|
It is a great opportunity, indeed a privilege, to address this forum today. I do so, not as a diplomat or a member of a government, but as a member of the British Parliament for more than 40 years and Deputy Prime Minister for 10.
A life changing experience, during which I chaired the UK China Task Force with State Councillor Tang.
Based on these experiences, I believe that the EU-China relationship is one of the most important in the world.
Indeed, today an opportunity exists for both the EU and China to work in partnership to make a real difference in our world. Such a relationship has already delivered a great deal, but it is far from achieving its full potential.
The development of such a relationship clearly needs to be based upon a policy of constructive engagement and strategic vision aimed at finding international solutions to the problems of climate change, global finance, sustainable development and non-proliferation/disarmament.
We are all aware that the UN has made considerable advances in improving world peace, prosperity and human advance.
However, despite these institutional developments, the majority of the world’s population suffers the highest levels of poverty and deprivation. The gap between the rich northern nations and the poorer southern nations continues to grow. With slow progress being made in implementing the UN Millennium Development Goals, made even more difficult given the current global financial crisis.
Indeed, the influence of the ‘invisible’ hand of the market currently dominating the international regulatory framework has widened the unequal distribution of power and influence in our world.
The global consensus required to combat this is evident in the current UN climate change negotiations. Here, the science is clear and beyond doubt. The environmental consequences of climate change are obvious. Caused predominantly by carbon emissions produced by the few rich nations, who have enjoyed decades of economic growth producing the present levels of pollution at the expense of all nations.
The UN Kyoto Protocol on climate change, drawn up in 1997, was an important step towards reducing carbon emissions. I was the European negotiator at Kyoto where it was the combination of Europe and China that made the Protocol possible.
The achievement of these Kyoto targets varies from nation to nation. To date, only 4 of the 15 EU countries have successfully secured their emissions targets under the Kyoto ‘EU emissions bubble’.
This EU bubble is an example of ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’, a principle which needs to be at the heart of the Copenhagen agreement. A principle which could be agreed by both the EU and China at the next summit and could help achieve positive results at the climate negotiations.
A strategic climate and energy partnership between the EU and China could harness the world’s biggest market economy with the world’s fastest growing economy. This would show that it is possible to secure both climate and energy security alongside our existing cooperation on low carbon policies.
Reaching a consensus is therefore the challenge facing the negotiators in Copenhagen if Kyoto 2 is to be a success.
Of course, there is a lot of talk about whether Copenhagen will be successful. However, I think it is important to remember that the Kyoto Protocol in 1997 only agreed the principles – the policies by which they would be implemented were negotiated later in the COPs.
I therefore believe, as I did at Kyoto, that it is unrealistic to assume that a full detailed agreement can be achieved at Copenhagen. However, it is important that the principles and the framework are agreed upon - Copenhagen MUST NOT be allowed to fail.
It is therefore essential that world leaders attend the final session at Copenhagen, just as Gordon Brown has said he will.
Today, China and the EU are in a strategic position to prevent its failure. Indeed, this partnership’s powerful voice could and should play a major part in securing agreement with the necessary road map for its achievement.
As we approach the 12th China-EU Summit, we should recall that in Prague, considerable progress was made in identifying areas of agreement and satisfaction.
Because of this, the relationship is now much deeper and stronger than before. Founded on a global, strategic and mutually beneficial partnership, based on the principles of mutual respect, equality, trust and cooperation – reaffirming our commitments to peace, stability, security, prosperity and sustainable development in the modern world.
Premier Wen recently said that the development of the China-EU relations embodies the mutually beneficial cooperation between the biggest developing country and the biggest bloc of developed countries, exchanging friendship between two of the oldest civilisations on our planet.
Of course, there are areas of disagreement which the summit must address. China shares the objective of creating harmonious societies at home and abroad. In contrast, Europe prefers the term ‘peaceful development’. It could be said that they mean the same thing. However, it is often used as an opportunity to express differences rather than agreement.
In today’s world of continents, Africa is an example of this difference. It is by far the most affected, deprived and in need of development.
Its past and future development has been greatly affected by the policies of both the EU and China. Africa’s rich natural resources have attracted a great deal of attention.
History teaches us that Europe’s colonialisation of Africa cannot truly be described as peaceful development as its purpose was to acquire resources through conquest. In contrast, China’s access to Africa’s resources is by commercial contracts which is clearly much more harmonious.
There are issues between the EU and China which are still to be agreed upon, such as the EU-China arms embargo, the WTO and the question of China’s status as a market economy.
Some Western criticism of China has concerned undue Government influence over its business decisions regarding corporate governance. I believe that there must now be a consensus which calls for a better balance between corporate governance, government and regulatory frameworks. The replacement of ‘business as usual’ philosophies with policies that recognise the role of the invisible hand of markets with the enabling hand of the state is now underway.
Who knows, perhaps the Chinese description of socialism with Chinese characteristics could be identified with Western capitalist economies with European State characteristic.
Of course, there are matters which need to be given proper consideration, such as China and its human rights issue, which is narrowly interpreted by some critics as political rights with less importance given to the reduction of poverty, access to education and the right to a healthy environment.
Global warming will also clearly feature in the 12th EU-China Summit ahead of the UN negotiations in Copenhagen which I will be attending next month as the Council of Europe’s rapporteur on climate change.
The key to the success of these negotiations is establishing the global trust necessary to enter into such an international consensus. Here again, China and the EU could play a major part in securing an agreement.
That trust will require a more open and transparent measurement of the levels of pollution. To attain this, a measurement in gigatonnes per person is required rather than the emissions percentage targets encompassed in the current EU proposals.
Expressing emissions as gigatonnes per capita highlights the real differences between rich and poor countries and the affect of emissions and the consequences of climate change. America produces approximately 20 gigatonnes per person per year, Japan 12, the EU 10, China 5, India 2 and Africa less than one.
This needs to be agreed in principle at Copenhagen and then negotiated in the following COPs - reflecting the basic principle of common but differentiated responsibilities - values shared by both China and the EU.
The present disagreement between developing and developed countries on binding emissions caps, transition plans, audit, and the need for economic growth, reduced poverty and adequate financing and technology transfers can and must be settled against the principle of common but differentiated responsibility. After all, all countries would be affected by the failure to reach an agreement which China and the EU are uniquely placed to prevent.
In this new era of global problems, which require global solutions based upon greater consensus, China and the EU have a decisive role to play in ensuring greater global sustainability together with prosperity, social justice and a reduction in poverty.
Copenhagen must reflect the lessons we have learnt from history. In the 19th century, nations learnt to produce on a massive scale.
In the 20th century, they learnt to consume on a massive scale.
But in the 21st century, we are going to have to learn to achieve sustainability on a massive scale.
The world faces two major challenges – securing a reduction in mass poverty and managing climate change in a sustainable financial framework.
Both of these factors are interdependent and Copenhagen will be judged upon them.
In our modern world, we are part of both the problem and the solution. We must therefore agree to secure a sustainable planet - yes for ourselves, but for our children and for our children’s children.
Yes it will be difficult – it will be tough.
Yes it will be controversial.
And yes it will require courage and leadership.
But we don’t have a choice. We have a political and moral obligation to pass on this planet to future generations in a better shape than we found it.
The EU and China’s strategic partnership is a powerful alliance which can secure these objectives.
Together we can make this happen.
|
