The two largest players on the global stage are the United States and China. We want to hear from you and learn from your experience. Kindly join the conversation.
Search
The People's Republic of China (PRC)
The People's Republic of China (PRC)
The two largest players on the global stage are the United States and China. We want to hear from you and learn from your experience. Kindly join the conversation.
This document was interesting and something I have read pieces of before. I am very intrigued by the concept of the Five-Year Plan and Made In China 2025 plans. The thirteenth Five-Year Plan will expire at the end of 2020 and discussed development strategies, agricultural modernization, expansion of their cyber-economic space, urbanization, protection of the ecological environment, deepening coordination between the Mainland, Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan, fighting poverty and improving health and education and strengthening socialist values throughout the community.
As the Communist Party of China prepares to release the fourteenth version of this document at the National People's Congress in March 2021, there is quite a bit of discussion over what it will include. One thing that will most definitely make an appearance is their environmental protection policy. Xi Jinping announced last month that China plans to be completely carbon neutral by 2060 and cap carbon emissions in 2030, which seems to be a lofty goal with little promising evidence. A large scale plan will have to be laid out to accomplish this in the timeframe designated. Something that climate observers are focusing on in this new plan is the role China will have coal playing. Energy demands in China have risen in recent years and the National Energy Administration has been limiting coal power capacity to 1,100 gigawatts by 2020, so their upcoming plan will provide an opportunity to shift this. Other predictions I have seen for the fourteenth Five-Year Plan include less emphasis on the quantity of GDP growth and more focus on the quality of growth. Instead of 6.5% average growth, they expect closer to 5% with more emphasis on structural change like urbanization and "dual circulation". Technology is also stated to be a top priority along with funding for education and vocational training. Research that is likely to be funded includes chips and semiconductors, software, precision machinery, fine chemicals, advanced robotics, new materials, aerospace, and aviation technology along with better IP rights.
The fourteenth five-year plan will indeed be something to keep an eye on. A lot has changed in China since 2016. Especially considering that China has become more belligerent towards Hong Kong and we are beginning to see a rise in Sino-American tensions.
I do hope that China makes better IP protection a pillar of its new five-year plan. As we discussed a couple of weeks ago during our viewing of a section of the US-China trade deal, any attempts to the US tries to get China to respect IP is meaningless if the Chinese do not property enforce it. Though I find the chances of China taking a total anti-espionage anti-IP theft as slim, due to the fact that their strategies inherently involve the use of foreign research to develop their own technologies.
@Jay Rosato In May of this year The China National Intellectual Property Administrations (CNIPA) released the "Implementation of the National Intellectual Property Strategy to Accelerate the Construction of an Intellectual Property Power Country" which includes one hundred points to become an "IP Power Country". This is a mix of short term and long term objectives, it is another set of policies to keep an eye on to see if any substantial change is made.
@Madeline Smith Thank you for bringing this my attention. It was a very interesting to see some specifics about Chinese IP policy, especially as it relates to patents and universities. Indeed it will be interesting to see how these policies develop over the next few years.
As we have discussed in the past on this forum, Chinese theft of intellectual property is a major problem for US researchers. The document cited numerous examples of China unfairly gaining access to research through means of theft. The value that intellectual property theft costs the US each year, a value between $225 billion and $600 billion per year, is staggering.
But university theft is more than just unethical and costly. It is also potentially dangerous. The Chinese State Council itself sets four goals to gain a technological edge; gathering, analyzing, using, and building on existing foreign technologies. This can threaten US national security when, for example, a student researching at Duke takes information on metamaterials (materials that can make objects invisible to microwave radiation) back to China. The FBI ended up investigating this instance, and while there was ultimately a lack of evidence and the case was closed, many signs still pointed to this being IP theft. Upon returning to China, the student indicted founded a company that was immediately visited by the president of China, showing a potential sign of corroboration. The stealing has the potential to damage the US military edge over China. It could also potentially threaten US servicemen if the Chinese are able to find a way to bypass this protective measure if and after the US implements it into its armed forces.
I am glad that the FBI is taking this issue seriously. The threat of foreign spies is very real and very dangerous. Though I would also be curious to see what universities are doing to combat this issue. I know in the example above, Duke University did not redact the student's Ph.D. This is fair, as there was no concrete evidence to support such an endeavor, but I hope that many universities are following the FBI's advice and taking this issue seriously.
