China: An eco-friendly growth model for both the South and the North

By: Azhar Azam

Conceived in the 1970s, degrowth is a radical economic theory that emphasizes a planned reduction of energy and resource throughput in high-income countries to reduce inequality and improve human well-being. The idea aches for a rapid transition to renewable energy, restore soils and biodiversity and reverse ecological breakdown. Leading environmentalist, Jason Hickel, argues degrowth isn't about reducing GDP.

The concept critiques the capitalist ideology of growth, a core tenet of the capitalism's cultural hegemony that pursues corporate profits at all costs. Its proponents believe the developed world – which maintains high income and consumption levels through "an ongoing process of net appropriation (of land, labor, resources and energy)" of the global South and seeks to depress prices of labor and resources – needs to end this exploitative and colonial relationship and degrow to make the planet environmentally sustainable.

In a groundbreaking study earlier this year on the ecological damage in the last half century, the journal Lancet Planetary Health assigned the responsibility of global environmental breakdown on high-income countries including the U.S., which accounted for the largest excess material use (27 percent). In tons of overshoot per capita, China was up to four times less than Australia, Canada and the U.S.

As the South has industrialized more recently, the environmental degradation cannot be attributed to these countries including China whose much of the infrastructure development occurred after 2000. The assessment didn't account for "asynchronous patterns" of industrial development which would have significantly elevated the responsibility of resource overuse on the U.S. and others and far less on the nations in the South.

On carbon dioxide emissions, the U.S. held a much higher share of responsibility (40 percent) compared to China that again remained within its fair share of the planetary boundary. America and the alike states may boast their "gradual" decline is their share of global overuse; it is largely achieved by shifting their emissions to China and emerging countries of the South, producing the most manufactured goods for them.

Labeling China as the "chimney of the world" or just seeing the South's emergence as a "reckless and dirty model of economic growth" won't solve the climate change puzzle given many of the mature economies, the U.S. amongst the top, had and continue to have some of the largest per capita carbon footprints on earth. For this reason, the wealthy nations have been advised to embrace "radical and immediate degrowth" strategies in order to avoid a climate disaster.

A fair-shares assessment of the paper sought high-income countries to radically reduce their resource use, even if they have to adopt transformative post-growth and degrowth approaches, to moderate the huge ecological debt stock they owe to the rest of the world. Shocked by the sheer scale of the developed world's contribution to excess resource overuse, Hickel reckoned it to be about 70 percent from existing levels.

Citing the economic term, reports of the United Nations (UN)' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) challenged the notion: endless economic growth was essential to poverty mitigation and lifting the quality of life. For instance, in the U.S. – Arizona's worst drought in 1200 years that left Lake Mead, the largest reservoirs in the country at just 35 percent capacity – has torpedoed the lives of the Gila River Indiana communities. The anthropogenic phenomenon is to blame; climate change exposes racial inequities for the people of color and indigenous people in America.

Poor countries are bearing the brunt of the climate change crisis. The droughts and floods, they face today, are partly the consequence of developed countries' perpetual obsession of economic dominance. By burning too much fossil fuels and spewing carbon for more than a century, the first world has piled up such an enormous task for the developing countries they have difficulties in coping and is doing irreparable damage to them. In the last decade alone, droughts and floods had affected more than 700 million people in China and India.

The UN climate agency's call for cuts in consumer demand, a core premise of degrowth to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and contain environmental degradation, isn't about stopping growth of a low-income South where most of the countries lack sufficient energy and need growth to make room for unemployed youth bulges. An article on degrowth at the World Economic Forum suggested "it might mean people in rich countries changing their diets, living in smaller houses and driving and traveling less."

As absolute decoupling of GDP from emissions again becomes a debating point, China shows the way it can be achieved simply by replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy. The Chinese strong growth in renewable output is helping to turn the country greener at a fast pace. A new analysis of the Carbon Brief found China's emissions had fallen for a fourth consecutive time. In the second quarter of 2022, the drop was 8 percent or 230 million tons, the largest in at least a decade.

