereignty very next year when Bolsonaro faced raging western criticism in wake of Amazon fires. The “grand gesture” buoyed up the Brazilian president to visit China and pronounce it an “ever greater part” of his nation’s future.
Despite scathing opposition on federal level and diplomatic isolation of the “Trump of the Tropics” in the West, China provided “fantastic” vaccines and medical supplies to the Brazilian states and helped Bolsonaro project himself internationally through the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) summits. This again drove him into taking a more pragmatic stance vis-à-vis Beijing.
As the presidential race between Bolsonaro and former Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva draws near – the latter has a long history of being close to China. In his first official trip to China, Lula in 2004 would take along the largest caravan of businessmen ever present abroad to have a foothold in a market of 1.2 billion people and institutionalized the Brazil-China relationship.
During his presidency, China became Brazil’s top trading partner in 2009 and subsequently emerged as the world’s sixth-largest economy in 2011. His then-foreign minister Celso Amorim, who played a role in the BRICS formation and is now Lula’s foreign policy adviser, in January emphasized a “pragmatic” foreign policy regarding China and recently warned “isolation, sanctions, blockades (and) threats of force” were exacerbating the global peace and economic situation.
Even as more than half of the Brazilian networks were built by Huawei, the government caved in to the US pressure and shunted the Chinese telecom giant out of the competition for government sector. The Latin American country, however, allowed Huawei to continue providing service to its 242 million active mobile connections (more than Brazil’s population), leaving the window open for Huawei to enter the game in future.
As the two nations celebrate the 10th anniversary of the China-Brazil Comprehensive Strategic Partnership, bilateral trade between Beijing and Brasilia, according to the Brazilian government’s statistics, has swollen from $9 billion in 2004 to $135 billion in 2021. Brazil is also the top recipient of Chinese foreign investments in Latin America with an accumulated stock of $66 billion between 2007 and 2020.
Brazil seeks to expand and diversify trade and investment with China and Beijing is willing to boost cooperation across all sectors including in agriculture, low-carbon and clean-technology and digital economy. The stage may be set to bolster bilateral economic and strategic ties; further high-level engagements are the key to bridge differences and make fast progress on mutual interests.
As Lula follows the footsteps of Bolsonaro and accuses China of “occupying Brazil” – whether to mobilize electoral support or make Beijing a “scapegoat” of the country’s lack of competitiveness internationally – it appears as if, irrespective of whoever wins, will look at Beijing through the US perspective. Yet the cost may be too high. While this approach can put the Brazilian economy at a disadvantage, it leaves the country at the mercy of America and the West without any guarantee of ending its diplomatic isolation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)