China's role at Copenhagen- Deliberate Sabotage

Discussion in 'China' started by A.V., Dec 23, 2009.

  1. A.V.

    A.V. New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    6,503
    Likes Received:
    1,106
    Location:
    Moscow, russia
    Eyewitness: How China sabotaged climate talks - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

    A writer and environmental activist who was present at the final Copenhagen climate talks says China sabotaged the deal and ensured Barack Obama would shoulder the blame.
    While China's Premier Wen Jiabao insisted his government had played an "important and constructive" role, the talks in the Danish capital ended with a political accord rather than a binding agreement.
    Mark Lynas, who was attached to the Maldives delegation, described what he saw at the talks as "profoundly shocking".
    "I am certain that had the Chinese not been in the room, we would have left Copenhagen with a deal that had environmentalists popping champagne corks in every corner of the world," he wrote in the The Guardian.
    "The truth is this: China wrecked the talks, intentionally humiliated Barack Obama, and insisted on an awful 'deal' so Western leaders would walk away carrying the blame.
    He says Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and other Western leaders were visibly upset when China started "removing all the numbers that mattered" in the final talks, including emissions cuts by developed countries of 80 per cent by 2050.
    "'Why can't we even mention our own targets?' demanded a furious [German Premier] Angela Merkel.
    "Australia's prime minister, Kevin Rudd, was annoyed enough to bang his microphone. Brazil's representative too pointed out the illogicality of China's position. Why should rich countries not announce even this unilateral cut?
    "The Chinese delegate said no, and I watched, aghast, as Merkel threw up her hands in despair and conceded the point. Now we know why - because China bet, correctly, that Obama would get the blame for the Copenhagen accord's lack of ambition.
    "But I saw Obama fighting desperately to salvage a deal, and the Chinese delegate saying "no", over and over again."
    Lynas says the 2020 peaking year was then "replaced by woolly language" and the global 50 per cent cuts by 2050 were also removed.
    "No-one else, perhaps with the exceptions of India and Saudi Arabia, wanted this to happen," Lynas said.

    'Took the bait'


    Lynas fears "the truth about what actually happened is in danger of being lost amid the spin and inevitable mutual recriminations".
    "China's strategy was simple: block the open negotiations for two weeks, and then ensure that the closed-door deal made it look as if the west had failed the world's poor once again. And sure enough, the aid agencies, civil society movements and environmental groups all took the bait," he said.
    "The failure was 'the inevitable result of rich countries refusing adequately and fairly to shoulder their overwhelming responsibility', said Christian Aid. 'Rich countries have bullied developing nations,' fumed Friends of the Earth International.
    "All very predictable, but the complete opposite of the truth."
    He is dismissive of the role played by Sudanese delegate Lumumba Di-Aping, who negotiated on behalf of China and developing countries, accusing Sudan of behaving as China's puppet and helping to create the "perfect stitch-up".
    Lynas also said China carried out a clear diplomatic snub at the talks.
    "The Chinese premier, Wen Jinbao, did not deign to attend the meetings personally, instead sending a second-tier official in the country's foreign ministry to sit opposite Obama himself," he said.
    "The diplomatic snub was obvious and brutal, as was the practical implication: several times during the session, the world's most powerful heads of state were forced to wait around as the Chinese delegate went off to make telephone calls to his 'superiors'."

    India's stance


    India has already confirmed it worked with China and other emerging nations to ensure there were no legally binding targets at the talks.
    India's Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh earlier faced parliament for the first time since the UN talks, saying the nation had "come out quite well in Copenhagen".
    "We can be satisfied that we were able to get our way on this issue," declared Mr Ramesh, who has consistently said India would be one of the countries hardest hit by climate change.
    He said India, China, South Africa and Brazil had emerged as a powerful force and said the group had protected its right to continued economic growth.
    Mr Ramesh said India would continue to work with its allies "to ensure that the interests of developing countries and India in particular are protected in the course of negotiations in 2010 and beyond".

