By Palitha Kohona
COLOMBO, Sri Lanka, Apr 10 2024 – Unfortunately, a rivalry that should not exist and did not exist historically between China and India is being stoked by the media and some policy makers, especially in the West. It is not too difficult to discern the Machiavellian geo-strategic objectives of this complex game plan.

Most policymakers in the West find it difficult to accept that a non-European and non-white Asian nation which the West has been used to exploit and treat with disdain has risen so rapidly that it is now in a position to offer an alternative social, economic and political model to development and progress.

China has not only risen from the depths but is challenging the West in many respects, including economically, technologically, socially and even militarily. The China led the Belt and Road Initiative, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, the Global Development Initiative, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, the BRICS Bank, etc, have posed a real challenge to the established world economic order dominated by the West.

The BRI has resulted in the investment of over USD one trillion in the countries of the region and beyond making a tangible contribution to the development of many countries and has pricked the hitherto somnolent West also to participate positively in the development of those countries.

The calculated statements of EA Minister of India, Jaishankar, while emphasising India’s obvious strategic interests, have not overly endorsed the Western approach to China. China has attracted many admirers.

China has risen in a very short period to the position of an economic super power and to become the second largest economy in the world. It is expected to overtake the US economically by the end of this decade. It is also the main source foreign investments in the world, not to mention tourists.

It is also the biggest source in the global supply chain and the most lucrative multi billion dollar consumer market. All this is causing serious discomfort to those countries in the West, giving rise to damaging efforts at delinking, which were so used to dominating the world unchallenged. China’s technological advancement is nothing short of spectacular.

There could even be racist undertones to the criticisms being directed at China, a poor Asian country formerly dominated and exploited willy nilly by the West and to the reluctance to accept its new status and its own model of development. (One recalls that in the 1980s, a resurgent Japan experienced a similar process of vicious containment resulting in twenty years of stagflation).

China, for its part, has not articulated any desire to dominate or influence its economic partners and others or impose its political and economic model on anyone else. On the contrary, it has consistently expressed a desire to achieve a common future and a goal of shared prosperity, without domination. To judge Chinese intentions through the prism of the West’s own historical experience is patently wrong.

Both India and China are over dependent on Indian Ocean sea routes for the transport of their energy needs. While both would want to ensure the safety and security of Indian Ocean sea routes, both should also take adequate measures to prevent competition from blowing into confrontations of unmanageable proportions.

China has never expressed interest in establishing bases in the Indian Ocean region or acquiring territory. Its only military base in the region is in Djibouti established as part of a multinational effort to counter pirates.

The West which has been dominating the region since 1500 AD tends ascribe similar motives to China against the background of its own past record. (The situation with regard to Hambantota which has crept in the West’s narrative requres a longer explanation).

Sri Lanka’s initiative in the 1970s to establish an Indian Ocean Zone of Peace, although designed to contain the then prevalent super power rivalry in the Indian Ocean, may become relevant again in the contemporary context.

The situation in the Maldives should NOT be viewed purely from the Western lens and characterised as a simple case of China – India rivalry for regional influence. The domestic Islamic political imperatives and the resulting political pressures on the Maldivian leadership are important factors.

It is a fact that Chinese companies have been proactive in developing infrastructure in Maldives for sometime and their work is of good quality. India’s official reaction to the Maldivian measures has been measured. China has signed a number of bilateral agreements with the Maldives and Maldives readily agreed to accept a ship visit from a Chinese research vessel which was denied access to Sri Lankan ports due to Indian pressure.

Some critics argue that Chinese investments in Sri Lanka are part of a larger geopolitical strategy by China to expand its influence in the region.

This assertion needs to be stripped of its polemical outer layer to appreciate its essential shallowness. To begin with, it is mainly raised by commentators from countries which had rapaciously exploited vast swathes of the non white world through conquest and colonialism for centuries and continuing economic domination, conveniently ignoring their ongoing depradations.

Sri Lanka, which desperately needs development funding, has welcomed the China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) at the highest levels. It has not sought to exclude anyone else from participating in our development process. We have steadfastly asserted our non-aligned status and our neutrality.

In fact, our President has characterized the AUKUS alliance, which is designed to contain China, as a mistake. The Sri Lankan Prime Minister visited China this week and was received at the highest levels.

China has already invested around USD one trillion in the countries that joined the BRI, and more is forthcoming. Sri Lanka needs to develop fast and has no option but to welcome investment funding from all sources.

As a sovereign and independent state, Sri Lanka must be free to select its own development partners and its own development model. In the process, it has not sought to exclude anyone nor posed a threat to anyone, directly or indirectly. Sri Lanka has welcomed all friendly countries to participate in its development process.

I would not characterise Sri Lanka’s approach to development as a balancing act. It is not. Sri Lanka must work with all countries to achieve its own development objectives which should not be held hostage to the unfounded sensitivities of any other party.

