While China and Russia's general policies towards the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) are similar, the two reveal nuanced differences in addressing specific emergencies. Both express support for the first two pillars of R2P while resisting coercive intervention under its aegis, as they share anxieties of domestic political security and concerns about their international image. Nonetheless, addressing cases like the Syrian crisis, Russian statements are more assertive and even aggressive while Chinese ones are usually vague and reactive. This article highlights the two states’ different tones through computer-assisted text analyses. It argues that diplomatic styles reflect Russian and Chinese perceptions of their own place in the evolving international order. Experiences in past decades create divergent reference points and status prospects for them, which leads to their different strategies in signalling Great Power status. As Beijing is optimistic about its status-rising prospects, it exercises more self-restraint in order to avoid external containments and is reluctant to act as an independent ‘spoiler’. Meanwhile, Moscow interprets its Great Power status more from a frame of ‘loss’ and therefore is inclined to adopt a sterner approach to signal its status. Although their policies complement each other on many occasions, there is nothing akin to a Sino–Russian ‘bloc’.

Video: Marianne Schneider-Petsinger and Dr Yu Jie discuss key themes from the research paper

Summary

• The underlying driver of the ongoing US–China trade war is a race for global technological dominance. President Trump has raised a number of issues regarding trade with China – including the US’s trade deficit with China and the naming of China as a currency manipulator. But at the heart of the ongoing tariff escalation are China’s policies and practices regarding forced technology transfer, intellectual property theft and non-market distortions.
• As China’s international influence has expanded it has always been unlikely that Beijing would continue to accept existing global standards and institutions established and widely practised by developed countries based on ‘the Washington Consensus’.
• China’s desire to be an alternative champion of technology standard-setting remains unfulfilled. Its ample innovation talent is a solid foundation in its quest for global technology supremacy but tightening controls over personal freedoms could undermine it and deter potential global partners.
• It is unclear if Chinese government interventions will achieve the technological self-sufficiency Beijing has long desired. China’s approach to macroeconomic management diverges significantly from that of the US and other real market economies, particularly in its policy towards nurturing innovation.
• Chinese actors are engaged in the globalization of technological innovation through exports and imports of high-tech goods and services; cross-border investments in technology companies and research and development (R&D) activities; cross-border R&D collaboration; and international techno-scientific research collaboration.
• While the Chinese state pushes domestic companies and research institutes to engage in the globalization of technological innovation, its interventions in the high-tech sector have caused uneasiness in the West.
• The current US response to its competition with China for technological supremacy, which leans towards decoupling, is unlikely to prove successful. The US has better chances of success if it focuses on America’s own competitiveness, works on common approaches to technology policy with like-minded partners around the globe and strengthens the international trading system.
• A technically sound screening mechanism of foreign investment can prevent normal cross-border collaboration in technological innovation from being misused by geopolitical rival superpowers.

The US and China have entered into an increasingly confrontational relationship over trade and technology. This may force Europe to make difficult choices between the two economic superpowers – or perform a balancing act. Although the recent US-China phase-1 trade deal has eased the relationship for now, the trade and technology tensions are a structural issue and are likely to persist.

The debate over Huawei’s participation in 5G networks is an example of how the UK and other countries may face competing priorities in economic, security and foreign policy. Can Europe avoid a binary choice between the US and China? Is it possible for the EU to position itself as a third global power in trade, technology and standard-setting? What strategies should Europeans adopt to keep the US and China engaged in the rules-based international order and what does the future hold for trade multilateralism?

Sir Simon Fraser will join us for a discussion on Europe’s future role between the US and China. Sir Simon is Managing Partner of Flint Global and Deputy Chairman of Chatham House. He previously served as Permanent Secretary at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) and Head of the UK Diplomatic Service from 2010 to 2015. Prior to that he was Permanent Secretary at the UK Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. He has also served as Director General for Europe in the FCO and Chief of Staff to European Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson.