I would be particularly curious to hear @Madeline Smith's thoughts on the Chinese strategy surrounding the strategic use of foreign technologies and @Roy Rashke's thoughts on how US law enforcement can work to tackle this issue of foreign espionage. Both of you hold more background knowledge on this subject than I do.
There is a lot of literature surrounding the use of foreign technology in China. Many sources find that China has appropriated innovation from international sources and this shift in the origination of tech has turned China into an industrial powerhouse. In the "Made in China 2025" plan, China reveals its goal of transferring technology to increase its economy. As China steadily climbs to the economic level of the United States this becomes more and more exigent and promotes loose adherence to IP policy to achieve this goal.
@Jay Rosato and @Madeline Smith, In the US code there are several areas where you can find applicable laws to cover grounds for arrest. Specifically, US Code Title 18 Chapter 90, this section deals with the protection of Trade Secrets. For your reference, you can also look at US Code Title 18 Chapter 25, this section deals with counterfeiting and forgery. US Code Title 18 Chapter 31, this section deals with embezzlement and theft. You can also look at two specific areas of the US Code that deal with fraud in computers. US Code Title 18 Chapter 47 Section 1030, deals with any fraud and related activity in connection with computers, that could be copying a report or downloading documents. Also, US Code Title 18 Chapter 47 Section 1029, which deals with fraud and related activity in connection with access devices, that could be common access cards to access a system, key badges t enter a room or building, USB drives to gain access to computers, etc.
I am pleased that this document sees fit to remind readers of the contributions of immigrants and international students to the United States and its institutions, and that the majority of foreign visitors constitute no threat to US interests. The threat to American intellectual property is certainly real and requires attention, but it is good to know that the FBI does not wish to stir up unnecessary fear of outsiders.
This document also reminded us of another objective reality: a big reason for American competitiveness and dominance throughout the world is the robustness of our centers of higher learning. The US has long been a leader in research and development. The amount of foreign students who flock here is a measurement of these institutions' strength and our level of global influence. However, if and when these numbers wane, if universities elsewhere in the world begin to outpace our own, that more than anything will signal America's decline as a superpower.
I like that you mentioned how this document emphasizes that most immigrants and international students contribute to US research and academia. I think its a key disclaimer to put in a document about foreign threats to intellectual property that the majority of international students are not threats to research. Given that there is a rise in xenphobic attitudes in a majority of countries, it is nice to see that this document does not want to continue to encourage these attitudes while also discussing valid threats to intellectual property.
America's education system is an important source of American influence and soft power throughout the world. Many of our most prestigious institutions are known around the world, and the fact that 1.4 million people have left their home countries to study in the US is a testament to this fact.
I agree it is also important to note that as the FBI says, the number of foreign operatives is "small but significant." It cannot be ignored, but assuming that every international student is a foreign operative will only be detrimental to the ability of our educational institutions to operate. Part of what makes our higher education system so effective is its ability to attract the best and brightest from all over the world. We don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater by being over zealous in our approach to countering espionage.
It is interesting to read this document given that a lot of technological innovation and research goes on in academia. Foreign entities having access to these research developments and looking to steal technology is a concerning threat to US intellectual property. As we have seen in previous documents about intellectual property, China plays a large role in threats against US intellectual property, although they have signed an agreement to respect international rules on intellectual property. It is interesting to see that in China's Thirteenth Five Year Plan it states that it seeks to eliminate use of foreign-produced technology in certain fields. I wonder how this will affect its agreement on respecting intellectual property.
I think this will be especially interesting to look at next year when the fourteenth five-year plan will be announced. As @Madeline Smith points out, some are theorizing that IP rights may be a bigger part of Chinese policy going forward. If it is working and there are no repercussions though, I do not see why China would feel motivated to change its current policy.