    Britain's blame


    Britain has also said the meeting was lurched into farce and pointed the finger of blame at Beijing.
    While British Prime Minister Gordon Brown refrained from naming countries, his climate change minister Ed Miliband said China had led a group of countries that "hijacked" the negotiations which had at times presented "a farcical picture to the public".
    "We did not get an agreement on 50 per cent reductions in global emissions by 2050 or on 80 per cent reductions by developed countries," he wrote in The Guardian.
    "Both were vetoed by China, despite the support of a coalition of developed and the vast majority of developing countries."
    China, the world's top polluter, doggedly resisted pressure for outside scrutiny of its emissions.







    for once india and china have worked together on the world stage and see the results for yourselves the domination by the west has been reduced
    but we need to get over this petty thinking and engage in a broader way
     
  2.  
  3. redragon

    redragon Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2009
    Messages:
    928
    Likes Received:
    36
    On this issue, India has more common interests with China, the developed countries want to use COP 15 to place a cap on developing countries' potential of growth, and also wants to interfere other countries internal affairs by so-called inspection and monitoring from the international community. Gov of India knows this well and they did the right thing in the meeting for Indian people.
     
  4. redragon

    redragon Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2009
    Messages:
    928
    Likes Received:
    36
    I believe both China and India are sincerely about controlling emmission per unit, however, the targets these 2 set up have to take the developing of their country into consideration. And as big powers, they should not be inspected by others, others should trust them. EU has no ground to be on high horse because they and US generated the current problem at first place in the past 200 years, and they are continue leading in emitting more to atomosphere plus none of those EU nations meets the targets they made by themselves.
     
  5. qilaotou

    qilaotou Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2009
    Messages:
    210
    Likes Received:
    0
  6. nimo_cn

    nimo_cn Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2009
    Messages:
    3,490
    Likes Received:
    590
    Climate issue has become a card being played by developed countries to block the rise of emerging countries like China and India, so that they can maintain their hegemony for like another 200 years.
    Despite all the disputes between China and India, i think this time, we are on the same boat. Neither China nor India is able to survive this game alone, because the enemies we are dealing with are too powerful and too sophisticated. If we dont work together and defend our interests, we will lose everything we have achieved and the opportunity to be prosperous countries.

    This report is more like politically motivated and the only purpose it serves is to sow discord among developing nations so that the developed countries can play this game unfairly like they did before. It seems the westerners are stunned by the combination of China, India and other developing countries.
     
  7. Known_Unknown

    Known_Unknown Devil's Advocate Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2009
    Messages:
    2,632
    Likes Received:
    1,664
    Location:
    Earth
    New-found bonhomie will see Krishna head to China

    New-found bonhomie will see Krishna head to China - India - The Times of India

    NEW DELHI: After a public lovefest in Copenhagen, China is now laying it on. Chinese foreign minister Yang Jiechi called S M Krishna on Tuesday evening to invite him to China. Krishna will visit Beijing in the first week of April, 2010.

    Declaring a "new beginning" in bilateral relations, Yang repeated his Premier Wen Jiabao's sentiments that China and India should continue to unify their stand in multilateral forums.

    "The ministers noted that India and China would be marking the 60th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between the two countries in 2010. The Chinese foreign minister reiterated his invitation to the external affairs minister to visit China in the first half of next year. EAM accepted the invitation. Mutually convenient dates will be fixed through diplomatic channels," an MEA statement said.

    In Copenhagen, a nervous China received unstinting support from India while it battled pressure from developed countries on climate change. In fact, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown publicly blamed China for "wrecking" the summit. The same pressure will be applied yet again in 2010, said officials. The India-China unity helped in coalescing support from other developing countries.

    This, in many ways, blindsided the west, which had been trying its best to cut through this bilateral unity. They were either involved in cutting a deal between the US and China, while the rest believed that the recent tensions between the two countries would have put cracks in the group in Copenhagen.

    But realists within the government were quick to catch on to the fact that while China had tried to scuttle the nuclear deal for India in 2008, only a year later, there was India standing together with China. The question no one wants to answer here is, if the situations had been reversed in Copenhagen, and India was under fire, would China have stepped up to support India?
     
