On August 29, 2019, Assistant Professor Marina Kaneti presented on the 22nd Politics and IR Brown Bag on the topic of A Paradigm Shift? China and the Responsibility for Environmental Protection. After Donald Trump withdrew the US from the Paris Agreement in 2017, there have been speculations on whether China’s moment in environmental governance leadership has come. Yet on the other hand, there has been growing anxiety in the world that China is using international aid to further its own geopolitical advantages. Looking at China’s environmental protection rhetoric and aid for climate mitigation, this research explores the opportunities and challenges for China to take on leadership role in environmental governance.
Two key trends that are of particular interest in developing this research are i) the recent consolidation of international aid and Belt and Road initiatives; and ii) the growing emphasis on green development, now also embedded in the Chinese constitution. In China, the 2018 consolidation of global initiatives under the China International Development Cooperation Agency (CIDCA) signals the continued drive to foreign policy, economic strategy, and international development aid. This is evident from the joint framework that houses Belt and Road, South-South Cooperation, Agenda for Sustainable Development 2030, etc. Some of the questions that this research plans to investigate further are what is the nature of aid, particularly aid concerning climate mitigation and how does aid assistance aligns with the strategic plans for economic development. For example, a look at China’s aid delivery 2000-2014 indicates little alignment between economic development and aid for climate mitigation. Would this change now, especially given the Belt and Road emphasis on green development and the opportunity for global environmental leadership?
With this in mind, there is yet another aspect of environmental governance that needs to be underscored: the nature of climate change and the sovereign prerogative of states. Using Cashore’s (2016) conceptualization of climate change as a super wicked problem, the research examines China’s overall approach to the question of environmental leadership from the perspective of emergency, neoliberal (mis)alignment between policies and solutions, and sovereignty.
Super wicked problems are problems which are urgent, no central authority in curbing the problem, and those countries that are trying to solve the problem are at the same time exacerbating them due to irrational policies. Climate change is one of the super wicked problems. However, while China acknowledges the importance of environmental conservation, but there is still misalignment between its efforts in protecting the environment and the prerogative for economic growth. Also, it has been shunning global commitments by claiming that it is still a developing country. Therefore, China is not addressing the super wicked problem of climate change.
As for the issue of sovereignty, China’s bilateral agreements with foreign governments such as Kenya and Indonesia on economic developments and infrastructure construction have also caused controversies, especially in terms of environmental conservation. When activists challenge projects such as coal mines and hydropower plant construction, the Chinese companies involved would shift all responsibilities to the local governments. The stance of non-interference might perhaps be changing as the recent example of fires in the Amazon showed, with China firmly suggesting that the fires need to be treated as an international crisis and the Brazilian government should accept international help.
In conclusion, while there is an opportunity for China to take on leadership role in environmental governance, we have yet to see China’s interest in exploring this opportunity. While we do see China trying to assert international environmental leadership, having recognized the international prestige and recognition that come with it. China could also use it to facilitate domestic reforms, and it is a very strategic way to align their policies. Nonetheless, they do not address the super wicked problems. In the future, we may need more intellectual leadership for agenda formation, rethink the question of sovereignty, and to explore the language of responsibility.
During the Q&A, it was pointed out by members of the audience that in terms of climate change, the main stakeholders are China, Europe, India, and the US. However, in terms of global leadership qua climate change, China’s influence on these entities are very limited and they are not keen to participate in the BRI as well. It was also pointed that the current president of Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro, has been very critical of China and has been siding with Trump. Therefore China’s statement against the Brazilian government regarding the fire in the Amazons might be a “payback” against the current Brazilian government.
It was also pointed by members of the audience that the competition and rivalry between China and the US are in a sense benefiting the rest of the world as both countries compete against each other in providing more public goods. A problem is that, if China is indeed taking up more global leadership, then how do we differentiate between acts of leadership and acts of self-interest? It was also pointed out by the speaker that while the world has looked upon the US as the leader of international environmental governance, but the latter has been reluctant in assuming such a leadership position. In fact, it can be argued that there is no international leadership in this area at all.
It was also pointed out by members of the audience that the research project does not need to tie itself with the BRI, but just focus on climate change and China’s leadership roles within that domain. It would also be worthwhile looking into China’s justification in humanitarian interventions in the UNSC, as they might be also applicable to the cases of climate change. On top of that, it would be useful to access some surveys, such as World Value Survey, to see if the world sees China or the US more as the leader of environmental conservation. Also, the Chinese government has been capable in re-orienting public opinions. Therefore, even if there has been no prior popular support for climate leadership, but the government could mount a propaganda campaign that creates popular support for such global environmental governance.
Instead of seeing China as providing global public goods for everyone, we should see if China is providing public goods for certain countries because they have special bilateral relationships and leverages there. As such, China might just be defending its interests overseas, and the sovereignty of the recipient countries are compromised. In other cases, there are counter-arguments in which China’s actions are damaging local environments, therefore the speaker would need to account for these problems in order to prove that China is indeed taking on leadership roles in the domain of environmental conservation.