Beijing is not just trying to recast, but is emerging as a leader in climate change. China in 2021 is estimated to account for more than half of the world's 54 gigawatts (GW) of wind capacity with its offshore wind capacity exceeding the five-year global total. It also has 21 GW of onshore wind power. The country leads in solar power generation too, adding 54.9 GW to help meet its climate goals and promise. Last year, wind and solar farms combined produced over 50 percent of the new power generation for the fifth consecutive year in China. This is in stark contrast to the U.S. President Joe Biden's lofty pledges which bears little fruit yet.

Most of today's challenges including ecological devastation partly emanate from capitalism, which seeks to sustain the North's growth and make windfall profits by suppressing economy and exploiting cheap labor of the South as well as taking advantage of the inflation and supply chain crises to lower wages even within their countries and influence social and ecological legislation.

In future too, the broken capitalist system will most likely thrash the calls of degrowthers and exert efforts to keep the developing and emerging countries at bay to maintain the North's dominance on the South. But China's success in poverty alleviation and human well-being and rapid transition to renewable energy offers a hope for the entire world to arrest the environmental challenges. In a globally-networked topography, the world cannot afford China or largely a poor-South to contract economically; it's the North that has to prevail over its desire for control on the developing world and learn from China's experience to make this planet a better place to live in.

*This is my opinion piece that first appeared at "China Global Television Network (CGTN)":

Why is the SCO not a 'Rogue NATO' or anti-Western?

By: Azhar Azam

There are marked differences in the mission and vision of the U.S.-dominated North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). The former believes in power projections and military interventions to force the sovereign nations succumb to its dominance and to abide by the American-ordained governance system.

Released in July, the aggressive tone of the NATO 2022 Strategic Concept sought to divide the world and destabilize international peace by calling Russia the "most significant and direct threat" to the alliance's peace and security and alleging China's "stated ambitions and coercive policies" challenge its interests, security and values.

Standing in sharp contrast, the SCO is not an anti-American, anti-European or anti-global organization. A creative amalgam of developing and emerging economies – representing roughly 60 percent of Eurasia, half of the world population and 30 percent of global GDP (gross domestic product) on purchasing power parity – doesn't believe in political or military interventions and to focus on security and economic cooperation to inject more momentum to the international economy and stability.

NATO was a military alliance built against Russia. Once the coalition lost a cohesive force that could unite member states in the absence of an adversary; French President Emmanuel Macron in 2019 called it a "brain-dead," emphasizing terrorism was its "common enemy."

Still, the U.S. took no notice of one of its key affiliates and is trying to reestablish its relevance by fueling the flames of war in Ukraine. But the motive to exploit the Russia-Ukraine conflict to its advantage is thwarted by widening internal divisions as NATO member states disagree over policy toward China and Russia.

The SCO has no military ambitions against any state or intent to impinge on the independence of any nation; the Eurasian grouping has historically limited itself to forging a consensus on fighting extremism, terrorism, separatism and transnational threats. The organization, unlike NATO, hasn't ever engaged in actual military, anti-terrorist or even peacemaking operations.

In 2017, Pakistan and India became full members of the SCO. Their inclusion contributed to regional stability, since the SCO brought together two regional rivals on a single platform. In October, Pakistan is likely to participate in counter-terrorism drills under the SCO Regional Anti-Terrorism Structure in India. The rare opportunity gives Islamabad and New Delhi a chance to calm matters down and improve coordination for regional peace.

Clashes between the forces of Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan on contested border areas are not new. It was important the leaders of the two sides agreed in a meeting in Uzbekistan on a troop pullback and lowering the temperature. So is the case with Armenia and Azerbaijan, which have gotten embroiled in a decades-old dispute in the Nagorno-Karabakh region. They negotiated a ceasefire to bring an end to the flare-up. By drawing the leaders of contending countries near each other, the SCO could defuse such unwanted tensions and promote peace.

Linking the bilateral territorial disputes to label the SCO as a "Rogue NATO" or anti-NATO cannot blunt the significance of the organization. The organization doesn't intervene in bilateral disputes; as it facilitates engagement between the fellow states by providing a forum to peacefully hold consultations on issues they are willing to discuss. This instrumental contribution to peace deserves special commendation.