We would like to take this opportunity to thank founding partner AIG and supporting partners Clifford Chance LLP, Diageo plc, and EY for their generous support of the Chatham House Global Trade Policy Forum.

This event is part of the Inaugural Virtual Roundtable Series on the US, Americas and the State of the World and will take place virtually only. Participants should not come to Chatham House for these events.

This event is part of the Chatham House Global Trade Policy Forum. We would like to take this opportunity to thank founding partner AIG and supporting partners Clifford Chance LLP, Diageo plc, and EY for their generous support of the forum.

At face value, recent years have seen a deepening in Sino-Russian cooperation, from energy agreements, to the recent Huawei-MTS deal developing a 5G network in Russia. Ever larger-in-scale joint military exercises add to fears by some that the 'axis of convenience' is now a more genuine – and threatening – partnership.

This workshop will offer a sober assessment of the latest developments in Sino-Russian relations, shedding light on the underpinnings and practical realities of the relationship as well as on the long-term challenges of upholding cooperation.

The panel will discuss the different and potentially diverging interpretations of contemporary Sino-Russian relations as well as the implications for the rules-based international order.

This event is co-organized by the Chatham House Russia and Eurasia Programme and the University of Exeter and is supported by the British International Studies Association.

Attendance at this event is by invitation only. 

This paper accompanies a series of Chatham House assessments on China, France, Japan, the Netherlands, the UK, the US and Vietnam and provides details on how the estimates of the level of illegality of imports of wood-based products into those countries were derived. The assessments are part of a research project that monitored levels of illegal logging and related trade in selected consumer, producer and processing countries in order to evaluate the effectiveness of efforts to tackle this problem.

The paper describes the methodology for estimating the levels of wood-based products at high risk of illegality that are being imported into consumer and processing countries. The methodology was developed in order to provide quantitative estimates of the scale of such imports and to assess how they have changed over time. The figures adopted for the assessments are based on the best available evidence; but, given the challenges of quantifying levels of illegal logging and the limited information available for some countries, they should not be regarded as definitive. Rather, they indicate the likely levels of illegality and, perhaps more important, how they may have changed over time.

This paper is part of a broader Chatham House study which assesses illegal logging and the associated trade. The Chinese government has made notable progress in its efforts to tackle illegal logging and the associated trade. This has included the development of a draft national timber legality verification system (TLVS) and its active engagement with a number of consumer countries. The government’s plans to establish bilateral trade agreements with producer countries are also encouraging, although no formalized commitments have yet been made. Reflecting the growing awareness of the impact of Chinese companies overseas, the government has also been developing further guidance to promote sustainable forest products trade and investment.

The private sector is also taking action, with continued growth in the uptake of chain-of-custody (CoC) certification. Industry associations have been promoting legal and sustainable sourcing, and they will have an important role to play in testing the draft TLVS.

These steps are likely to have had an impact on the volume of illegal wood-based products being imported into China. However, trade data discrepancies and analysis of trade flows both indicate that illegal trade remains a significant problem. While imports of high-risk products are estimated to have declined since 2000, these are reckoned to comprise 17 per cent of the total by volume in 2013. This proportion is high compared with other timber-importing countries examined in this assessment.

In order to build on its response to illegal logging and related trade, the Chinese government should establish binding regulations and stringent controls on the import and export of illegal wood-based products. The draft TLVS should be further developed, including through pilot projects with timber-exporting countries and effective consultation with industry, civil society and other consumer-country governments. The government’s procurement policy should be strengthened through the clarification of its legality and sustainability requirements, the inclusion of a wider range of products within its scope, and the development of a robust mechanism to monitor compliance. 

Increased training for the private sector on due diligence, market regulations and legality requirements in consumer countries is required to stimulate further action by industry, and the work to elaborate further guidelines for companies operating overseas in the forest products trade should be continued. Awareness-raising initiatives for Chinese consumers should also be extended, in order to increase demand for verified legal wood-based products.