This article is interesting. Prior to this article I was unaware of how concerned the government is over foreign exchange students. I am glad however that this article addresses the concern and reminds readers that most foreign exchange students are not a risk. Specific to China however the role of plagiarism and intellectual property is something I have researched before. I am curious what the yield of this study would be if it were to be performed this month. The 31% is an interesting statistic. With the US having estimated losses of “$225 billion and $600 billion”, I am curious to see what percent of these losses are to Chinese foreign exchange students over other means of intellectual property theft. My background research leads me to believe a main cause of intellectual property theft by Chinese actors is through cyber-espionage. My main interest with this document is to see any formal reply from the Chinese government. I am curious to see their take on being attributed with sending students to the US with the goal of intellectual property theft.
I would also be curious to see what the Chinese government's response to this issue is. This article from Higher Ed points out that international students are a tool used by both the US and China to solve other disputes. China may threaten to withdraw US students, and the US may threaten to block them from entering. But this really hurts everyone, as US institutions rely not only on the research contributions but also on the tuition, of Chinese students. Meanwhile, Chinese students lose access to premier education. As far as I can tell, this back and forth game of threatening to block students from coming abroad appears to be the most prevalent Chinese response to US allegations of spying.
This concern has been expedited over the last year since ties with China have deteriorated so much. Using the soft power that @Jay Rosato alluded to earlier, the United States plans to revoke thousands of visas for Chinese graduate students in the United States in the name of national security.
The reading today discussed applicable situations to cover the problems and dilemmas that we have talked about over the past few days. Like it was stated previously, China has little to no intellectual property protections in place which does not surprise me when learning the actual annual cost to US economy. I knew the United States had a large population of international students however, I was surprised to find the number was 1.4 million. I would have thought it would have been higher because it is not uncommon to go to an international university and we have such a high immigrant population over the United States. I want to reiterate that China, according the FBI, has historically sponsored economic espionage, and is the world's principle infringer of intellectual property. Naturally, the Chinese Government would use students in Postgraduate and Postdoctoral positions in the areas of study of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics to operate as non-traditional collectors of intellectual property. They go to school in the US and then take back their education and skills to their home country instead of investing in the US economy. This can also be put into context of the Military. In the military, the Ranger Regiment, is highly selective and hard to get into. All applicants might go through training and get the skills however not everyone gets the official title of a Ranger. Unit Commanders tend to want those that go through the training, and do not get the official title, to come back in training officer roles so the rest of their unit can be trained the higher skill level without paying for each person to go through the training themselves. Is this a form of Intellectual property (Training) theft as well? Technically you are using a skill set or material specific to one group and using it without paying for it.
Much like universities, corporations are also major sources of research and innovation across many different sectors of the economy. And so much like universities, it makes sense that China would also seek to gather IP from corporations. One example of this is when a representative from Huawei stole the arm of T-Mobiles smartphone testing robot, Tappy. Much like with universities, it is a difficult situation. Companies want to continue to do business with China and cooperate with Chinese professionals to contribute to the common knowledge pool. Furthermore, we must be careful to avoid a xenophobic backlash against Chinese working and studying legally in the US. But it can be hard to know who to trust and who poses a threat to an organization.
That said, there are certain steps companies can take to prevent damage to their intellectual property. This report emphasized the need for firewalls and antivirus, and also warned against "click-baiting" and "phishing." A study by CyCraft in Taiwan recently revealed that a variety of companies in Taiwan's semiconductor industry had been hacked, and as an article by wired quotes "pillaged practically its entire semiconductor industry." This is made even worse by the fact that the semiconductor industry lies at the core of the Taiwanese economy. This event shows the need for proper cybersecurity to protect key industries. And American companies must be vigilant. Chinese attempts to steal data goes far beyond the US. Recently, US officials accused China of wanting to build the African CDC or the AU Conference Center to steal their data.
Ultimately, most actions that China takes have a reason. And their past actions are reason enough to take extra precautions when dealing with China officials and Chinese companies.
Taiwan is an interesting case study as far as hacking by the Chinese government goes because they are technically still a Chinese territory. In 2018 the US partnered with Taiwan to condemn the ongoing intellectual property theft over a cause that had been investigated for over twenty months. This was the first time the US Department of Justice recalls Taiwan assisting the United States in condemning China over IP violations but they welcome the shift. Hopefully, to combat the impact of China's theft more countries will begin to condemn their actions to create a more unified voice against it.
