Paris 2015 or Bust! The Historic US-China Climate Deal

Is it just me, or is Pres. Obama having a very, very good week at the APEC summit? Despite the many obstacles before him outlined by my colleague Colin earlier this week, Pres. Obama has – in a very short period of time, at a summit where rhetoric usually substitutes for action – reached several important deals with Chinese premier Xi Jinping: visas between the two countries were given much longer lifespans, tariffs on high-tech devices were lowered, military confrontations are to be avoided, and now a historic deal on climate change has been reached. Not bad for a president with a lame duck congress at home and a Republican-controlled congress on the horizon.

The announcement today that the US and China had reached a deal on climate change has been met with much fanfare, and with good reason. The US essentially agreed to double its cuts in emissions, reducing emissions by 26-28% by 2025 from 2005 levels. China, for its part, agreed that it would reach “peak emissions” by 2030, a date it was previously unwilling to state publicly, and use at least 20% zero-emission energy by 2030 as well. While these measures will not reverse the pace of climate change, they may in fact help the world to avoid a worst-case scenario of 4 degree Celsius temperature rises by 2100 (i.e. environmental catastrophe, if not apocalypse).

Obama's Tightrope Walk at APEC

In late 2009, President Obama arrived in Asia for the APEC summit as the U.S. economy was grappling with the repercussions from the financial collapse the year before. Still relatively new to his job as President of the United States, Obama arrived optimistic, and his promise of an American "pivot" to Asia largely defined the gathering.

Today, five years later, our beleaguered president arrives in Myanmar with a greatly improved economy back home, yet substantially less political capital to use to his advantage, and arguably more geopolitical concerns than the international arena has seen since perhaps the Cold War. The crisis in Ukraine earlier this year has caused a rift in U.S.-Russian relations, which will have ripple effects most certainly seen throughout Asia and especially in China; protests in Hong Kong have again brought attention to what has been at best a questionable human rights record for China; and the matter of the American "pivot" to Asian has yet to be resolved, but may see progress with more agreement on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (or TPP). President Obama will have to remain disciplined in his approach to these issues and others, and strike a precarious balance between hard-line tactics and a more reserved, diplomatic strategy.

When President Obama speaks of the "pivot" to Asia, there is a common retort from officials in Russia: We are already there. Whereas a true rebalancing of the American projection of power would have paid quick and plentiful dividends five years ago, today is different. Perhaps the most significant repercussion to come from the crisis in Ukraine is it has pushed Russia and China as close together as they have been since the early Cold War years. A multi-billion dollar natural gas deal between the two countries that had been stuck in limbo for years was suddenly brought to the table and finalized expeditiously, easing Russia's reliance for natural gas exports away from Europe and providing China with nearly 20 percent of their natural gas needs for the next several years. In fact, it is a trade deal so large that it will effectively replace Germany with China as Russia's largest natural gas partner.

Militarily speaking, a projection of power in Asia is also simply less feasible today than it was years ago. Where we saw the winding down of wars in the Middle East at the last APEC gathering, this week's gathering comes just after more troops have been approved for deployment in Iraq. The fight against ISIS will continue to escalate in coming weeks (if not months), and these developments will hinder military influence elsewhere in the world.

On the economic side of the "pivot", implementation of the TPP is an equally significant obstacle. While 12 nations have participated in TPP negotiations over the years, China has not been one of them. Instead, China has been advocating for an alternative trade partnership, known as FTAAP, or Free Trade Area of the Asia Pacific. Should China prevail over the U.S. in securing a new trade partnership, combined with Russia's increased exports to the region, it would effectively eliminate any possibility of an increase in American influence in the region. The United States remains a major trade partner with many of the countries in Asia, but it will not have much opportunity to expand on those partnerships without the TPP being signed.

While these issues remain at the forefront for the next week, President Obama will also have to express cautious support for Hong Kong protestors and find a way to urge Chinese leaders not to use violence as a means of bringing an end to the protests. And while the Hong Kong protests have been making headlines for the past several months, they are certainly not the only matter of dispute in the region. Arguments over many islands have been simmering, as well as other territorial disputes that could erupt into larger conflicts at any time. President Obama must be careful to remain on the sidelines of these issues, while influencing decision-making and keeping things deescalated.