China’s resource diplomacy transpires in a world still dominated by the United States. Drawing on extensive research on global energy politics, the speaker will argue that despite Chinese claims that the US is instrumentalizing energy to contain its rise, there is little evidence to suggest that the latter intends to use the ‘oil weapon’.

Executive summary

China’s new role in the global governance of natural resources is coming to the fore against a backdrop of profound uncertainty, driven by the convergence of three interlinked trends. At home, China’s leaders are navigating the structural shift to slower but higher-quality growth, a phase of development referred to as the ‘new normal’, while facing considerable environmental and resource security challenges. Globally, the slowdown in China’s economy has sent reverberations through commodity markets, pulling the plug on the decade-long commodities ‘super cycle’. Meanwhile, China is taking on a growing role in global governance, from the G20 and multilateral development banks, to its regional partnerships in Latin America and Africa.

During the resources boom of the last decade, policy-makers and businesses in consumer countries were focused on high and volatile resource prices. The risks posed by resource nationalism in producer countries were seen in the proliferation of export restrictions and the increase in investment disputes. Today, the tables have turned, leaving producer countries facing economic pressure from falling revenues and investments. Many organizations have called on governments to phase out subsidies for fossil fuels and other natural resources while prices are low. The international policy debate is shifting to the immediate challenges presented by a massive oversupply of many energy and mineral commodities, and the longer-term risk of ‘stranded assets’.

These new resource realities will provide the context for China’s growing global role, as well as setting the tenor of its relations with producer countries. Over the past decade, narratives around China often focused on its real or perceived impacts from resource production overseas and consumption at home. In the next, China’s approach to resource security and sustainability will help define its reputation, and whether it is perceived as a responsible actor on the world stage and as a development partner. The collection of international narratives, norms, rules and organizations that currently guides resource production, trade and consumption – what we call ‘global resource governance' in this report – will provide the framework.

Much political leadership will be required to overcome the barriers to China assuming a more active role in global resource governance. On the one hand, there has been slow progress in expanding China’s role in organizations from the World Bank to the International Energy Agency (IEA). On the other, new instruments or processes initiated by China can be seen as a challenge to the existing rules-based order, as the US reaction to the establishment of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) demonstrated. Yet developments such as the US–China Joint Presidential Statement on Climate Change in September 2015, ahead of the Paris Climate Conference, show that it is possible to forge cooperation and boost the prospects for progress on public goods at the multilateral level, even in politically fraught areas.

China’s international role on natural resources is also closely tied to ongoing reforms at home. The introduction of ‘ecological civilization’ as a guiding principle for China’s development at the Communist Party’s 17th Congress in 2007 marked a recognition of the need not only to address China’s domestic challenges such as air quality and water scarcity but also shift to an environmentally sustainable model of economic development. In 2015 China’s leaders set out the key incentives, accountability and mechanisms to deliver the ecological civilization in China’s 13th Five-Year Plan. Central elements of this vision, such as building sustainable cities, pursuing environmentally-friendly economic growth and developing the circular economy will have major impacts on China’s future resource consumption and import needs.

Globally, the speed and scale of the economic realignments have taken most experts and policy-makers by surprise – in many respects, China’s new normal is the world’s new normal. The greatest challenge that China’s government faces is managing a shift to slower but higher-quality growth. It is clear that the ramifications of this reach far beyond the confines of the Chinese economy or global commodity markets; yet the situation remains fluid and the nature of a new equilibrium is difficult to predict. This only makes it more urgent to consider the strategic and practical options available to policy-makers, both in China and around the world.

This report is the result of two years of joint research between Chatham House and the Development Research Center of the State Council (DRC), including six expert workshops in China and conversations with international organizations. It discusses key policy areas in global resource governance as they relate to China – in light of recent falls in commodity prices, China’s shifting economic situation, and its growing global role in the ‘new normal’. The scope of the research is limited to non-renewable energy, metals and mineral resources; throughout this report, the term ‘resources’ refers to these commodities. Other traded commodities such as agricultural goods are not included, and land, water and air are discussed only in the context of their important linkages with energy and metals. 