The violations of intellectual property rights by China is an issue that is incredibly exigent and has driven a large portion of the conflict between Trump and the Chinese government. A 2019 report showed that 1 in 5 American corporations reported that China had stolen their intellectual property in the last year. The most popular ways that China committed this theft in earlier years were piracy and counterfeiting of things like film, record, software, luxury goods, and pharmaceuticals. This fight is now turning, as many things are, to cyber theft which includes the trade of secrets, procedures, and technology.
In mid-August of this year, John Demers of the Department of Justice addressed the national security threats posed by China specifically surrounding their pursuits to steal US IP. He spoke about the Department of Justice's "China Initiative" that strives to combat this conflict. More than 80% of the economic espionage cases charged were with China as well as 60% of trade secret cases. One operation in China that is driving this espionage is the "Thousand Talents" program that takes Chinese applicants who are willing to bring IP back to China, some for profit. People in this program are hard to convict due to their discreet connections with the program and their lack of admittance of this to universities or companies in the United States. The Houston Chinese consulate had demonstrated ties to the "Thousand Talents" program which was part of the reasoning behind its closure.
I have included here a list of cases of intellectual property theft in 2019.
The CNBC article you linked was fascinating. I knew Chinese IP theft was a major problem, but I had no idea it was so profound that one in five companies claims to have had property stolen. And the fact that four out of five espionage cases involve China also shows how prolific this theft is. As we have alluded to throughout this discussion, it is incredibly hard to crack down on this effectively without risking damaging relations with China or its citizens. Nonetheless, I am glad that these documents are being released and I hope companies are taking them seriously.
I wonder if the student from Duke that I mentioned yesterday was a member of this talent program. There was a lack of clear evidence that he was connected to the Chinese government, but it was still odd that he would take such material back to his homeland. This is part of the genius of the talent system. As you mention, it is very hard to formally prove their connection, which makes charges of espionage difficult. It is almost akin to some type of citizen reporting program, wherein through basic incentives, the government can get individual citizens to aid their efforts.
@Jay Rosato Liu, the student from Duke that you mentioned, is said to be connected to China's 111 Project, a program to improve Chinese universities in R&D sectors. Unfortunately, like we have both said it is very difficult to find any information on the actual individuals in the Thousand Talents program.
@Madeline Smith I'm glad you found that report. It was a very interesting read. Liu's case shows that research institutions may need to get stricter with non-disclosure agreements. He did not have to sign one for his position at Duke, but perhaps he should have. The profound impact of Chinese theft of IP and how easy it is to get away with it means that we should reconsider how our research institutions operate.
The theft of intellectual property by Chinese actors is certainly a concern of Western entities. I find the quote, “U.S. business interactions with foreign counterparts should be based on the principles of reciprocity, should be grounded in the rule of law, and should seek to uphold our market-based economy and its innovative ecosystem” to be interesting. The quote relies on private companies acting in favor of protecting the market and values over profit. China has always been a hotspot for foreign nations seeking profit. The Silk Road and the Boxer Rebellion are well known historical events for a reason. In my experience large scale corporations will act in favor of increasing profits. China has an advantageous position as Western companies who desire profit and are willing to trade with China can be exploited. I have talked a lot about intellectual property theft and cyber espionage in the past. These domains are bleeding profits and secrets from Western firms and governments. “Tactics China Uses to Target U.S. Businesses and Their Employees To support its military and commercial research, development, and acquisition, the Chinese government leverages foreign investments, commercial joint ventures, business relationships originating from academic exchanges, and state sponsored industrial and technical espionage.” Focuses on acts such as cyber-espionage and exploitation. China is often attributed with theft of intellectual property leading to loss of profits or erosion of advantages. I found the mitigation strategies to be interesting. The inclusion of red flags to look for interesting. I am personally curious how this dynamic will continue between the US and China.
You bring up a good point that China has a lot of leverage over companies who want access to Chinese markets. China has been known the threaten companies who recognize Taiwan as a country and also famously stopped broadcasting Houston Rockets games after their manager posted a pro-Hong Kong independence message on social media. This could potentially make companies back down when accusing China of IP theft. They do not want their property to be stolen, but on the other hand, they also don't want to criticize China too much as to potentially risk losing access to their markets. And by extension, their profits.
I would be curious to learn more about how companies and universities can protect from cyber theft of their IP. If anyone can find a specific example of a company implementing a specific policy to combat Chinese theft I would very much like to read more about it.
