By Elizabeth Marshall ——Bio and Archives--December 16, 2023
World News | CFP Comments | Reader Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us
For decades the world has been very happy that the purported “cold wars” seemed to be over. The world had enjoyed a certain amount of peace. We all went to sleep, at night, thinking that our leaders were paying attention to global affairs. No one wanted to revert back to the days of deep distrust and the fear of war. It would seem it wasn’t only the fat and happy people, living in the Western democratic nations, who were sleeping – it was also the majority of the leaders, of these countries, as well.
These may seem to be fairly harsh words but when looking at what is taking place, throughout the world today, we all need to start asking some very pointy questions, as it seems there continues to be a gross mismanagement of all global affairs.
Questions:
Are the Western Democracies being targeted by China through its various proxies?
Perhaps the first question should be the NATO question. The Ukraine and Israel are not members of NATO and yet Russia and, indirectly Iran through Hamas, have attacked these two countries. This means that NATO, as an organization, cannot defend these countries against their attackers and can only bring cash and weapons to Ukraine and Israel’s aid. The NATO countries can also lend moral support, humanitarian aid but cannot lift a war-time finger to assist. Seems a bit coincidental, doesn’t it? But we all have to remember that with the Western democracies, that are members of NATO, giving support to these two countries they are also continuing to deplete their finances and military supplies. We also have to look at the connection between the actors on the field.
We have Russia supporting Iran.[4] This relationship has been on-again, off-again for centuries. Then there is the relationship between Russia and China which is supportive of Russia’s actions against the Ukraine.[5] It only follows that North Korea would be involved as it, generally, follows what China directs.[6] And then just days before the attack in Israel, by Hamas, China and Iran announce “Beijing’s commitment to strengthening its “comprehensive strategic partnership” with Tehran.”[7]
And what do we have as the only “world government,” but China, either directly or indirectly, through its various proxies is the main player. It seems the only Nation, holding its ground, is the U.S. with its support of the Ukraine and Israel and it not accepting the status quo brought forward by the United Nations. Why bring in the UN, you may ask? Unknown to many the most famous proxy for China is the United Nations.
Since 2007, the Under-Secretary-General for Economic and Social Affairs (DESA), who advises the UN Secretary General, has been from China.[8] These representatives of the People's Republic of China (PRC) advise the UN Secretary General on such things as all development-related issues, including climate change, internet governance, and financing for development. The issue with this is that these Under-Secretaries are, also, the brains behind of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). These SDGs are an affront to Western Democracies and undermine the very financial, theological and military strength of all member Nations, in the UN.
Most certainly some have stated that there are some good points in the SDGs, but when an Under-Secretary expresses, in their report, that to move forward with the SDGs, and, of course, climate change initiatives, nations “… could include shifting budget allocations away from military expenditures to social protection programmes.” Are we not just a little curious that someone, from China, would advise various countries to do this when they seem very militarily aggressive, themselves.[9]
Perhaps the most strategic move by China is its thoughtful move regarding sustainable development, financial gain, and climate change. In 2018 Prof. Jean-Paul Marechel[10] authored a report titled “What Role for China in the International Climate Regime”?[11] This report is succinct and brings forward an explanation as to why China got involved in “climate change.” According to Prof. Marechel’s report: “The United States’ withdrawal"
Times have changed. 2009 and the COP15 have become another world. Fifteen years ago, China thought – or pretended to think – that the issue of climate change was a weapon western countries wanted to use against its economic and political rise. Now, China sees diplomatic benefits in hanging tough on climate change, on being in favour of the Paris Agreement. It was already true three years ago but is even more true today, after Donald Trump’s election.
The agreement appears to have a sufficiently flexible structure and modest enough aims to withstand US withdrawal. Some experts feared that President Trump’s decision would jeopardize the future of the Paris Agreement. Of course, this decision will have a financial impact on at least two institutions: the UNFCC and the Green Climate Fund. The United States used to give 115 million dollars annually to the first (25% of the budget) and had promised to give 3 billion dollars to the second (to this day only 1 billion was given under President Obama). Washington’s decision can be also a bad example for some countries that are not absolutely convinced of the necessity to participate to the Agreement, but which did not want to be publicly opposed to it.
Peking appears to want to take advantage of this situation and might well succeed. In January 2017, just after Donald Trump’s victory, Xi Jinping insisted during the World Economic Forum in Davos on the fact that all signatories should stick to the Paris Agreement “instead of walking away from it”. The same month, Xie Zhenhua, China’s climate envoy, said that his country was “capable of taking a leadership role in combating global climate change”.
All these statements must be connected to the so-called “China solution”. This expression was publicly used for the first time in July 2017 on the 95th anniversary of the foundation of the Chinese Communist Party. During the speech he gave for that occasion, Xi Jinping asserted that the Chinese people were “fully confident that they can provide a China solution to humanity’s search for better social institutions”. Unlike the “China model”, or the “Peking Consensus” (designed to counterbalance the defunct Washington consensus), the “China solution” seems to be – or at least has been conceived to be – applicable everywhere, including in Western countries.