The report considers the costs and benefits of a more active role for China in global resources governance. It recognizes that different commodities face different challenges and require different governance frameworks, and that different regions require context-specific responses. The report also considers the risks of more limited engagement of China and other new actors, which could mean declining relevance for existing processes and institutions that govern resource production, trade and consumption, and a diminished capacity to tackle longer-term challenges like climate change.

This will be done through examining transatlantic approaches and responses to China through the lens for four key themes (digital technology; trade and investment; governance of global commons; and climate change and the environment) that have been identified as crucial to developing effective policy responses and fostering collaboration.

The project will strengthen national, regional and international responses to the risks and opportunities posed by China’s changing role within the global economy and international rules-based order.

So far, there has been a noticeable worsening of relations that had already soured in recent years – the latest step being President Donald Trump’s suspension of US funding for the World Health Organization (WHO) in response to accusations of Chinese interference in its operations.

Should the world now simply prepare for a period of intense and extended hostility? As director of a policy institute founded 100 years ago in the shadow of the First World War, I believe we must do all in our power to avoid a return of the global strategic rivalries that blighted the 20th century.

Deepening suspicions

Of course, the outcome does not lie only in the hands of the US and Europe. In the 1930s, as much as they wanted to avoid another great war, British and French leaders were forced to respond to Germany’s aggression in central Europe. In the late 1940s, America’s instinct to disentangle itself from war-ravaged Europe was quickly tempered by the realization that the Soviet Union would impose or infiltrate Communist control as far into Europe as possible.

Today, those who warned that China - a one-party, surveillance state with a power-centralising leader - could never be treated as a global stakeholder feel vindicated. They see in COVID-19 an opportunity to harden policies towards China, starting by blocking all Chinese investment into 5G infrastructure and breaking international dependence on Chinese supply chains.

They can point to the fact that Chinese Communist Party officials in Wuhan initially prioritised sustaining economic growth and supressed reports about COVID-19’s capacity for human-to-human transmission, epitomised by their treatment of Dr Li Wenliang. They can highlight how Beijing’s obsession with denying Taiwan a voice in the WHO prevented Taiwanese input into the early analysis of the crisis. They can highlight the ways in which Beijing has instrumentalised its medical support for coronavirus-afflicted countries for diplomatic gain.

For their part, those in China who believed the US and Europe would never allow China’s return as a regional and world power see this criticism as further evidence. They can point to comments about this being the ‘Chinese virus’, a leaked biological weapon or China’s ‘Chernobyl moment’. ‘Wolf warrior’ Chinese diplomats have sought to outdo each other by challenging narratives about COVID-19, while propagating disinformation about the origins of the virus.

There are major risks if this blame game escalates, as it could in the lead-up to a fraught US presidential election. First, consciously uncoupling the US economically from China will make the post-coronavirus recovery that much harder. China already accounts for nearly 20% of world GDP but, unlike after the global financial crisis in 2008, it is fast becoming the world’s leading consumer market. Its financial stimulus measures need to be closely coordinated with the G7 and through the G20.

Second, Chinese scientists were the first to uncover the genetic code of the virus and shared it with the WHO as early as January 12, enabling the roll-out of effective testing around the world. They are now involved in the global search for a vaccine alongside American and European counterparts. While the Chinese government will remain a legitimate target for criticism, Chinese citizens and companies will contribute to many of the most important technical breakthroughs this century.

Third, if COVID-19 creates a long-term schism between China and the US, with Europeans caught on its edge, this could do deep damage to world order. China may become a less willing partner in lowering global greenhouse gas emissions and sharing renewable energy technologies; in helping African and other developing countries grow sustainably; and in helping to build a more resilient global health infrastructure.

