In China, Climate and Ecology, Radhika Desai, USA

John Kerry, the U.S. special presidential envoy for climate, speaks at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., January 27, 2021. /Getty

U.S. climate envoy, John Kerry, arrived in Shanghai on April 14 laden with expectations of millions who supported President Joe Biden because he promised a cooperative approach to dealing with global problems like climate change.

By Radhika Desai

Published on CGTN, Apr 17, 2021
__________________________________

U.S. climate envoy, John Kerry, arrived in Shanghai on April 14 laden with expectations of millions who supported President Joe Biden because he promised a cooperative approach to dealing with global problems like climate change.

“The Longer Telegram” (TLT), a foreign policy document published by the Atlantic Council, reinforced these hopes, proposing that the Biden administration approach China by carefully distinguishing U.S. “red lines” from less critical areas and even demarcating climate change as an area of cooperation. The NATO-related think tank’s commitment to Henry Kissinger-style realism, a worldview focused on the realities of power, also appeared refreshing after the unhinged militarism and unilateralism of the last two decades.

However, a powerful undertow appears to be pulling the U.S. towards an aggressive China stance. The TLT approach was already falling apart at the high-level U.S.-China talks in Alaska. Although Secretary of State Antony Blinken practically quoted TLT when he said that the U.S.’s China stance will be “cooperative when it should be, collaborative where it can be and adversarial only when it must be,” the talks broke down in acrimony.

Now, even before Kerry stepped foot in China, the aggressive slip was showing below the realist skirts.

Entirely ignoring China’s efforts to advance cooperatively, the U.S. rattled its “human rights” sabre, saying it would not tie compromise on Hong Kong or Xinjiang to agreement on the climate. It also sent a high-level delegation to Taiwan as a provocative “personal signal” of U.S. commitment to Taiwan. To top it all, Kerry implied China will negotiate in bad faith with claims that the U.S. would force China into climate compliance by technologically monitoring national emissions.

Why is this happening? TLT provides a clue. Despite its fresh approach, the goals remain unchanged: TLT recommends the U.S. make it clear to China “that it is in the country’s best interests to continue to operate within the existing U.S.-led liberal international order rather than build a rival order” and to not “expand China’s borders or export its political model beyond China’s shores.”

Leave aside that China never proposed to export its model. How “realistic” is continued pursuit of a unipolar world order? Back in the 1970s, realism had led the U.S., when its means and power were diminished, from Cold War to détente. The U.S. has even lesser means today. The TLT’s “realism” has surely taken leave of reality.

TLT’s reference to the famous anonymous 1946 “Long Telegram” is vain. It is a myth that it set U.S. policy for the Cold War with the USSR. Its soon-to-be-revealed author, U.S. ambassador to the USSR, George Kennan, falsely claimed that the USSR was “fanatically” and “neurotically” “expansionist” when Stalin carefully observed Cold War spheres of influence. U.S. policy also exceeded Kennan’s “containment” prescription, provoking a dangerous arms race, in part by claiming every popular anti-colonial revolution was a Soviet machination.

Even so, Kennan proposed the modest policy of containment even though U.S. power was at its peak at the time. TLT, by contrast, proposes the pursuit maximal ambitions by ignoring the elephant in the room: the U.S.’ economic decline over the very decades of China’s spectacular growth and modernization.

***

Radhika Desai is a professor of political studies at the University of Manitoba in Canada. The article reflects the author’s opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

*****

EDITOR’S NOTE: We remind our readers that publication of articles on our site does not mean that we agree with what is written. Our policy is to publish anything which we consider of interest, so as to assist our readers in forming their opinions. Sometimes we even publish articles with which we totally disagree, since we believe it is important for our readers to be informed on as wide a spectrum of views as possible.

Recent Posts
Contact Us

We're not around right now. But you can send us an email and we'll get back to you, asap.

Start typing and press Enter to search

Translate »