  8. Armand2REP

    Armand2REP CHINI EXPERT Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,397
    Likes Received:
    2,312
    The chart is PER CAPTIA emissions. If China and India polluted as much as the smaller countries, the entire planet would turn into Venus. When does rationality play a part in Chinese thinking?
     
  9. badguy2000

    badguy2000 Respected Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    4,954
    Likes Received:
    611
    Code:
    
    
    there is no chance to make any agreement in Coperhangen at all.

    Neither USA nor China take the conference serious at all.

    they came to Coperhangen ,just in order to see how old poor European dropped a brick!

    every dog has its own time..but obvously it is not Erupean's time now.

    if poor Eurpeans still don't realize it, both USA and CHina will be ready to keep on watching how Europeans make a show of themselves.
     
  10. nimo_cn

    nimo_cn Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2009
    Messages:
    3,490
    Likes Received:
    590
    Of course it should be measured by PER CAPITA. If individual human wants to survive on this planet, then he will emit carbon, it is a basic need. Each individual from China and India has the right to emit as much carbon as you westerner does, and what you developed countries are doing is trying to deprive us of that right.

    Is it fair to require China and India, both of which own a population as much as 1 billion and are in the process of industrialization, to reduce the total amount of carbon emission to a level as low as France who has a population of 63 million and already has finished the industrialization? When does rationality play a part in french thinking?
     
  11. Armand2REP

    Armand2REP CHINI EXPERT Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,397
    Likes Received:
    2,312
    Emitting carbon is not a basic need. What you advocate is people in the developing world have a right to the luxeries of modern life, and they do. That does not have to come from high carbon emissions. If China replaced all her coal fired power plants she could easily meet the target with a trillion worth of carbon credits to spend. You scrap a coal plant, build a nuclear reactor and get paid with credits to offset the cost. See how this works?

    The rationality is, I want my grandchildren to not have to live underwater. If China and India emit as much per capita carbon as the developed world, your countries will be destroyed as well as most of the planet. You will be hit the hardest first. Famine and drought will wipe out hundreds of millions before we even sweat it. It is in your own self interest.
     
  12. nimo_cn

    nimo_cn Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2009
    Messages:
    3,490
    Likes Received:
    590
    Emitting is a basic need for developing countries such as China and India to finish the process of massive industrialization.

    I am glad you agree with me that people from developing countries like China and India have the right to pursue a comfortable life which you french are already enjoying.

    Current carbon emission per capita in China and India is much lower than it is in developed countries such as France and US, we have promised that we will keep it low in the future. Our success will not come from a high carbon emmissions.

    China is aready doing these.
    Dont you read news? The prime minister of France is visiting China, China has signed a nuclear power deal worth 1.5 billion Euro with France.

    And before lecturing us on what we should do, think about what you should do.

    Then you shouldn't emit so much carbon in the first place. Most of the carbon in the atmosphere has been emitted by developed coutries like France. Do you regret what you have done to the earth? I bet you will say you feel deeply sorry, but you will not take the responsibility.

    First, i want to ask you if it is a privilege for you to emit so much carbon per capita. If yes, care to tell me who granted that privilege to you?
    Second, carbon emission per capita in China and India has never been and will never be as high as it is in you developed counries.
    Can you tell me, if it is slightly possible that carbon emission per capita in France will be as low as it is in China and India?
    If you can't, pls shut up on this iusse!

    So you are threatening us!
    The only reason we will be hit the hardest first is becaue we failed to finish the industrialization like you did before. That is exactly the reason why we will not give up our right to emit carbon to develop our economies like you did before.

    We are aware of the consepuences, and we already have made promises and we have taken actions to combat green house warming. But we will not do it at the expense of our economy.
     
  13. redragon

    redragon Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2009
    Messages:
    928
    Likes Received:
    36
    [mod] don't do unnecessary flame baiting please [/mod]
     
  14. qilaotou

    qilaotou Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2009
    Messages:
    210
    Likes Received:
    0
    nimo_cn has definitely made it clear!