Like we have discussed several times cyber attacks seem to be the future of not only war, but also espionage and theft. This is a source I found that notes several examples of different ways of conducting this theft and the responses from the US.
As we can see in this document, China's theft of US intellectual property is an economic concern for the US. By taking innovations in technology and research from corporations and academia and bringing these said innovations back to Chinese companies, the Chinese economy is benefitting from US losses. It is a primary concern for the US economy to prevent theft of intellectual property. As mentioned before, the Chinese government has signed an agreement agreeing to respect the intellectual property of other nations, but it is not guaranteed that they will follow through. At the same time, China is one of the US's largest trading partner so the US is unable to completely remov China from its economy.
I agree. It would be nice to see some international cooperation against Chinese Intellectual property theft. As we have seen, Chinese theft of intellectual property goes far beyond the US. They have also targeted Taiwan and the EU. The US alone cannot strongarm China into changing its practices, but if a group of powerful economies all push China to end the talent program, they may be forced to oblige.
Given the largely homogenous nature of China's political system, I am genuinely curious as to what kind of debates occur among elected officials over policy implementation.
Today's document says that the deputies are all elected from various units like provinces, autonomous regions, and municipalities. What kind of platforms do these deputies run on? What issues are actually debated between them within the NPC?
I can't imagine that there is a great deal of deviation from whatever the central consensus is among Chinese politicians. As an outsider, it is hard to see much beyond the dictates of President Xi Jinping. I would certainly be open to learning more about how policy decisions are made within the NPC. Is conformity simply expected from the deputies, or are there finer points that need to be hammered out with negotiation?
Perhaps @Madeline Smith knows more.
To answer your question, yes. The National People's Congress has very little contention among its members to the point of being classified as a rubber-stamping body. This means that they possess high levels of de jure (actually legally recognized) power and low levels of de facto (not legally recognized but practiced consistently) power, otherwise that they rarely disagree and approve policies in a sort of echo chamber. It is difficult to find information on the platforms NPC members present before their selection, but I assume that for a similar reason those that hold the same beliefs are chosen on their notoriety and connections while you stand no chance with contrasting beliefs.
I do not know much about Chinese electoral politics, but I share your view that there cannot be much political diversity within China.
If Hong Kong is any indication of habits on the mainland, then elections are regulated by the party to assure that no candidate with opposition to the main party is allowed to run. Earlier in 2020, several candidates in Hong Kong were barred from running in legislative elections because they had "made about opposing government policies in the legislature and doubts over their allegiance to the city and its mini-constitution."
So like @Madeline Smith I can't imagine there is much diversity or debate between candidates in Chinese elections.
A line that was surprising to me in this document was when it discussed the fact that the NPC can decide when and when not to apply the Constitution. This is surprising, not because I think China is a particularly moral state but, because in the United States the Constitution was written as a document to apply fundamentally. My understanding is that the purpose of creating a constitution is to create a universal system of applicable rules that guide stay in place to guide their decision-making and policy implementation. In the United States, regardless of administration or current events, the Constitution is expected to be upheld and is the backbone of consistency. Something unsurprising but worth mentioning is also that the NPC decides all of the high-level administration without any consideration of the citizens. Again, I am not surprised due to the authoritarian nature of China, but I believe it is worth mentioning when discussing this process.
It is when I read documents like this that I am reminded of the importance of international organizations. Although organizations like the UN have often run into problems with autonomy when trying to fight back against human rights violations in China, it is still an opportunity for grand scale attention and action to be drawn from around the world. Over 400 NGOs came together and persuaded the United Nations to engage with China on its human rights violations, which increased the awareness of these issues internationally .
As China continues to expand politically, economically, and militarily, I believe that the best way to reach China is through economic affairs. Dissuading companies from doing business with China or their organizations have raised a large amount of attention and although the ban on Huawei products seems to only have irritated Chinese nationals I believe there is some way to leverage human rights with these business deals
Leadership in China is an issue that has persisted throughout history and is one that is so complex and overbearing that it will continue to plague the international relations community for the foreseeable future. The rise of Chinese power will be important to monitor, because with no check and balances its rise to ultimate power could be incredibly dangerous.
