Written by Laurence Brahm - Published by South China Morning Post on 09/18/2007

During this month’s Apec summit, some 5,000 protesters from the Stop Bush Coalition swarmed onto the streets of Sydney, decrying the war in Iraq and White House policy on global warming. In contrast, several hundred people in nearby Hyde Park demonstrated against China’s human rights record. The sharp difference in the scale of these protests must have delighted President Hu Jintao .

Past Chinese leaders on trips abroad have been met with demonstrations against their national policies, irking them and sometimes provoking knee-jerk verbal broadsides against their host nation. This now seems to be changing.

Or is it? Perceptions are relative. It seems to be beside the point whether Mr Hu’s administration really represents a more open China as it prepares to host next year’s Olympics and pursues its goals of a “peaceful rise” and “harmonious society”. Standing in sharp contrast is US President George W. Bush’s record on Iraq and Afghanistan, torture and the Guantanamo gulag. In the eyes of some national leaders and activists, he makes Mr Hu, with his panda grin, look almost cuddly.

That gap was underscored by the issue of global warming at the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation forum summit. Mr Hu said: “We believe that the issue of climate change bears on the welfare of the whole of humanity and the sustainable development of the whole world.” In contrast to Mr Bush, Mr Hu supported efforts to tackle global warming by insisting that the United Nations serve as a framework to address this problem.

Australia, with US backing, tried to push through the so-called Sydney Declaration at Apec, to replace the globally recognised and accepted Kyoto Protocol on climate change when it expires in 2012. China, along with most countries in the world, is a member of the Kyoto Protocol, the main international vehicle co-ordinating efforts fighting global warming. America and Australia have not signed the protocol, which says a lot about their projected and perceived spirit of international co-operation in comparison to China’s.

China, next to the US, is the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases. “In tackling climate change, helping others is helping oneself,” said Mr Hu, sounding more like a Buddhist lama than a Chinese communist leader.

Apec, which brings together Asian and non-Asian national interests, is a unique vehicle that Beijing can use to promote its own self-interest as a regional powerhouse leader – as opposed to trying to challenge US global leadership. The Apec footprint covers 40 per cent of the world’s population, 56 per cent of its economic output and 48 per cent of world trade volume.

China’s foreign policy emphasises a multilateral approach to resolving issues from ethnic conflict to trade discrepancies. This approach is welcomed by many of the world’s developing nations. It contrasts sharply with America’s emphasis on unilateral globalisation, which has dominated world diplomacy and multinational corporate business expansion since the cold war ended.

The Hu leadership is still very conservative, and China remains cautious, unwilling to tread into spheres that are traditionally beyond its ambit. Beijing even refuses to take any stand to protect the interests of bordering nations which may be facing external interference – even to the extent of destabilising the political situation along parts of its border.

This conservatism is good news for multinational corporations. But it might not be so good for potential political allies among developing nations that believe themselves to have developmental or ideological stances similar to China’s – unless, of course, they have commodities or markets that China requires.

On the sidelines of Apec, Mr Hu signed a deal for PetroChina to buy up to US$36.7 billion of liquefied natural gas from Australian producer Woodside Energy. Beijing uses business to promote its diplomatic interests; America uses diplomacy to promote its business interests. The Adam Smith approach to material self-interest has come to dominate Marxist gobbledygook in every single aspect of China’s political economy, including foreign policy. This was visible at Apec.

Laurence Brahm is a global activist, international mediator, political columnist and author. He is the leading advocate of a fresh development paradigm - The Himalayan Consensus - an innovative approach to development.

Back to Top