Follow us on social

Shutterstock_1725604738-scaled

Xi chooses international status over U.S. rivalry in accepting Biden's invite

The chance to present Beijing as a leader in combating climate change seemed to play a role in Xi Jinping's decision.

Asia-Pacific

China’s decision to attend the April 22 Global Climate Summit hosted by the United States ends a period of debate over whether President Xi Jinping would actually accept the US invitation.  

Many observers pointed to several factors militating toward Xi not attending, including the overall deepening Sino-U.S. rivalry, the acrimonious public exchange that occurred at the recent U.S.-China meeting in Alaska, recent Chinese comments about bilateral climate cooperation being affected by the overall US-Chinese relationship, and growing U.S. arguments about the need to limit climate cooperation with China. 

While the possibility of Xi not attending might have been debated in Beijing for these and other reasons, in the end the Chinese made what must be seen as a responsible and positive decision. It seems to confirm that for China, presenting itself as a major leader in combating climate change and avoiding the likely negative image blowback that would occur if it snubbed the meeting (given all the other leaders likely attending), remain a higher priority than using global events like this to score political points in its rivalry with Washington. That is commendable.

What is not so commendable is the continued inability of both Washington and Beijing to admit that they both contribute significantly to a non-productive, zero-sum rivalry through their actions and statements, and that this rivalry in its present form can significantly undermine efforts to cooperate effectively where it counts most: on climate, pandemics, and a host of other issues that require some level of bilateral trust and credibility to achieve real results.

While U.S. climate envoy John Kerry and his Chinese counterpart Xie Zhenhua might recognize the necessity of developing genuinely productive bilateral relations to combat climate change, there remains a question as to how much constraint their respective governments will place on them and how committed those governments are to doing what is absolutely necessary in this area, now and over the long haul. 

China needs to take serious and urgent action to reduce its consumption of coal; but the United States, as a much richer country per capita, a much bigger emitter per capita, and with a mixed record on climate change action, also needs to do far more to set a good example.

Both governments have said — correctly —  that unchecked climate change would pose an existential threat to the United States and China (and modern civilization) in future. Despite this language, they have not in fact prioritized action to reduce emissions over traditional concerns with great power ambitions and rivalry, and the military spending stemming from these concerns. They should recognise that if the states of the world — and above all China and the United States, as the biggest emitters of carbon gases — fail to prevent runaway climate change, then 100 years from now people in both countries are going to regard the geopolitical concerns of the present as not just insignificant by comparison, but criminally insane.

Kerry had to navigate a host of U.S. objections to his recent China trip to discuss climate issues with Xie Zhenhua and declare publicly that any progress with Beijing on climate will not occur at the expense of progress on a raft of US complaints regarding China. And despite Biden’s commitment to greatly ramping up U.S. efforts to combat climate change (from a near-zero baseline during the Trump Administration), it remains to be seen whether this long-term project will be sustained under future administrations, given the current position of the Republican Party on this issue.

While Xie Zhenhuai apparently faces none of those obstacles, his government has stated that the overall U.S.-China relationship will affect bilateral Chinese cooperation on climate. Moreover, Beijing continues to resist efforts to get it to raise its climate targets and commit to major limits on carbon and methane outputs by the end of this decade. Beijing’s pledged goal of becoming carbon neutral by 2060 is simply too little, too late. 

It is hoped that multilateral pressure on Washington and Beijing will move both countries to more seriously engage on climate and other pressing common concerns that should be at the top of their foreign policy agendas. And now that Xi Jinping has decided to attend tomorrow’s US-hosted climate summit, perhaps that pressure can be brought to bear.


Chinese President Xi Jinping (Alessia Pierdomenico / Shutterstock.com)
Asia-Pacific
Trump and Putin on phone
Top photo credit: Donald Trump (White House photo) and Vladimir Putin (Office of the Russian Federation President)
US-Russia talks: The rubber finally hits the road

Good, bad and ugly: Impact of US Iran strikes on Russia war talks

Europe

To a considerable degree, President Donald Trump won the presidency in 2024 because voters embraced his message of keeping America out of protracted conflicts and his promise to end the war in Ukraine.

The administration has made substantial operational headway, particularly in reopening stable channels for dialogue with Russia, but it has proven difficult to arrive at a framework for a negotiated settlement that enjoys buy-in from all the stakeholders — Ukraine, Russia, and Europe.

keep readingShow less
Trump Netanyahu in Washington
Top photo credit: Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu (Joshua Sukoff / Shutterstock.com)

Netanyahu returns to DC — in triumph or with more to ask?

Middle East

On Monday, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu will arrive in Washington for his third visit of Trump’s second term. Today also marks 21 months of Israel’s war on Gaza. The purpose of the visit remains unclear, and speculation abounds: will Trump and Netanyahu announce a real ceasefire in Gaza? Will Syria join the Abraham Accords? Or might Trump greenlight even broader Israeli action against Iran?

Before Netanyahu’s visit, Trump posted an ultimatum on Truth Social, claiming Israel had agreed to a 60-day ceasefire. He urged Hamas to accept the terms, threatening that “it will only get worse” if it doesn’t. Although Trump intended to pressure Hamas, reiterating a longstanding narrative that portrays the group as the obstacle to peace, Hamas has long maintained that it will only accept a ceasefire if it is part of a process that leads to a permanent end to Israel’s war and its complete withdrawal from the enclave. Netanyahu, for his part, remains adamant that the war must continue until Hamas is eliminated, a goal that even the IDF has described as not militarily viable.

keep readingShow less
POGO The Bunker
Top image credit: Project on Government Oversight

Yes to 'Department of War' name change

Military Industrial Complex

The Bunker appears originally at the Project on Government Oversight and is republished here with permission.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.