I would agree with your assessment of Chinese leadership, and the limitations on the freedom of press and information assures that likely this system will persist within the country for some time. I would also agree that China responds best to economic pressure. I have often heard that one of the major reasons Chinese citizens do not question authority is due to the continued economic success it provides them. If economic growth were to slow, and citizens begin to see the impacts of it, they may become more aggressive towards the government.
Just from reading this document, one would suspect that China was a somewhat healthy democracy, with a robust electoral system, accountable to the people, that has the ability to amend the constitution, pass legislation, and appoint and remove key officials, such as the Secretary-General. But a simple glance at Chinese politics will quickly reveal that this body is not similar to a traditional western style parliament. And in many ways is just a very elaborate rubber stamp for the Chinese Communist Party. And the overwhelming dominance of the CCP in the nation's affairs assure the NPC never acts as a body that allows for diversity in legislation. I once heard the NPC be described as "the world's most expensive rubber stamp."
The 2018 NPC amendments to the constitution effectively show how meaningless elections can be in China. The NPC enshrined one-party rule into the constitution by amending it to read “The defining feature of socialism with Chinese characteristics is the leadership of the Communist Party of China.” They also abrogated term limits for the president and vice president, showing the weakness of the NPC to act as a check on the power of the country's leadership. I was also not able to find a single instance of the NPC removing a major official from power. And Xi Jinping's accession to the president was opposed by only one vote in the NPC.
That said, perhaps the congress is not entirely meaningless. In 1999, it played a role in delaying the passage of an unpopular fuel tax, showing that there is potential for the congress to act independently. The NPC has also occasionally had contentious elections on the appointment of party officials, such as the appointment of a candidate for a chief prosecutor who received only 65% of the votes in the NPC. But again, genuine disputes within the NPC seem more reflective of debates within the Communist Party than national debates.
Calling it a rubber stamp may not be entirely accurate, as it does have some authority. But given the power it is prescribed, the power it exerts has little impact on Chinese governance and society.
I always found it interesting that there is little US coverage of the Chinese elections or rather any foreign elections. This is juxtaposed to the US presidential elections being front page news in other countries. I would have appreciated this article including some upcoming reports to be voted on. The reports on the plan for national economic and social development and its implementation would be an interesting read from a national security perspective. The topic areas such as the establishment of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region interests me. I did not know that was a decision decided by the NPC. Prior to this article I was unaware of how much power the NPC had in China’s political sphere. I am curious to see how future elections change members of office and state operations.
I knew of the NPC, but I too was unaware of the level of power they have. Often in China, we only hear about the president of China and the decisions he makes. Such as Xi-thought and Xi Jingping banning Winnie the Pooh. This, at least for me created the perception that anything beyond the president and the Communist Party was irrelevant. While it doesn't seem like the NPC has much practical power, theoretically, it controls all of the power in the country, being able to appoint and remove officials, pass legislation, and amend the constitution. Though its current complacency to the party means that these powers are almost never used.
I find the size of the body, nearly 2,980 people, to be another interesting component of the NPC. I am under the impression that most of the legislation is actually done by the 150 member standing committee, that meets more frequently. Its sheer size seems almost impractical. The second-largest parliament in the world, the UK, has only 650 members. The US has 535 members split between two houses. I wonder why they need this many people in their legislature.
It was very interesting learning about the NPC and China. The equivalent would be the United States Congress, both the Senate and the House of Representatives in the United States. Each State representative is elected from areas within the state and is elected for a term. The differences I have chosen to highlight are the following. In China, that term is 5 years however it depends on what level of Congress you belong to in the US. Senators hold positions for 6 years and House Representatives hold positions for 2 years. In China, there are 2,980 Deputies while in the United States there are 535 members. The NPC meets in session once a year while the US Senate meets twice a year. A session of the NPC may be convened at any time the Standing Committee deems it necessary or when more than one-fifth of the deputies to the NPC propose it and the same way in the United States, The congress can be called into session for special reasons. In China, only the NPC has the power to amend the Constitution, whereas in the US the Congress starts the process and the individual states finish it. Overall, Similarities and differences can be drawn between the United States and China for any process. The biggest difference I would point out is the US is the picture Child of the free world, so it is at the forefront of the world’s media. China’s elections are not publicized nearly to the same extent as the US’s are. It is for those reasons why I think the broad sense of the population in the world knows who the US president is and not other countries such as China.