NATO asserts it is a defensive alliance and poses no threat to any country. Yet the organization's encroachment on the sovereignty of the Asian nations, such as the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in defiance of international law, rebutted its claims outright. Washington, on the other hand, coerces its transatlantic allies to spend 2 percent of GDP to exercise America's dominance on the world.

The SCO doesn't require members to raise their respective defense spending or arouse pro-war sentiments against other countries. It is more diverse than NATO for the Eurasian alliance pursues peace, security and stability; jointly countering challenges and threats; and strengthening trade, economic, cultural and humanitarian relations in the region.

China or the SCO isn't anti-Western; either of the two opposes an anti-peace approach of political and military interventions and discriminating economic policies that seeks U.S. supremacy in Asia and around the world.

Against the backdrop of the growing geopolitical paradoxes practiced by Washington to stoke regional conflicts, the concept of the "Shanghai Spirit" encourages all countries to respect territorial integrity, sticking to the principle of non-interference and teaming up for peace, shared growth and common development.

The organization's mission and vision of peace and prosperity for all has drawn interest from all parts of Asia, including the Middle East and North Africa join the SCO with Iran signing the memorandum of commitments to become a SCO member. The inclusiveness of the organization; its ability to act as a bridge among regional states and the geographic proximity of the member states holds the potential to better integrate Eurasia to drive growth and thwart security challenges.

*This is my opinion piece that first appeared at "China Global Television Network (CGTN)":

Myths around the Belt and Road Initiative

By: Azhar Azam

Contrary to the capitalist ideologues’ diffusion – projects under the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) are driven by China’s grand vision to expand its global footprint and influence on the governments of other countries – they meet critical development requirements of the partner nations and help foster their economic growth and alleviate poverty.

The BRI projects have gained applause for their speedy implementation and low cost as well as inclusion of states both from developing and developed world; Chinese effort to put up a broader multipolar international governance system and cooperation in infrastructure development is stoking fears within the US: America may soon be losing its grip on the world affairs.

Beijing’s win-win strategy challenges the Washington-led neocolonial world order, which for decades ensnared the developing countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America in the western debt trap through neoliberal economic policies. In order to blunt China’s and salvage America’s image, the US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken during his trip to Africa accused China for overburdening the countries with “crushing debts."

Yet revelations from the UK-based campaigner, Debt Justice – Africans governments owe three times more debt to western banks, asset managers and oil trade than China and are charged double the interest – debunks the narrative being pushed by the US directly or through the parasitic states in the Group of Seven, competing each other for influence in Africa to suck the resources of the impoverished Africans.

Demystifying the puzzle that African countries are heavily indebted to China, Tim Jones, Head of Policy at international debt charity, called it a “distraction.” He criticized the western governments for their failure to “compel” the companies to suspend debt repayments even during the pandemic as did China during the G20 debt suspension scheme.

In fact, whenever African governments found themselves in the lurch and looked toward China for relief, they weren’t disappointed. A study by the China Africa Research Initiative (CARI) at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies, estimated Beijing had played an important role in helping African countries to manage their debt by forgiving at least $3.4 billion of debt in Africa and restructuring or refinancing another $15 billion between 2000 and 2019.

More recently, China announced to cancel 23 matured interest-free loans of 17 African countries in addition to providing emergency food assistance this year to the least-developed regional nations. The affirmative action urged many economists and researchers to reject the US narrative about Beijing’s “debt trap diplomacy” or alleged Chinese attempts to gain political control, seize strategic assets and exercise influence over the African governments.

Some western observers assign the blame of Sri Lanka’s default to China; the country’s largest foreign funding source is in sovereign bonds or market borrowings, which contributes to almost 50% of its debt stock. Linking the country’s inability to pay for crucial imports with Chinese “debt trap diplomacy” are categorically rebuffed as Beijing accounts for just 10 to 20% of Colombo’s debt compared to a plurality of western allies or financial institutions, which are considered as the US strategic asset or where America has a veto power.

