photo credit: imedagoze

The big news in international diplomacy is that the Americans have managed to get the Chinese to come on board with potential sanctions against Iran. This is quite a coup, given that relations between the two countries have recently been about as warm as Pingu’s handshake. But if this article in the Guardian is true, then it seems that the bargaining chip the Americans used to get the Chinese to be so agreeable is the threat of the U.S. branding them a currency manipulator.  China, who have been pursuing a cunning plan of devaluing their currency by buying up American dollars in order to boost their exports, do not want to be called out on their trickery. All of which means that America has a pretty high-value bargaining chip which they can use to extract some concessions from the Asian dragon.

What a pity, then, that they’ve chosen to waste it on an agreement over Iran sanctions, which, for reasons put more eloquently by an actual expert on the subject here, are a bad idea. In a more perfect world where the major powers weren’t so cockeyed on the subject of how to contain Iran, the bargaining chip could be used to get so many worthwhile concessions out of China. For example, if the Copenhagen Summit was anything to go by, the Chinese are going to be a real thorn in the side of any potential international treaty on climate change. Then there’s China’s alleged cyber-attacks and scary censorship of the internet, which has led to Google basically abandoning it. And of course there’s China’s awful human rights record and habit of sticking their fingers in their ears and going LALALA when it comes to the issue of Tibet, not to mention their habit of trading with and selling arms to the likes of Sudan, Zimbabwe and other friendly African dictatorships. The list goes on. And on.

So there are many useful concessions America could have squeezed out of China. Instead they wasted what is quite  a potent threat on more pointless and counter-productive posturing on Iran. Great.  Obama’s had a good couple of weeks on the domestic and international scene, but for me this hits a real sour note. China is going to be a big problem in the next few years and it seems America just threw away an excellent bargaining chip. The question is, how many more does  it have up its sleeve?

The run up to Copenhagen has begun and by all accounts it was a little more fiery than expected. I’m not referring to the Climate Camp in London, whose location was kept so secret, nor am I referring to Sen. Chuck Grassley’s remarkable comments that there are an increasing number of scientists who have doubts about Climate Change…really? This sounds a little like Sen Inhofe’s infamous list, many of whom were horrified to learn they were including on his list ( yes, he basically made it up). All of these are mere broadsides in the contemporary Climate Change debate.  The fire in this debate, which we’ve only seen glimmers on touches on the elephant in the room for environmentalists and even governments, Population control. India’s Environmental Minister Jairam Ramesh issued a response to efforts by the US to bring India’s population into the debate:

Speaking at a conference in the Indian capital, organised by Delhi’s Centre for Science and Environment, Jairam Ramesh said there was a “move in western countries to bring population into climate change [negotiations]. Influential American think-tanks are asking why should we reward profligate reproductive behaviour? Why should we reward India which is adding 14 million people every year?”

For many environmentalists, population control is the issue not spoken of. Many are reluctant enough to talk about curbing our “excessive lifestyles”, reducing the number of cars, the size of our homes, waste and all the rest of it makes Environmentalists seem draconian enough and a ideology of gloom without adding the terrifying illiberal issue of population control to the mix. Yet for many, it remains the elephant in the room. Recently some scientists in environmental corners have whispered it out, what is the best thing I can do to to go green? hybrid car? recycling? Errr no, don’t procreate so much.

The maths is quite simple, if you stopped flying and etc etc you could probably reduce your average footprint from say a ball park of 25 down to 15, a big reduction to be sure but over your lifetime that would ( very simplistically) only take  800 tons difference. Here is what a child adds on average:

Under current conditions in the United States, for instance, each child ultimately adds about 9,441 metric tons of carbon dioxide to the carbon legacy of an average parent – about 5.7 times the lifetime emissions for which, on average, a person is responsible.

But population control goes beyond Climate Change, in fact to some extent it dwarfs Climate Change as a problem. The world’s population is estimated to peak  around 2050, with  at over 9 billion people.  Over that period standards of living will rise for hundreds of millions of people which, without huge breakthroughs in food production and resource recycling will result in incredible strain on a planet already unable to sustain the current population. The new people rightly will expect higher standards of living than their forebears and governments will face acute problems as rising demands meets dwindling supply. Climate Change compounds the issue, reducing the earth;s resource capacity most critically in areas of food production and more gravely reducing it in the regions of the world with the fastest growing populations.

