Fighting for whatever it can get, America made serious concessions in its recent deal on carbon emissions with China. The United States of America is no longer the hegemony of the world, instead it is fighting for its right to even be considered one of the two leaders in a global bipolar system.

On November 11th, Presidents Xi Jinping and Barack Obama announced a new deal for both China and USA to reduce their carbon emissions. China has agreed its emissions will peak by 2030 (a higher year than hoped, but nonetheless an actual date as one has never previously been announced) and will also increase the non-fossil fuel percentage of its energy consumption by 20%. The USA, on the other hand, surrendered considerably more. As it has contributed a significantly greater share of the gases already in the atmosphere, and as such the USA accepted harsher cuts. Obama agreed to cut carbon emissions by 26 to 28% by 2025 – such reductions will require a doubling in the pace of cuts after 2020.

China appears to have conceded little. They agreed to targets that were already expected to be achieved with little to no effort. The USA on the other hand forfeited considerable amounts to gain the smallest of returns. The USA is considered by many to have hegemonic power; it is the most powerful state at the international level. Yet it seems to have completely surrendered to China. These were negotiations between the two largest producers of green house gases in the world. Yet only one side left having agreed to serious reductions.  If the USA is has true hegemony, it will dictate international relations, it will be the deciding factor everyone bows down to. As such you would expect the USA to have forced China to surrender more, or, at worst, for the USA and China to make equal commitments. However this did not occur.

The USA committed considerably more than China. Though no one knows exactly what went down in the negotiations, the results imply that it was China who held the power. The USA is not a country who easily commits to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, especially not significant reductions. For them to agree to such reductions is to imply that China held the upper hand, forcing the USA into reductions in order for them to agree to the most basic of reductions on their own part. The relationship between China and the USA has become one where China has the power, the USA must bend its own back to gain anything from China. That said, given the USA did force China to agree to some reductions it cannot be said that China is a hegemony.

Essentially China agreed only to a date, one that is far enough into the future that scientists predicted their emissions would peak at this time no matter the governments position. Therefore they gave up very little, while the USA succumbed to the rise and caved in order to survive, to retain some power.

On the other hand, congress will do its best to prevent the USA from achieving what it has agreed to. As such the agreements can been seen as empty promises made by the USA in an attempt to get China to commit to reductions. Therefore the USA was not giving in, it was merely playing a specific part in a greater play to get China to succumb. However, such assumptions are to imply that China is weak and is not a player, that it cannot think of the motives behind American behaviour. This is too simplistic a thought, the Chinese government is smart and will only have given up some power (by agreeing to reductions) if it expects returns.

The United States of America can no longer be seen to be the sole hegemony. Instead China is rising, becoming more and more powerful, to the point were the USA must fall in order to try and retain the power that it does have. By surrendering concessions to China, the USA is able to retain its position as at least one half of a bipolar system.

PMCs are immoral. The individuals they employ have no commitment to maintain moral standards in war zones, so don’t.

Private military companies (PMCs) provide security services in war zones around the world. Hired as contractors, they provide governments and private organisations with services to train personnel in combat as well as man power for the protection of nouns (people, places, things). They work constantly on the boundary between right and wrong. 

Employees of PMCs are referred to as mercenary, individuals motivated to take part due to desire for significant private gain and instigated by the promise or payment of material composition. Principals of right and wrong motivate companies that are moral. Incentives of profit do not align with the stimuli of right and wrong. Therefore companies that are driven by profit cannot be moral.  This point was highlighted in the film The Shadow Company when one former mercenary said had worked for a PMC because it was “all about excitement, war is the ultimate game”. This mentality sees fighting as fun, as a form of entertainment, not as the most drastic way to solve disagreements. Furthering this was Mr Bell’s belief that many PMCs employ anyone who will join them, as they merely want to fulfil their contracts. They their employ individuals motivated by violence, who want to be in a war zone, rather than those believe in the causal factors initiation the war. Companies who are motivated by profit, and who’s employees are also motivated by profit and incentivised by aggressive urges, are not companies fighting for the principles of right and wrong. PMCs violate the principles of just intentions. Therefore PMCs are  clearly not moral in their rationale. 

PMCs are not likely to limit their behaviour. Soldiers are strictly limited in what they are allowed to do when in a war zone, both legally and morally. Their behaviours reflect not only themselves but also the nation they are serving. A soldier wearing a Canadian flag stitched upon their soldier embodies the morals of Canada as well as their own. Soldiers must behave inscrutably and are given incentives and impediments to do so. PMCs conversely have no such loyalties or confines. They represent themselves; very rarely do they carry the responsibility of representing an organisation. They are ununiformed, they bare no government affiliations. Thus, they are much less likely to limit their actions. There is a less clear line between right and wrong. They have no guiding state, no moral compass they must represent. 

Additionally, the blurred lines of command in battle for PMCs further the lack of moral guidance. There is strict hierarchical structure and protocol in the military, guiding each individual. Given PMCs are accountable to a firm not a government, in the heat of the moment the collapse of protocol creates chaos, that is often ultimately unpunishable.  Given the individual mercenary have no enforced guiding principle; there is no requirement for their actions to follow a moral compas. Leading to unmoral actions becoming more probable.

On the other hand, moral norms are highly subjective. The norms that are generally considered as moral in the West (where is currently no violent conflict) are often quite different to those of other states and cultures. Therefore when entering a state with no functioning government, it is often hard to determine what is considered to be the code of behaviour in that nation and situation. If rebels or locals behave in a certain way, is it wrong for mercenaries to retaliate in the same way? Additionally when in intense situations that question right and wrong, what gives individuals at home in the west, who’s governments won’t join the war effort for fear of losing soldiers, the right to judge whether an action is moral or not.

PMCs are driven purely by profit. They have no specific ties limiting their behaviour. Therefore no matter the conditions within the state they are working are, they cannot be considered moral organisations, as they are not concerned with principles of right and wrong. It is debatable as to whether government’s military efforts are moral or selfish, but it is unquestionable that PMCs are not moral.