As Sri Lanka went into dire straits purely over internal issues, the western media used the debt crisis as a wild card to delegitimize the BRI and China’s international image. It accused the project as an “essential tool” for China to export more goods and win construction contracts. After Colombo defaulted on foreign debt, China’s initiative and the Chinese-built port in Hambantota was attributed for the country’s nonpayment.

Ever since the port became an iconic case to misrepresent China’s global infrastructure lending rather than Sri Lanka's push to build a regional growth hub in Hambantota – an underdeveloped region devastated by the 2004 tsunami – the CARI Director Deborah Brautigam denied it was a part of Chinese “master plan.” Indeed, several international companies had offered to develop the port before Beijing and Colombo in July 2017 signed an agreement of $1.5 billion to lease the deep-sea port to China Merchants Holdings Ports for 99 years.

The BRI pilot project, China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, is one of the persistent targets of the US-led “debt-trap” campaign against the BRI. Beijing’s promises to develop the port city Gwadar are precisely impugned even though China has undertaken several projects to uplift the living standards of the local people under Corporate Social Responsibility.

Over the last seven year, Beijing has granted more than five billion yuan for establishment of New Gwadar International Airport with the longest runway in the region and capable of handling the largest aircraft, East Bay Expressway, 300-bed China-Pakistan Friendship Hospital, China-Pakistan Vocational and Technical Training Institute, China-Pakistan Gwadar Faqeer Middle School, China-Pakistan Fraternity Emergency Centre and a desalination plant.

China has recently provided 3,000 solar panels to the poorest of the poor in Gwadar for provision of electricity too. The Gwadar Free Zone Phase-II and 300MW power plant projects are also underway. Patience, nevertheless, is the key as all these initiatives, like others the world over, will pay back after a period of 15 years.

Again, Beijing has no role in Islamabad’s debt crisis. According to the World Bank, rising global commodity prices led to double-digit inflation in the country with long-standing structural weaknesses of the economy and low productivity growth posing risks to a sustained recovery. The Bank, however, projects the public debt as a share of GDP will come down gradually over the medium term as Islamabad manages to repay its loans to foreign creditors.

At a time when the United Nations Development Program estimates 71 million people in the developing world have fallen into poverty in the three months starting March due to the Ukrainian war as a consequence of spikes in global food and energy prices, an impact that is much more powerful than the pandemic, the US should be encouraged to bolster efforts and assist the embattled government for provide relief to the poor rather than drawing links between freedom and prosperity to tempt China’s allies toward the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment.

Even though the US condemnation of every single Chinese initiative has become commonplace these days, China’s blueprint of international peace and development is catching an unreserved support from the world. The message is clear: No matter how the US portrays the BRI projects internationally – and notwithstanding the western prevarication to accept the wholesome advantages of the initiative – both the international luster of the BRI and a deep global mistrust in the US-led nest of intrigue seems to be growing.

*My opinion piece (unedited), first appeared in "The Express Tribune."

Continuing US quest for an ally in South Asia

By: Azhar Azam

Pakistan, once a major non-NATO ally, has doled out great sacrifices in the US global war on terror. Albeit unprecedented political, economic and human sufferings of the Pakistani people and security forces to make the super power much more secure and immune to terror attacks, Washington brushed aside Islamabad’s invaluable contributions to embrace New Delhi for a larger game in the wider expanse.

The whiplash policymakers in the US abandoned Pakistan and pinned hopes on India to help recoup its strategic influence in the Indo-Pacific. Notwithstanding Washington’s years-long soft-soap approach to appease New Delhi, the South Asian country has never shied away from bringing an embarrassment to Washington. India bypassed the US sanctions to purchase S-400 missile defense systems and oil from Russia, ditching America internationally.

After the maiden in-person meeting of the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF), India, a cornerstone of the US President Joe Biden’s Indo-Pacific strategy and the Quad frontline state, once again hoodwinked America by pulling out from the ministerial statement on the topmost pillar of the framework, trade, over environment and labor discrimination.

Originally announced during Biden's trip to Japan in May, the pan-Asian deal doesn’t cut tariffs or give greater market access to participating countries. Given these two elements form the foundation of any multilateral economic cooperation, the initiative was largely an attempt to demonstrate solidarity of the grouping; still, New Delhi didn’t miss the opportunity to stigmatize the US on a global stage.