Africa and the Middle East, have among the fastest growing population and are also among the most water-poor areas in the world, with the former in historically dire straits its problems will almost certainly be gravely compounded lacking even the basic means  agricultural production.

The issue, is a uniquely human one,  all other animal species grow to the extent their environment can sustain them, reaching a natural equilibrium of sorts. Humans, differ and have expanded exponentially over their history. This century may prove more testing than others with Climate Change and economic growth heading towards a degree of inevitable conflict. You’ve already seen this problem, water resources in Sudan, oil wars in the Middle East, these problems aren’t solely due to population but population can create almost insurmountable structural pressure on politics to match demand.

But unlike other Climate Change problems which are about financing , economic growth, technology transfer and trade terms, population control hits home directly.  How many children will you or someone else be allowed? It’s a distinctly moral question, the biological essence of humanity is put into question and one of surely our most basic rights could be called into question. Deeper than that is that, it has more underlying undertones of power politics. Wealthy and ageing western populations trying to curb the fertility of China, India, Africa and the Middle East, touches on raw nerves of the balance of global power.

This isn’t the first time the issue has been raised. China, the only country to have enacted an all-encompassing population policy in its infamous “one child policy” has in the past noted that it has done more than many countries in the effort to control Climate Change through its one child policy,  which it estimates have kept several hundred million from existence and thus relieved enormous future amounts of strain from the world.

Going into Copenhagen population control is highly unlikely to feature, however its emergence into International dialogue has begun already and soon this taboo subject may well become centre stage, although I suspect a third-rail at first.

photo credit: sskennel

Let’s say you’re the US Secretary of State and you’re visiting China. Let’s also say your visit comes at a time when America is facing a serious recession and so desperately needs China to keep buying American debt. Do you:

a) Engage in a forceful dialogue with China over the many human rights abuses it either carries out itself or supports around the world via its financial dealings, even though this might sour China’s commitment to buying up US debt and thus further destabilise – or even crash – the entire global economy? Or…

b) Decide that the stability of America’s economy is the first priority given the current global economic crisis, even though this lets China off the hook for its horrendous human rights record?

Not easy, is it?

Well that’s the position Hillary Clinton was in this weekend as she concluded her first diplomatic tour as Secretary of State by visiting China. As for the two choices, Clinton opted for b), angering human rights groups in the process. Her statements on the matter were, if nothing else, remarkably candid, as rather than pretend to have it both ways she freely admitted her priority. The money quote:

“We pretty much know what they are going to say” on human rights issues such as greater freedoms for Tibet, Clinton told reporters traveling with her on a tour of Asia. “We have to continue to press them. But our pressing on those issues can’t interfere” with dialogue on other crucial topics.

Is she correct? On the one hand, there is nothing quite so urgent as the current near-collapse of the world’s economy and China’s continuing purchase of US treasury bonds is vital to America’s economic survival.  It’s also worth remembering that engaging China on climate issues – another declared aim of Clinton’s visit – is key to tackling global warming and can’t be achieved if China is sulking over attacks on its human rights record. However, the flip side of the coin is that what we are talking about here is a massive world superpower getting a free pass for not only  enabling, through its business dealings, many terrible regimes around the world – including Burma and Sudan -  but for some pretty bad domestic crimes as well. For example, at the exact same time as Clinton was talking to Chinese leaders, security agents had put under virtual house arrest dozens of dissidents who support “charter 08″ – a new manifesto for Chinese democracy.

While you’re struggling for an answer to this moral puzzle, it’s worth keeping in mind the absurdity of the situation: The US, having lorded it over China throughout the 90s, nevertheless allowed it to almost singlehandedly buy up American debt, thus condemning itself to walking on diplomatic tiptoes for the near future. If this was any other country, it would merely be a bad joke. But it isn’t any other country: China is a serial human rights abuser protected by the patina of legitimacy and its emerging status as the world’s new superpower.

Have you come up with the right answer yet? No, neither have I.