Support Canada Free Press
China is more self-confident than ever. It is not a “revisionist power” seeking to overthrow the world order, which it cannot do, or put into question global interdependence which it has greatly profited from, but is clearly eager to expand its influence within the order. In October 2017, during the 19th Party congress, Xi Jinping pledged to lead the world’s second largest economy into a “new era” of international power and influence. It seems clear that a China solution to climate change will be one of the first practical applications of the China solution even if no one can give a precise definition of what that solution is. Xie Zhenhua said that concerning climate change, the next step is to offer China’s own solution, at world level.
Undoubtedly, in years to come, China will be a driving force in the fight against climate change. But, can it become the leader of that fight, as it is now often said? It is of course difficult, if not impossible, to answer a hypothetical question of this kind, given historical contingency.
Nevertheless, some remarks are in order. In international relations theory, leadership is linked to hegemony. As the Italian philosopher Antonio Gramsci first noted, the concept of hegemony expresses an historical situation in which there is unity between objective economic and material forces or conditions, and a set of dominant philosophic-political ideas. Transposed in the field of international relations, hegemony can be defined as a world level configuration in which a dominant state leads other states and societies, based on consented rather than compelled hierarchy. As Philip Golub puts it “world hegemony implies a hierarchical interstate system based on a large measure of consent, subordinate states deferring to and consenting to what they consider to be a legitimate authority that provides international public goods”.
China is still far from fulfilling these conditions. The country suffers notably from a lack of ideological hegemony, or “soft power”. The term was coined by Joseph Nye at the end of the 1980s to express “the ability of a country to persuade others to do what it wants without force or coercion”. Obviously, China’s involvement in the Paris agreement contribute to improve the country’s image and, perhaps, to expand its diplomatic influence in “soft power” issues.
But a great number of other decisions and initiatives damage China’s image abroad. The project of the so-called “social-credit-system” that will permit the Party to monitor and control all the citizens is one of them. Peking’s attitude during Nobel peace laureate Liu Xiaobo’s agony in July 2017 gives a good idea of the nature of the regime. The shrinking of academic freedom in Hongkong despite the Basic Law and the 50-year treaty between Britain and China on the city’s status is an alarming signal. And the inscription of Xi’s “Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era” in the Party charter at the end of the 19th Congress in October 2017 does not seem to indicate an evolution towards more political freedom… As Chris Patten put it “The trouble these days (…) (with President Xi Jinping and his Politburo) is (…) that they know little about Marx but a lot about Lenin”.
A quarter of century after the adoption of the UNFCC it appears that international climate change policy poses serious cooperation challenges. According to Robert Keohane: “Whether a hegemon exist or not, international regimes depend on the existence of pattern of common or complementary interests that are perceived or capable of being perceived by political actors.” If this analysis is right, China can play an important role in the years to come, alongside Europe. It is also noteworthy that, at least on the climate issue, George W. Bush and Donald Trump will have respectively helped Peking to refuse any binding commitment (from 2001 to 2014) and since June 2016 to appear as a leading force in the preservation of climate stability. “[12]
And perhaps this explains why, in 2013, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was chastised for his:
“… level of admiration I actually have for China because their basic dictatorship is allowing them to actually turn their economy around on a dime and say, ‘We need to go green … we need to start investing in solar.’”[13] Based on historical documentation this statement seems to be an on-going issue, with the Canadian government.[14] Perhaps this is why our federal government is a partner, not only with the UN, but with the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI), ICLEI’s subsidiaries/partners[15] and UNESCO?
And why is it that China wants to be the “new champion of climate change”? From Prof. Marechel’s report, it seems China wanted to have cleaner air because of the costs of health-care; to look better on the world stage – perhaps a little warmer and fuzzier and not so harsh; and finally to “conquer new foreign markets shares in the field of green technologies.”[16] Not such the laudable reasons that some might think, wouldn’t one agree?
And what of the political interference by China in Canada, other western democracies, including the U.S.?[17] Since 2010 Canada has been dealing with this and it finally came to a head in 2023 with threats to a sitting federal MP,[18] amongst others.
To some the questions that should be ringing through all Western Democracies:
Are the Western Democracies being targeted by China through its various proxies?
These are questions that most might not ask, but these are the questions that should be asked, wouldn’t one agree?
View Comments
• Elizabeth Marshall on Facebook
• Non-Partisan Advocate
• Director of Research Ontario Landowners Association
• Author – “Property Rights 101: An Introduction”
• Board Member/Secretary – Canadian Justice Review Board
• Legal Research – Green and Associates Law Offices, etc.,
• Legislative Researcher – MPs, MPPs, Municipal Councilors,
• President All Rights Research Ltd.,
I am not a lawyer and do not give legal advice. Any information relayed is for informational purposes only. Please contact a lawyer.