@Roy Rashke it is interesting to compare these two bodies. There are definitely some similarities between the US Congress and the NPC. Though perhaps there exists more differences between the two. While in the statute of the law, each respective body is probably the most powerful, the NPC has virtually no practical power. The US also elects, their president, who then appoints appoints executive officials, while China operates under a more parliamentary system, where the legislative body appoints the executive officials.
Part of the reason I think that their elections get no coverage is that it is widely agreed they don't matter. It is largely the same reason elections in Russia or Turkmenistan don't get much coverage. The outcome will almost always be the same, and unless it creates controversy within the country, as recent fraudulent elections in Belarus did.
China's relation to climate change is a very important one that has ramifications for the rest of the world's wellbeing. In 2018 China was the biggest CO2 emitter, releasing 10.06GT, but also is a leading innovator when it comes to sustainable technology and alternative power sources. It has been clear through the last four years that with the new US-China trade war, the US has all but forgotten about any allegiances to protect the environment, for example opening up historically protected lands for oil drilling.
It is obvious that if the global community wants to create a significant impact on the speed that climate change is developing at, there is no hope without China. China's plan to be completely carbon neutral by 2060 is a very high goal and has gained worldwide skepticism in regards to its practicality. Many proposals call for the strategy of beginning to generate clean zero-emission power before moving into the implementation of this energy anywhere possible. The next step would then be to find ways to collect the pollution that is created when CO2 is released and ultimately storing it underground. Another proposal calls for nuclear energy production, increasing it to 28% on top of 21% wind, 17% solar, 14% hydropower, and 8% biomass. A large problem with this plan is the cost of shifting Chinese production off of fossil fuels. Coal-fired power alone accounts for more than 60% of all electricity in the country.
Another ongoing barrier to China's 2060 goal is the construction of the Belt and Road Initiative. A study published in November of 2019 said that it was likely that the construction of these initiatives would disrupt the ecosystems of up to 800 different species. Chinese dams for hydropower along Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam are already disrupting river flow changes and fish migration (which in turn affects the communities on the coast). This is just one example of the disruption this project will introduce into the region.
China's involvement in Africa has not been consistent with its stated goals to reduce the effects of climate change around the world. According to data from the IEA, much of China's energy investment in Africa was devoted to building either hydro-electric, gas-fired, or coal-fired power plants. The Majority of investment in Eastern and Central Africa was hydro-powered, which does reduce emissions, but as you note it also creates problems for local ecosystems, and as the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam demonstrates, it can potentially create tension between downstream and upstream nations if not planned well. The majority of investment in Western Africa was gas-fired and the majority in Southern Africa was coal-fired. Other renewable energy made up only a fraction of investment in the region, and perhaps signals a disconnect between China's stated goals to reduce energy emissions and the actual impact their projects, such as the Belt Road initiative have on the world.
This is a significant concern for those studying climate change around the world. Obviously climate change is not an issue that it made a priority by one country can be solved completely. The climate effects everyone and China’s commitment to carbon neutrality within their own boarders shows a lack of concern for the problem as a whole and displays more a wish to be seen as a leader in global problem solving.
China's impact on global climate change is very polarized. On the one hand, it is the leading producer of CO2 and has increased its reliance on coal, but on the other, it is leading the world in producing renewable energy and transitioning to electric vehicles. Which represents the immense amount of energy the country needs to operate.
I think it is also important to note that while China is the largest producer of CO2 in the world, it is not the largest producer of CO2 per capita in the world. Based on data from 2018, China is the thirteenth largest producer of CO2 per capita, ranking well below other nations, such as the U.S., Saudi Arabia, Australia, and Canada. That said, however, the rate at which China is building coal power plants and the rate they are building them in other countries, such as those in Southern Africa, is worrying, and it is for this reason I see their 2060 goal as being somewhat unrealistic.
I suppose my biggest question is whether or not a Biden administration will make climate change a bigger aspect of trade with China. In the first presidential debate, President-Elect Joe Biden said that he would consider pressuring Brazil to stop its damaging activities in the Amazon rainforest. Climate could be a source of contention between the US and China, and in future trade disputes, a Biden administration could make this a bigger part of the deal. But it could also be a source of cooperation between the two, and potentially serve as a bridge to repair some relations. The next four years may indeed be a pivotal period in establishing how China's energy policy will look long term.