Much has changed in the past five years since President Obama last convened with Asian leaders at the APEC summit, and he will undoubtedly have a more challenging time accomplishing items on his agenda this time around. However, at the same time, the stakes are much higher. President Obama must be pragmatic in his approach to tackling these objectives, while preserving what are already tenuously positive relationships with major powers like Russia and China.

A Week in Protests: Spotlight on Hong Kong

As my colleague Colin Wolfgang likes to say, “protests are so IN right now.” The latest country to experience mass pro-democracy protests is also perhaps the most surprising: in China over the last two weeks, student groups and pro-democracy activists have joined forces in Hong Kong to stage huge demonstrations and sit-ins. Despite a total government blackout on information leaving Hong Kong, reports and photos are still coming out showing that the protests have spread throughout the central area of the city, and show no signs of abating.

 

School children join the pro-democracy protests. Courtesy Getty Images.

The protests taking place in Hong Kong are primarily due to a declaration in August that Beijing would reserve the right to vet all candidates for the chief executive of the autonomously administrated city. The vetting process will take place in the first direct elections for the position, due to take place in 2017. When Hong Kong gained independence from the U.K. in 1997, part of the agreement for its transfer to Chinese administration was autonomous rule for 50 years, and direct elections for the chief executive in 20.

Never-ending Posturing in Asia: What's China's Next Move?

China, long seen as the instigator of Asia and, more broadly, wherever the United States is involved diplomatically, is again posturing in the region in an effort to weaken the ties President Obama has sought to strengthen over the past several years with Japan, South Korea, and other up-and-coming Asian nations. Once considered a grand pivot of influence, Obama's decision to build rapport in the region and fortify militarily seems to gradually becoming undone, if recent weeks are any indication. And just as the region was seemingly figured out, with various alliances being established, things appear to be shifting quite rapidly - developments that President Obama will have to watch carefully if the U.S. is to remain an influence in regional politics.

In it's not-so-subtle move to damage U.S. influence in the region, Chinese President Xi Jinping is in Seoul currently, meeting with his South Korean counterpart Park Geun-hye. The two will be discussing China's interesting move away from North Korea, who has continued to defy all regional and global demands to cease testing short-range missiles. President Jinping has thus far made no attempt to meet with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un.

Xi Jinping and Park Geun-hye

Why the sudden warmth for South Korea? Well, because South Korea's ties with Japan have been damaged as of late. Japan - the United States' predominant ally in the region - recently restructured their pacifist laws to enable the country to join with allies in military combat under "self-defense" conditions. After months of disputes over various territories in the region and other tensions that have flared periodically, Japan is signaling their resolve to use combat if necessary, something that should worry other regional players. In addition to this change to their constitution, Japan has also vowed to "review" an apology made to South Korean women who were forced to work in droves as sex slaves during the World War II era. South Korea has lambasted Japan for the move, a low diplomatic blow.

The last piece of the bizarre puzzle being put together recently is Japan's unusual warmth towards North Korea. North Korea has set a unique precedent by forming a panel to investigate claims of Japanese nationals being abducted and held in North Korea. In response, Japan has vowed to lift some of its unilateral sanctions on the country, bringing the two closer together and in effect, pushing South Korea and Japan even farther apart.

Japanese PM Shinzo Abe

How can China capitalize on all of this? Meeting with South Korean leadership is a good start. The United States will have to ensure that they are not squeezed out of the region with an increase in a positive Chinese presence. China still has ways to go, specifically when it comes to bolstering trade between themselves and others in the region and making concessions on territorial disputes, but they are certainly making a concerted effort to head in the right direction.

Obama's Foreign Policy (Or Lack Thereof)

In his commencement speech at West Point on Wednesday, President Obama addressed much of the criticism that has been thrown his way recently regarding his inability to project American dominance on the rest of the world in the same way his predecessors have done before him. Most people would agree that Obama has been leery of armed conflict since taking office in 2009, and justifiably so, after the two costly wars former President Bush thrust the U.S. into in the early 2000s. And certainly in certain contexts, isolationism can be an overarching framework that helps shape a country's foreign policy decisions - one has to look no further than the United States leading up to the Second World War, after World War I left such an awful taste in its mouth. However, President Obama has not used isolationism as his foreign policy framework; rather, he has no framework. And as his tenure as Commander in Chief winds down over the next few years, it's that very lack of framework that will come to haunt his legacy, and possibly set the global political arena on a path the United States will wish it had avoided.

Getty Images