Dr Palitha Kohona is also a former Sri Lanka Foreign Secretary, Head of the UN Treaty Section, chairman, UN Indian Ocean Committee and Chairman of the UN’s Sixth Committee.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

Excerpt:

The writer is former Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Sri Lanka to the UN and, until recently, Ambassador to China

By Philippe Benoit and Anne-Sophie Corbeau
WASHINGTON DC, Apr 10 2024 – Earlier this year, the Biden administration paused action on pending approvals for U.S. liquefied natural gas exports to countries without a U.S. free-trade agreement, with President Biden citing ”the urgency of the climate crisis.” The decision was hailed by climate activists and criticized by oil and gas industry representatives.

While the Biden administration intended to send a message about addressing climate change, it is important to place the LNG story within the broader emissions context. LNG exports are a significant and visible part of the natural gas emissions landscape, but ultimately achieving international climate goals will require more actions that target domestic gas and global fossil fuel consumption.

LNG exports are a significant and visible part of the natural gas emissions landscape, but ultimately achieving international climate goals will require more actions that target domestic gas and global fossil fuel consumption

According to the International Energy Agency, natural gas demand worldwide totaled 4,067 billion cubic meters in 2022, including 919 billion cubic meters in the U.S. The combustion of this natural gas produced 7.5 gigatons of carbon dioxide globally. This includes 1.7 gigatons in the U.S., which is 38 percent of U.S. emissions from fossil fuel combustion.

Importantly, these figures do not include natural gas-related methane emissions, a powerful greenhouse gas that substantially increases the climate impact of gas use. In 2022, the IEA estimated that global methane emissions from the energy sector were 135 million tons in addition to combustion emissions. Oil and gas — often produced together — accounted for 58 percent of these methane emissions globally, with the U.S. responsible for around 12 percent of the global total.

Methane emissions estimates vary substantially, prompting efforts at improved satellite and other detection methods.

LNG exports have been a growing part of the natural gas landscape but still represent a minority share. Global LNG trade reached around 550 billion cubic meters in 2023, representing about 13 percent of global gas demand. The U.S. LNG story is even more striking. Up until 2016, the U.S. exported only a limited amount from one facility. The shale gas revolution not only made U.S. gas cheaper it also led U.S. gas production to almost double over the past two decades, fueling a surge in LNG exports.

US LNG capacity has grown from 0.6 billion cubic meters per year in 2015 to 124 billion cubic meters per year in 2023. LNG plants currently under construction are unaffected by the pause and will bring the capacity to over 230 billion cubic meters per year by the end of the decade. Importantly, even after these new LNG export facilities come online by 2030, they will represent only 22 percent of U.S. domestic natural gas production and 25 percent of U.S. gas consumption.

These figures demonstrate that while LNG exports represent an important and growing use of domestically produced gas, natural gas consumption within the U.S. and its related emissions represent a bigger climate challenge. What can and will be done to address these emissions?

In this regard, it is important to understand how natural gas is consumed in the U.S. The biggest user is the power sector (40 percent), followed by industry, which it also uses it as feedstock for chemical processes (26 percent) and buildings (24 percent). Gas demand in the power sector could increase further if recent projections regarding rapidly increasing power demand prove accurate. These uses drive where emissions reductions are needed and the corresponding measures.

The literature is rich with ways to address domestic natural gas emissions in the United States and elsewhere. One example is replacing natural gas in the power sector with renewables and other lower emissions alternatives. More efficient energy use can dampen or otherwise reduce the need for natural gas combustion. Adding carbon capture, use and storage technologies where feasible and economic can also reduce emissions, notably in industry and power. Moreover, combining these strategies to different degrees can provide even stronger solutions than implementing them independently.

It is also necessary to stress the importance of methane emissions flowing from the domestic production and processing of natural gas, whether it is consumed domestically or exported as LNG or pipeline gas. Reducing these methane emissions along the whole gas value chain must remain a focus of climate action given its short- to medium-term impact on global warming.

Reducing natural gas and other emissions will require action extending beyond the federal government. This includes efforts by U.S. states such as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative carbon market program and California’s 2022 climate action plan, as well as industry, businesses, civil society and other stakeholders. It also includes influencing other countries.

While the U.S. currently produces only about 14 percent of global CO2 emissions, as the world’s largest economy, the wealthiest nation by net worth and the second-highest emitter of greenhouse gases behind China, it sets the tone on international climate action. Without strong U.S. leadership, emissions from several countries can be expected to remain well above what is needed to avoid dangerous climate change. Understanding and addressing the potential emissions generated by US LNG exports is part of setting that tone, and it carries significance beyond the actual size and share of the LNG-related emissions.

LNG is an important element in the climate agenda, but only one part of the equation. Compared to domestic natural gas consumption or global energy use overall, it is not even the biggest part of the story.

Addressing emissions relating to the domestic use of natural gas and other fossil fuels and encouraging action abroad by China and other countries, should take up the bulk of our efforts. LNG-related emissions are important, but the weight of the climate change challenge lies beyond it.

This oped was first published in The Hill

Philippe Benoit is the managing director at Global Infrastructure Advisory Services 2050. He previously held management positions at the World Bank and the International Energy Agency, as well as an investment banker specializing in natural gas projects.

Anne-Sophie Corbeau leads the research on natural gas and hydrogen at the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University’s School for International and Public Affairs and is a visiting professor at the University of SciencesPo.