Biden’s roster encompassed initiating environment, labor and other standards in Asia through the IPEF. Yet India blew up all the “high-standard provisions” to promote a sustainable and inclusive economic growth in a jiffy. As a result, ambiguity looms over New Delhi’s commitment to the US, which seeks the initiative as a “durable model” for the other countries in the world.

The framework isn’t a free trade agreement (FTA) either like the avant-garde Regional Comprehensive Economic Agreement (RCEP), which covers 2.3 billion population and $26.3 trillion GDP in trade, investment and economic and technical cooperation in addition to crafting new rules for e-commerce and intellectual property. India withdrew at the last gasp from the RCEP; it is still the world’s largest FTA.

America has been giving a cold shoulder to economic ambitions of the countries in the region by prioritizing the US strategic interests. The new US Indo-Pacific strategy explicitly states its “considered but rejected” idea of scaling back military presence over the region's strategic importance in the 21st century.

After Donald Trump in 2017 dialed back the US proclivity for the region’s economy and retreated from the Trans Pacific Partnership, Biden sustains his predecessor’s aloof legacy and doesn’t lay out a definite plan for regional peace and prosperity. This is where the IPEF sounds an alarm for other Indo-Pacific states about regional security.

Overlapping interests on supply chains among the member states further obscure the success of the IPEF. South Korea wants to establish itself as a rule maker within the framework; the Biden administration’s Inflation Reduction Act is threatening multilateralism and Seoul’s economic aspirations by providing tax credits to electric vehicles (EVs) assembled in North America.

The legislation not only puts leading Korean EV giants in the US at disadvantage, it also pushes them in a spiraling supply chain crisis as the manufacturers will be required to source at least 40% in 2023 to 80% in 2029 of the EV battery components from North America or countries having a free trade agreement with the US. The Korean parliament earlier this month passed a resolution to express concerns on the new rules.

Even as the scheme is aimed at lessening reliance on China and asserts to create millions of American manufacturing jobs, the plan may hit the snag if it excludes China where almost 70% of the announced EV battery production capacity is projected to be concentrated by 2030. There is another catch: the supply chain required for this credit doesn’t exist in the US. Japan and the European Union also have conveyed strong resentments to the US for its prejudice toward its own allies, believing the restrictions may violate the World Trade Organization’s rules and international law.

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) view, the Indo-Pacific was developing into an arena of great power contestation between China and the US under Trump, raised concerns among the American partners about the country’s ability to deter China in the eventuality of a conflict on the regional flashpoints such as Taiwan and the South China Sea.

While bloc’s internal division into the US and China camps casts doubt on the success of the US Indo-Pacific strategy, “an all-pain, no-gain” initiative runs the risk of a lukewarm response from the ASEAN. The IPEF may draw a little appeal from the 10-member alliance for it emphatically dismisses any negotiations on tariffs and market access as well as tends to obstruct the ongoing development plans and impinge on the ASEAN centrality.

Most significantly, the IPEF meeting didn’t produce a formal agreement. It was rather a ceremonial gathering to showcase the equivocal US commitment to the Indo-Pacific and reaffirm Biden’s position on keeping tariffs and trade and investment barriers. Thanks to India's mine-laying, neither the summit drove the US interests nor did it show transpacific unity. In duw course, America’s quest to find an ally like Pakistan continues.

*This is an unedited version of my article that also appeared in The New Straits Times and The Express Tribune.

Human rights activism cannot survive in contemporary world

By: Azhar Azam

China's contributions to human rights cause and protection and promotion of human rights through development have long been backed by the international community. Despite a smear campaign against China by Western rights groups such as the U.S.-controlled Human Rights Watch (HRW), a growing number of countries continue to voice support for China's efforts in Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) and Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, appreciating the actions that are bringing peace and security in the regions.

The human rights organizations are one of the key drivers for the U.S. aggression and the implementation of its hostile objectives across the world. They maintain close links with the U.S. government, align their policies with the U.S. interests abroad and serve as recruiting agencies for the U.S. State Department. Their experts (like Sophie Richardson, the HRW China Director) work with the Congress to downplay Chinese achievements in restoring peace in HKSAR, the Tibet Autonomous Region and the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region.

