Analysis by Walden Bello*
January 20, 2010
Like Hamlet, Shakespeare’s conflicted Prince of Denmark, China was caught between conflicting currents in Copenhagen. Its failure to manage these challenges, argues columnist Walden Bello, led to its biggest diplomatic debacle in years. In many accounts, President Barack Obama comes across either as a figure who valiantly tries to rescue a doomed conference or as a well-meaning head of state whose hands are unfortunately tied by the realities of US politics. As the villain of the continuing climate drama, Washington has been replaced in much of the media by Beijing . China did make mistakes in Copenhagen , but the media portrayal of it as the spoiler of the climate change negotiations is neither accurate nor fair. Like Hamlet, Shakespeare’s conflicted Prince of Denmark, China was caught in multiple crosscurrents in Copenhagen . Its failure to manage these led to one of its biggest diplomatic setbacks in years.
The British J’accuse
In the immediate aftermath of the talks, Ed Miliband, Britain’s secretary of energy and climate change, charged that China vetoed an agreement on a 50 percent global reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 or on 80 percent reductions by developed countries “despite the support of a coalition of developed and the vast majority of developing countries.”
Many climate activists would probably have taken Miliband’s statement as simply part of the blame game after the controversial ending of a critical conference had it not been seconded--and in detail--by Mark Lynas of the Guardian, a British newspaper that is usually critical of the policies of Washington, London, and other northern governments. Lynas described the scene at a key Friday night meeting of selected countries as the clock raced to the conclusion of the conference:
This account of a relatively low-ranking Chinese official vetoing the naming of unilateral cuts offered by heads of northern countries is indeed shocking. But there’s something the Guardian piece neglects to mention: the meeting was one of several unofficial meetings with a small number of countries that Obama had called, apparently with the support of host Denmark, in order to impose a deal on the climate conference, and the drafting of the declaration was, in fact, a violation of an agreed-on conference process.
Where China Went Wrong
Where China went wrong was not so much in opposing the listing of the emission numbers but in agreeing to attend these covert caucuses where Obama and a small group of other heads of state sought to unilaterally draft a declaration. China undoubtedly knew that these meetings, which included the leaders of selected northern countries as well as those of Brazil , South Africa , and India – undermined the UN process. In the days leading up to Copenhagen, China had heard its allies in the developing world expose and denounce a covert effort by Denmark to convoke a parallel conference of over 20 countries to push through an unauthorized “Danish text” that advanced a climate agenda favored by the developed countries.
More ono :
January 20, 2010
Like Hamlet, Shakespeare’s conflicted Prince of Denmark, China was caught between conflicting currents in Copenhagen. Its failure to manage these challenges, argues columnist Walden Bello, led to its biggest diplomatic debacle in years. In many accounts, President Barack Obama comes across either as a figure who valiantly tries to rescue a doomed conference or as a well-meaning head of state whose hands are unfortunately tied by the realities of US politics. As the villain of the continuing climate drama, Washington has been replaced in much of the media by Beijing . China did make mistakes in Copenhagen , but the media portrayal of it as the spoiler of the climate change negotiations is neither accurate nor fair. Like Hamlet, Shakespeare’s conflicted Prince of Denmark, China was caught in multiple crosscurrents in Copenhagen . Its failure to manage these led to one of its biggest diplomatic setbacks in years.
The British J’accuse
In the immediate aftermath of the talks, Ed Miliband, Britain’s secretary of energy and climate change, charged that China vetoed an agreement on a 50 percent global reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 or on 80 percent reductions by developed countries “despite the support of a coalition of developed and the vast majority of developing countries.”
Many climate activists would probably have taken Miliband’s statement as simply part of the blame game after the controversial ending of a critical conference had it not been seconded--and in detail--by Mark Lynas of the Guardian, a British newspaper that is usually critical of the policies of Washington, London, and other northern governments. Lynas described the scene at a key Friday night meeting of selected countries as the clock raced to the conclusion of the conference:
This account of a relatively low-ranking Chinese official vetoing the naming of unilateral cuts offered by heads of northern countries is indeed shocking. But there’s something the Guardian piece neglects to mention: the meeting was one of several unofficial meetings with a small number of countries that Obama had called, apparently with the support of host Denmark, in order to impose a deal on the climate conference, and the drafting of the declaration was, in fact, a violation of an agreed-on conference process.
Where China Went Wrong
Where China went wrong was not so much in opposing the listing of the emission numbers but in agreeing to attend these covert caucuses where Obama and a small group of other heads of state sought to unilaterally draft a declaration. China undoubtedly knew that these meetings, which included the leaders of selected northern countries as well as those of Brazil , South Africa , and India – undermined the UN process. In the days leading up to Copenhagen, China had heard its allies in the developing world expose and denounce a covert effort by Denmark to convoke a parallel conference of over 20 countries to push through an unauthorized “Danish text” that advanced a climate agenda favored by the developed countries.
More ono :
Foreign Policy in Focus http://www.fpif.org/articles/china_the_prince_of_denmark
