Geopolitical Identity of China in International Climate Politics : A comparison between the BASIC country and the US-China frames

China's identity in climate politics can be argued to be in a dilemma of being a responsible leader or a developing country that still requires time for its emissions to peak. In 2015 in COP21 in Paris, China was negotiating with the BASIC countries and bilaterally with the US. The objective of research was to recognize China's geopolitical identity in climate politics in the BASIC and US-China frames and to discuss the possible similarities and differences. The hypothesis was that China identifies itself geopolitically differently in the two frames. The analysis was conducted on the basis of two questions in geopolitical identity: who is China and where is China? China's National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), as the most important body of China's climate politics, has published news releases of the meetings with the BASIC countries and the United States. These documents were analyzed with a critical discourse analysis frame. Discourses of who is China -question were discussed under four themes emerged from the data: climate change, the principle of CBDRC, leadership and Paris Agreement. Where is China -question was considered based on places that most frequently appeared in the documents: developing countries, the US-China coalition, BASIC countries, developed countries, Convention, Parties, Climate Change Working Group, Green Climate Fund, G-77 and China, and Annex B -countries. The results were applied by evaluating the BASIC and the US-China frames as discourse-practice regimes, recognizing the climate change framings of the these two and then, suggesting a geopolitical climate mapping of the frames. The conclusion confronted the hypothesis as China tolerably considered itself as a representative of developing countries in both frames, while instead the discourse of climate change was different between the two. Thus, China is not negotiating in the two frames because of different identities but has distinguished goals for them. The worldviews of the two frames are different. The BASIC one is strongly based on confronting the developed nations and building on the dichotomy. The worldview of the US-China frame is a more postmodern one and thus, questions the 'norm' of being a developing country in international climate politics. The BASIC frame is a one-question coalition, whereas the US-China frame includes more diverse cooperation and is slightly closer to China's own climate policy like its INDC document.