    It's not that Chinese is asking for the rights to emit as much as developed countries. We'll do as much as we can to tackle the emission problem but we are not forced to be bound to any legal comittment. As CO2 is an issue of accumulated emission. The developed countries should take more responsibilities to reduce their own emission with both resources and technologies available to them. They should NOT instead point fingers at China or India, the bigger emitters mainly due to the size of their population size.

    How could a ruskie talk like an american master? Your life expectancy is already under 60 years without significant harmful influence of CO2. It's obvious you have other bigger problems than emission to threaten your life!
     
  15. IBRIS

    IBRIS Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2009
    Messages:
    1,066
    Likes Received:
    112
    How do I know China wrecked the Copenhagen deal? I was in the room

    As recriminations fly post-Copenhagen, one writer offers a fly-on-the-wall account of how talks failed

    A woman listens to Barack Obama's speech at the Copenhagen climate change conference on 18 December. Photograph: Axel Schmidt/AFP/Getty Images
    Copenhagen was a disaster. That much is agreed. But the truth about what actually happened is in danger of being lost amid the spin and inevitable mutual recriminations. The truth is this: China wrecked the talks, intentionally humiliated Barack Obama, and insisted on an awful "deal" so western leaders would walk away carrying the blame. How do I know this? Because I was in the room and saw it happen.

    China's strategy was simple: block the open negotiations for two weeks, and then ensure that the closed-door deal made it look as if the west had failed the world's poor once again. And sure enough, the aid agencies, civil society movements and environmental groups all took the bait. The failure was "the inevitable result of rich countries refusing adequately and fairly to shoulder their overwhelming responsibility", said Christian Aid. "Rich countries have bullied developing nations," fumed Friends of the Earth International.

    All very predictable, but the complete opposite of the truth. Even George Monbiot, writing in yesterday's Guardian, made the mistake of singly blaming Obama. But I saw Obama fighting desperately to salvage a deal, and the Chinese delegate saying "no", over and over again. Monbiot even approvingly quoted the Sudanese delegate Lumumba Di-Aping, who denounced the Copenhagen accord as "a suicide pact, an incineration pact, in order to maintain the economic dominance of a few countries".

    Sudan behaves at the talks as a puppet of China; one of a number of countries that relieves the Chinese delegation of having to fight its battles in open sessions. It was a perfect stitch-up. China gutted the deal behind the scenes, and then left its proxies to savage it in public.

    Here's what actually went on late last Friday night, as heads of state from two dozen countries met behind closed doors. Obama was at the table for several hours, sitting between Gordon Brown and the Ethiopian prime minister, Meles Zenawi. The Danish prime minister chaired, and on his right sat Ban Ki-moon, secretary-general of the UN. Probably only about 50 or 60 people, including the heads of state, were in the room. I was attached to one of the delegations, whose head of state was also present for most of the time.

    What I saw was profoundly shocking. The Chinese premier, Wen Jinbao, did not deign to attend the meetings personally, instead sending a second-tier official in the country's foreign ministry to sit opposite Obama himself. The diplomatic snub was obvious and brutal, as was the practical implication: several times during the session, the world's most powerful heads of state were forced to wait around as the Chinese delegate went off to make telephone calls to his "superiors".


    Shifting the blame

    To those who would blame Obama and rich countries in general, know this: it was China's representative who insisted that industrialised country targets, previously agreed as an 80% cut by 2050, be taken out of the deal. "Why can't we even mention our own targets?" demanded a furious Angela Merkel. Australia's prime minister, Kevin Rudd, was annoyed enough to bang his microphone. Brazil's representative too pointed out the illogicality of China's position. Why should rich countries not announce even this unilateral cut? The Chinese delegate said no, and I watched, aghast, as Merkel threw up her hands in despair and conceded the point. Now we know why – because China bet, correctly, that Obama would get the blame for the Copenhagen accord's lack of ambition.

    China, backed at times by India, then proceeded to take out all the numbers that mattered. A 2020 peaking year in global emissions, essential to restrain temperatures to 2C, was removed and replaced by woolly language suggesting that emissions should peak "as soon as possible". The long-term target, of global 50% cuts by 2050, was also excised. No one else, perhaps with the exceptions of India and Saudi Arabia, wanted this to happen. I am certain that had the Chinese not been in the room, we would have left Copenhagen with a deal that had environmentalists popping champagne corks popping in every corner of the world.