Since long, scholars have been concerned about the HRW push to advance the American agenda and its quietude on the "worst" human rights abuses in the Western hemisphere and failure to openly condemn the U.S. crimes. For instance, in a letter Nobel Peace Prize laureates Adolfo Perez Esquivel and Mairead Maguire alongside others held the U.S. responsible for kidnapping of Haiti's president and killing of thousands of people in the aftermath of the coup d'état.

The HRW was supposed to demand criminal investigations and prosecutions of Barack Obama-era crimes such as the continuation of CIA renditions and torture at the Bagram airbase in Afghanistan and underground prison in Somalia. Instead, one of its advisory committee members, Tom Malinowski, was appointed as the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State by the Obama administration and the HRW remained tight-lipped on these human rights violations.

Similarly the NATO Secretary General Javier Solana, who oversaw the assault on Yugoslavia in 1999 involving "violations of international humanitarian law" per HRW, joined the organization's board of directors in 2011. In turn, the Watch swung its positions in a way that was consistent with the U.S. policy, blacking out America's crimes and offenses around the world.

Formed in 1978 as the Helsinki Watch to observe the Soviet Union's compliance with the 1975 Helsinki Accords, the HRW long before exposed its closeness with the U.S. and support for its Cold War strategy of containment. Over the recent years, the Watch has tanked its credibility for working on the same pattern: propagate the U.S. capitalistic interests and vilify China's development model by releasing baseless reports on HKSAR, the Tibet Autonomous Region and the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region.

At times, the organization wandered away from the "objective" and condemned the Western democratic governments, such as asking the U.S. to lift economic sanctions to help Iran fight the COVID-19 pandemic or seeking Australia review its immigration policy; the rights "industry" received a quick warning of straying from "the neutral to the corrupt" and was advised to keep focus on "human rights catastrophes" in Hong Kong, Xinjiang and other parts of the world.

The top U.S. rights groups fare poorly when it comes to openness about their sources of funding too. In 2016, the HRW was graded as "opaque" by a Georgian non-profit watchdog, Transparify. The Watch's standing bottoms out since it more recently has advanced America's geopolitical agenda by taking to supporting the overthrow of the Bolivian President Evo Morales in a violent coup and portraying rioters in Hong Kong as peaceful protesters.

In November 2019, former U.S. President Donald Trump signed the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act, which authorized the U.S. to sanction individuals involved in alleged human rights abuses in the Chinese special administrative region.

Out of sheer frustration, the outgoing Trump administration on its last day in office accused China of genocide in Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region and mounted pressure on the then incoming U.S. President Joe Biden to pursue a hardline against Beijing. Even Biden's nominee for Secretary of State, Anthony Blinken, asserted Trump's approach was poor and could alienate U.S. allies.

Following two decades of endless wars and overseas interventions, killing an estimated 387,000 civilians, the U.S. is trying to wipe off its blood-stained skin through its newly-released Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response Action Plan to reduce civilian casualties in armed conflicts. The HRW rushed in to describe the "significance" of the blueprint to address fundamentally-flawed U.S. military operations, application or success of which is far from guaranteed.

Amnesty International, like the HRW, is a Cold-War era organization that is known for one-sided reporting and bias toward non-Western countries especially China and whose actions to pursue a political ideology outweigh its claims. After Hong Kong was vandalized by black-clad protesters, it blamed police for the chaos. But that's what Amnesty is infamous for as years before, it compromised neutrality in exchange of heavy donations from the British and the American governments.

For the Western rights organizations, protection of human rights and civilians in armed conflicts or peace hasn't ever taken precedence over the U.S. interests. They continue to peddle the U.S. Cold War narrative by spreading lies about Hong Kong and Xinjiang. But these tactics will not succeed in a well-informed and much-vibrant international community that realizes the double standards of these rights groups and will not allow them to advance American interests under the shield of "human rights activism."

*This is my opinion piece that first appeared at "China Global Television Network (CGTN)":