Getting the balance right

But the COVID-19 crisis can also be the hinge point to a more coherent and self-interested transatlantic approach to China, one whose motto should be ‘beware but engage’. There should indeed be limits on state-backed Chinese investment in strategic US and European economic sectors, just as China limits Western access to its market. But the goal should be to lower barriers to trade and investment over time on a mutually beneficial and transparent basis, not to recreate an economic Cold War.

Chinese human rights violations, at home and abroad, should be called out. The dissemination of Chinese systems of citizen surveillance, which will be more popular in a post-coronavirus world, should be monitored and contested with US and European alternatives. And the extent of Chinese exports’ access to international markets should be conditional on China improving its phytosanitary standards - which protect humans, animals, and plants from diseases, pests, or contaminants - and strictly regulating unhygienic wet markets.

But to go further and try to make disengagement the dominant transatlantic policy as COVID-19 subsides will not only divide Europe and America. It will also contribute to a self-fulfilling prophecy; in which a resentful China grows apart from the US and Europe during a period where they must work together.

Given that it will likely be the world’s largest economy in 2030, how the US and Europe manage their relations with China after this crisis is a question at least as seminal as the one they faced after 1945 with the Soviet Union. In the ensuing years, the Soviet Union became a military superpower and competitor, but not an economic one. Containment was a viable, correct and, ultimately, successful strategy. The same options are not available this time. There will be no winners from a new Cold War with China.

Avoiding the worst economic, social and environmental risks of climate change requires a better understanding of what those risks may be. Decision-makers need information on the full range of risks that climate change poses, across the full spectrum of probabilities. Monitoring the nature and severity of these risks is essential if decision-makers are to make the right choices about effective mitigation and adaptation responses.

To meet this need, international scientists and policy analysts in the UK (including at Chatham House) and China have been engaged in a multi-year, multi-disciplinary, and collaborative research process. This has deepened understandings of how these complex, interconnected first, second and third-order risks can be better assessed and tracked.

Phase one, culminating in 2015 and involving experts, demonstrated how general principles of risk assessment could be applied in relation to climate change.

Phase two (culminating in 2019) was a bilateral cooperation between the UK and China that was agreed during President Xi Jinping’s state visit to the UK in 2015. It addressed a specific recommendation from phase one - that risk assessments need to be made on a regular and consistent basis - by providing a proof of concept indicator framework.

Substantive project funding for phases 1 and 2 was provided by the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office, with additional contributions and in-kind support from the China Expert Panel on Climate Change, the UK Government Office for Science, the Skoll Global Threats Fund, the Global Challenges Foundation, the UK Institute and Faculty of Actuaries, and Willis Research Network (phase 1); and Chatham House, China Expert Panel on Climate Change, UK Committee on Climate Change, International Energy Agency, Willis Towers Watson (phase 2).

Many institutions contributed to the project under phases 1 and 2 (see reports for full list of contributors).

• Phase 1 report, 2015: Climate Change: A Risk Assessment
• Phase 2 report, 2018: Developing Indicators of Climate Risk

Chatham House now leads a third phase of this project (2020 to 2022), funded by the Prosperity Fund of the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The purpose is to help ensure emissions reduction and resilience strategies, policies and decision-making - both in China and globally - are better informed by an evidence-based perspective on climate-change risks.

Under the guidance of the China Expert Committee on Climate Change and the UK Committee on Climate Change, the programme is building on the risk indicator and risk assessment work developed in Phase 1 and 2.

This phase of work has four complementary workstreams looking at emissions risks, direct climate risks, systemic climate risks and the integration of climate risks into Chinese and international governance frameworks. Embedded throughout the project is considerations of gender and inclusion（G&I) which are fundamental to achieve climate-compatible development.

The programme is delivered through a cohort of partner organisations based in both China and the UK, including Chatham House, E3G (Third Generation Environmentalism), Hubei University of Economics, National Climate Centre of China, Tsinghua University and the University of Reading.