    Strong position

    So how did China manage to pull off this coup? First, it was in an extremely strong negotiating position. China didn't need a deal. As one developing country foreign minister said to me: "The Athenians had nothing to offer to the Spartans." On the other hand, western leaders in particular – but also presidents Lula of Brazil, Zuma of South Africa, Calderón of Mexico and many others – were desperate for a positive outcome. Obama needed a strong deal perhaps more than anyone. The US had confirmed the offer of $100bn to developing countries for adaptation, put serious cuts on the table for the first time (17% below 2005 levels by 2020), and was obviously prepared to up its offer.

    Above all, Obama needed to be able to demonstrate to the Senate that he could deliver China in any global climate regulation framework, so conservative senators could not argue that US carbon cuts would further advantage Chinese industry. With midterm elections looming, Obama and his staff also knew that Copenhagen would be probably their only opportunity to go to climate change talks with a strong mandate. This further strengthened China's negotiating hand, as did the complete lack of civil society political pressure on either China or India. Campaign groups never blame developing countries for failure; this is an iron rule that is never broken. The Indians, in particular, have become past masters at co-opting the language of equity ("equal rights to the atmosphere") in the service of planetary suicide – and leftish campaigners and commentators are hoist with their own petard.

    With the deal gutted, the heads of state session concluded with a final battle as the Chinese delegate insisted on removing the 1.5C target so beloved of the small island states and low-lying nations who have most to lose from rising seas. President Nasheed of the Maldives, supported by Brown, fought valiantly to save this crucial number. "How can you ask my country to go extinct?" demanded Nasheed. The Chinese delegate feigned great offence – and the number stayed, but surrounded by language which makes it all but meaningless. The deed was done.


    China's game

    All this raises the question: what is China's game? Why did China, in the words of a UK-based analyst who also spent hours in heads of state meetings, "not only reject targets for itself, but also refuse to allow any other country to take on binding targets?" The analyst, who has attended climate conferences for more than 15 years, concludes that China wants to weaken the climate regulation regime now "in order to avoid the risk that it might be called on to be more ambitious in a few years' time".

    This does not mean China is not serious about global warming. It is strong in both the wind and solar industries. But China's growth, and growing global political and economic dominance, is based largely on cheap coal. China knows it is becoming an uncontested superpower; indeed its newfound muscular confidence was on striking display in Copenhagen. Its coal-based economy doubles every decade, and its power increases commensurately. Its leadership will not alter this magic formula unless they absolutely have to.

    Copenhagen was much worse than just another bad deal, because it illustrated a profound shift in global geopolitics. This is fast becoming China's century, yet its leadership has displayed that multilateral environmental governance is not only not a priority, but is viewed as a hindrance to the new superpower's freedom of action. I left Copenhagen more despondent than I have felt in a long time. After all the hope and all the hype, the mobilisation of thousands, a wave of optimism crashed against the rock of global power politics, fell back, and drained away.
    How do I know China wrecked the Copenhagen deal? I was in the room | Mark Lynas | Environment | The Guardian
     
  16. Known_Unknown

    Known_Unknown Devil's Advocate Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2009
    Messages:
    2,632
    Likes Received:
    1,664
    Location:
    Earth
    What credits? How does a coal fired plant equate with a nuclear power plant? The initial capital investment for a nuclear power plant is more than 10 times that of a coal fired plant. Secondly, there is also the issue of safety. Is France or the rest of the western world willing to transfer technology and finance the cost of a nuclear plant building spree in China and India? If so, then the developing world has no problem with switching to cleaner technologies.

    That has been the basic negotiating position of both India and China at the summit.



    As it is in the interest of the rest of the world. However, asking that all countries make a 20% cut in their emissions by a particular date is unfair, because while that cut may entail a Frenchman driving a small car instead of a SUV to work, it would mean that a poor Indian who eats one time a day starve to death in order to meet the emission requirements. Any such proposal is absurd, laughable, and absolutely unacceptable.