Biden’s approach to China is a very anxiously awaited policy. I am curious if the president-elect is being forced to remain silent on the matter for the time being due to his lack of allowance within the current administration to any transition documents or official briefings. I assume policy on such a contentious issue would need to be as informed as possible before it is mentioned publically.
China and climate change are two different beings that when you think of one, you think of the other. We can see that climate change is real not only through the temperatures, but also through the pollution. For example, early on in the COVID pandemic we saw that from space the air above China was clearer because they were not producing as much product and putting these gasses and pollution into the air. I found it interesting that China is the leader in contributing to climate change, but also the leader in combatting it. I feel like you cannot do both without completely quitting one. If they are going to keep producing and releasing co2 into the environment, then what does it help if they are fighting it unless they completely change their ways of producing things to more sustainable ways. It is also interesting that to fight climate change the world needs China, while it makes sense it would also help if countries worked on their own environments as well as entering treaties to start taking a bigger step toward fighting climate change, this also mean making a deal with China.
It will be interesting to follow the 14th Five Year Plan when it is released in February. Although I am skeptical that it will yield the type of change China would need to see to reach their 2060 goals, it could set them on the course for a more sustainable future. My worry is less their personal pollution, although obviously it affects more than just their population anyways, but like Jay mentioned, the pollution they are causing in developing nations that will likely not be accounted for and therefore left to burden the poorer countries.
I agree with @Madeline Smith that their funding of climate destructive projects in developing countries is especially worrying. Especially as these nations' populations and energy needs explode, it would be ideal for this growth to be met with new, cleaner, renewable energies as opposed to coal and oil. Pretty soon, Africa may rival China and the US in terms of energy consumption, and it would be ideal that they do not meet us in climate emissions as well.
Perhaps building on @Michela Pusterla's point, the international community should pressure China to only support clean energy programs, and factor this into their goals as well.
China has a paradoxical nature with climate change. While it is the leading polluter and contributor to carbon emissions, it also leads in creating emission-reducing technologies and green energy projects. China has been a leading influence on international agreements regarding climate change although at times it does not meet the requirements of the climate accords it works with. Like the US, it is hard for China to meet these requirements, when it has one of largest economies, is one of the largest producers and exporters and has over 1 billion people. One thing the international community can agree on with China is that climate change should be a top priority for the world, especially for countries that are large contributors to carbon emissions. The US, which has had at times a strained relationship with its major economic partner, China, looks forward to working with China to create a better environment. https://www.economist.com/special-report/2018/03/15/china-is-rapidly-developing-its-clean-energy-technology
I also think that especially moving forward with the Democratic administration in the United States, climate change will become a much larger part of Sino-American relations. Especially after years of strained relations, this could be an important source of cooperation. Somewhat similar to what counterterrorism used to be a source of cooperation between the US and Russia.
I believe I have expressed my concerns over climate change in multiple posts on this platform. Climate change is real and needs to be a concern for all. This document is interesting to me as it focuses on the positives and negatives of China’s history with climate change and protecting mother nature. I was thankful to see that July 2020 had not followed suit and one-upped July 2019. Specific to China however, I am extremely thankful that they agreed to sign on the Paris Climate agreement. I am hopeful that other nations and world powers will do their part to follow the agreement and re-join where necessary. China has some interesting statistics when it comes to emissions and their progress in meeting their targets [1]. As the document reflects, China was the leading the world in emissions. I am hopeful that the actions China has agreed to and propose can narrow the margin. I certainly hope that China, as well as other world powers recognize the threat of climate change and work to correct the problem.
[1]. Climate Action Tracker
https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/china/pledges-and-targets/
I agree that while China has a long way to go, it is important that they are leading international efforts to oppose it. Though I wish this same commitment was upheld in their foreign investments. It would be great to see some kind of a Belt Road Investment Agreement, wherein all of China's foreign projects agree to further China's climate goals. And if China does not, this could be an area where the US could step up. The US and its western allies could offer countries the possibility for climate friendly development, and perhaps this could distinguish it from other foreign powers in the age of great power competition.