Jason Courtoy

GPI: the US, China, and the World

Week 12 Essay 2
The US wants China to join the developed, is it fair?

The U.S. desires for China, the largest emitter of greenhouse gases, to join

the developed nations in implementing climate control measures, but is it fair? The

U.S. has been at the forefront of climate control measures for decades. As such, it is

increasingly pressuring China to implement climate control legislation. China, which

has a vastly growing economy, is not “developed” by the worlds or its own

definition. However, it is coming close with recent changes in policy desires of the

PRC for welfare. The largest issue with U.S. pressure is that while the U.S. is the

biggest advocate for discussion on the subject, it has yet to ratify the Kyoto

Protocol. Therefore, the question is whether this is fair. As a realist, it is absolutely

not in China’s national interest to subject itself to quasi-dominance by the U.S.

The U.S. wants China to adopted binding climate change legislation. As the

largest emitter of gases, the U.S. feels that it is far past time that China joins the

developed world by paying and buying climate tokens. It is economical for China to

develop/ create innovation that reduces the cost of production, and thereby

emissions. The larger question is when should this happen? The U.S. answer to this

question is right now. The rapidly growing economy of China, to the U.S., is a sign

that China is past the state of a developing-industrial society and has shifted to a

developed nation. A prime example of this is the military capabilities of China and

its developing capabilities. Looking specifically at ASATs, carrier killers, and cyber

warfare tactics, the military capabilities of China are far pasted that of a simple

developing-industrial society. Many argue that the definition of developing is often

either too strict or too lenient. There are two primary definitions: an industrial
[Type text]

society (the old) and a high-tech society (the new). Either way that one looks at it,

the shift in military capabilities of China from a massive land-based one (industrial)

to a high-tech long-range power projection one expresses a shift in the industrial

nature of China. Cyber, or even ASAT, warfare requires highly educated / high-tech

personnel, something that an industrial society cannot give China.

China is opposed to U.S. pressure towards binding climate control legislation,

but not against it. The reason is that China feels that a binding document must be

reached. This is evidenced by Li Gao, a senior Chinese negotiator, who stated that

China hoped that the Cancun Consensus would be a stepping stone towards a

binding document in South Africa. However, he expressed the desire to maintain the

independence of developing nations from paying for climate tokens. The principal

defense exposed by China is simply if the U.S. does not bind itself to a binding

document why should we. Li Gao expressed that he blamed the U.S. for the failure

of Cancun because of their failure to ratify the Kyoto Protocol.

As strategic, as it is for the U.S. to remain outside the binding document it is

becoming increasingly less of an advantage. The League of Nations must be seen as

an important example for U.S. policy moving forward. The League failed because

the supplier and principal dependent, the U.S., failed to ratify the treaty. If the U.S.

truly desires climate control legislation it must show the initiative to by ratification

of the Kyoto Protocol or even domestic climate legislation. China, and other nations

for that matter, soon will lose patients and/or decide to take the same path.

Remaining on the outside of a binding fund-commitment document is better than

being in it, while your political and military rival is not.