    If the world truly wants to move away from carbon based fuels, they should go to the root of the problem. The developed countries, who bear the most responsibility for causing the problem in the first place, should:

    1) First replace their own dirty power plants with wind farms, solar plants and nuke plants.

    2) Tax SUVs, pickup trucks, and large cars out of the marketplace, and provide incentives to their citizens to drive small cars.

    3) Transfer clean power generation technologies to the developing countries free of cost.

    4) Create a several trillion dollar global fund to help developing countries make the switch from coal plants to clean power plants.

    The problem is that the west has grown too accustomed to the luxuries that its high carbon consumption lifestyle provides. It's time to take responsibility for your actions, and time to stop blaming others for them.
     
  17. roma

    roma NRI in Europe Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2009
    Messages:
    3,212
    Likes Received:
    1,789

    partial quotes from the original

    my coments ; it is really necessary for india to keep a sharp eye on that snake-dragon. ( a dragon is after all not much more than a glorified snake eh ?) heheheh.

    one way of figuring out why CPC is currying (!) favour with IN is to consider :- what is CPC getting out of it .

    my guess is that as usuall, they are getting a huge benefit out of it while IN may be getting the so-caled left-overs

    can anyone confirm or clarify ?
     
  18. Known_Unknown

    Known_Unknown Devil's Advocate Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2009
    Messages:
    2,632
    Likes Received:
    1,664
    Location:
    Earth
    China co-operates with India only when it is in its interest and when absolutely necessary. At most other times, it sticks with its strategy of using Pakistan to keep India bogged down in the subcontinent.

    It sees India as its only Asian competitor and rival, and Copenhagen was merely an exception to the rule.
     
  19. rockdog

    rockdog Guest

    India co-operates with China only when it is in its interest and when absolutely necessary. At most other times, it sticks with its strategy of using Dalai Lama to keep China bogged down in the edge subcontinent.

    :icon_salut:

    In fact, we see Japan and US (his Asian influence) as our competitor in Asia, and aim to catch up. India is not the "Only" in the list, maybe rank around 3rd-4th position.
     
  20. Known_Unknown

    Known_Unknown Devil's Advocate Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2009
    Messages:
    2,632
    Likes Received:
    1,664
    Location:
    Earth
    China has no business being in the subcontinent. Besides, the Dalai Lama has never been "used" by India to score political points over China. India has given refuge to the DL, because he is a spiritual and religious leader, and many Indians revere him.

    If India wanted to use the DL, it could have funded and encouraged political activism against China-instead, it keeps it in check.

    Don't forget, during the Olympic torch relay, the runners were attacked in both the US and France, and there were protests against them in many European countries, but inspite of India having the largest Tibetian population in exile, no untoward incident took place in India.

    We both know that according to stats, India will surpass both the US and Japan economically and militarily by 2050. The only rival India will have is China, and vice versa. The large populations of both countries practically guarantee that no other country can come close to their massive economies in the future.
     
  21. rockdog

    rockdog Guest

    I think that's the biggest reason why India almost lost in every field of competitions with China in subcontinent.

    You just refuse to accept China's attempt and existence already here, and used your 90% focus on Pakistan.

    China's Tibet and Xinjiang is on the edge of subcontinent, China's commercial fleet pass through Indian Ocean everyday, so we "have no business being in the subcontinent."?

    If you even accept that even far away US has "some business" here, why you can't accept China's?


    BTW, there is a small thread:
    http://www.defenceforum.in/forum/so...d-recognize-tibetan-freedom-its-own-good.html

    quite near to what you just said, i think lots of Indian already using him as a card.


    "India has given refuge to the DL" that's the some typical Indian's view about Dalai, i don't want to say it's wrong or right since i m not Indian. But apparently he hurts China's interest and stability in Tibet. Just like don't like your guys hate guys in Bombay attack.

    For the trouble in Olympic torch relay, most cased were by oversea Tibetan and their supporters, and the headquarter is in that small town in India, isn't it?


    No one can predict or making policy for as long as 2050, but for next 10-20, India truly not in the top position of Chinese list.
     

Share This Page