The concept of raison d’état was first applied by French statesman Richelieu in the 17th century. He divested foreign policy from the moral imperatives of religious fanaticism and operationalized it in a manner whereby national interest was aggrandized in decision-making even when transgressing boundaries of universal morality.

This form of diplomacy regards national interest as supreme and rejects any policies that undermine the nation-state.

Climate change is a global phenomenon with negative implications for the entirety of the world. However, despite the scientific evidence to back this, climate action has lagged behind what is necessary because of the national implications that are present with fighting it.

Countries have been too fixated on national advantages that can be gained in climate negotiations instead of focusing on how to fight climate change most effectively and efficiently.

This adherence to the principle of raison d’état means multilateral climate conventions that are held to solve climate problems have turned into ends themselves rather than means of action.

Countries have been unwilling to budge on issues weakening national positions citing infringement of sovereignty and any progression has been gradual with constant exchange of small victories between various coalition groups that overall weaken ambition on climate action.

By analyzing the policy preferences of various nations in climate conventions, it can be assessed that the principle of raison d’état is being strictly followed instead of a more global approach.

Climate action was driven by national interests rather than moral imperatives for environmental protection which showcases it is a matter of political will and not incapability with regards to many countries being sluggish to implement ambitious climate policies.

The alliance of small island states, low-lying islands and of the least developed countries had unsurprisingly advocated for the ambitious halting global warming at 1.5 °C goals at the Paris Convention which was a matter of survival for them.

This was opposed again unsurprisingly by both developed and richer developing countries with strong opposition from oil-producing economies as it would have been detrimental for economic progression for these countries.

With the goal of 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels thwarted with a less ambitious goal of 2 °C limits, the moral imperative of protecting the most vulnerable nations was overwhelmed by national interests of maintaining economic progress.

China’s U-turn

The change in the climate policies of China can be a good example of how countries change their climate policy to align with national interests.

China’s rapid economic growth saw its carbon emissions escalate drastically which resulted in pressure from the United States and the European Union to end the bifurcation between developed and developing nations in climate agreements with China being asked to take more responsibility vis-à-vis mitigation.

This resulted in China taking up a defensive stance on climate diplomacy with solidification of ties with emerging countries particularly India with which it had shared interests.

However, in 2012 heavy smog badly affected Northern China which resulted in tremendous pressure on China’s leadership from its political middle class to take a leadership role in climate action.

An amalgamation of the diffused interest of the general public on climate action can prove to be a powerful impetus for overcoming the delays in mainstreaming climate change into policymaking.

Once China’s raison d’état aligned with ambitious climate action, it has been avant-garde in the adoption of green technology with major bilateral cooperation with the EU on innovation and also a bilateral deal with the US in 2014 before the Paris Agreement.

It went from a stark advocate of a distinction between developed and developing nations to softening its stance to as Biedenkopf pointed out “insist on differentiation on the level of stringency of the commitments but no longer on a differentiation at the level of legal applicability of the Paris Agreement”.

Climate action was driven by national interests rather than moral imperatives for environmental protection which showcases it is a matter of political will and not incapability with regards to many countries being sluggish to implement ambitious climate policies.

Many countries which exhibit parsimony with regards to nationally determined contributions are acting on ensuring the fulfillment of their national interests and are viewing the global issue of climate change from a myopic nation-centric framework.

A holistic picture of the implications of the recently held COP26 at Glasgow hasn’t developed and only time will tell whether the urgency of climate action has superseded the need to uphold national interests.   

Power of the Public

As was displayed with China with its instantaneous alignment of raison d’état and ambitious climate action when the policy window for it was made politically accessible, it showcases the power of public opinion and how a climate-centric population may be able to alter the definition of a country’s national interest to ensuring the forthcoming climate disasters are prevented.

It is now inconceivable that a prominent politician would oppose gay marriage in the US. If climate action is mainstreamed into the public thinking with them choosing politicians that support ambitious goals, the political landscape would alter drastically in favor of more ambitious climate action.

An amalgamation of the diffused interest of the general public on climate action can prove to be a powerful impetus for overcoming the delays in mainstreaming climate change into policymaking.

It can circumvent government failures as the politicians will cater to what the public demands but also engender a new definition of what is considered to be in the national interest.

Thus, when public perception is adamant on urgent climate action, the raison d’état of the state and the politicians is also to incorporate climate action into development.

For this, the knowledge base pertaining to issues like climate change damages to economic growth in the long term, the escalation of costs in the future if action isn’t taken in the present, and also the benefits like the creation of jobs and other positive externalities need to be exponentially increased to transform the general public into a powerful interest group that can keep politicians and bureaucratic bodies accountable.

An example of a change in political will due to the transformation of public perception is LGBTQI rights in the United States.

Within a matter of a couple of decades, former President Barack Obama went from opposing gay marriage to vehemently supporting it.

It is now inconceivable that a prominent politician would oppose gay marriage in the US. If climate action is mainstreamed into the public thinking with them choosing politicians that support ambitious goals, the political landscape would alter drastically in favor of more ambitious climate action.

This signifies the importance of a bottom-up approach to climate action by first concentrating the diffused interests of the general public into a powerful stakeholder and in the process ensuring politicians who cater to these people remain positive on climate policies.  

(Sanjit Shrestha is currently pursuing his Master’s in Development Studies from Kathmandu University School of Arts)