Did you know that Denmark has 'sold' Tibet's historical status as a sovereign state and the Tibetan people's right to struggle for freedom from Chinese rule at the beginning of the COP 15 meetings (on December 9) to appease China? This, according to media sources, is done hoping that China will then behave like a responsible superpower. [Denmark is not the only country that has 'sold' Tibet's historical legal status. Last year England did something similar in a statement.]
So how did China respond during the COP 15 negotiations?
An insider at a crucial meeting of two dozen heads of states, Mark Lynas, blames China for the failure of the COP 15 summit:
"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."
Accoring to Mr. Lynas, "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'."
I have been to several international environmental conferences, including IUCN 2000, IUCN 2004 and WSSD 2002, and I have seen with my own eyes how these negotiations work, especially at the UN level. At these meetings, world politics is more influential than global or international politics. By world politics, I mean that states quickly get grouped into the politics of "developed countries" versus "developing countries" or the First World versus the Third World countries. Issues of global politics, such as human rights, poverty reduction, environmental protection and women's empowerment will get hijacked under international (between key states) and world politics.
What is interesting is the level of world politics that operates at these conferences. The developed versus developing countries politics, one would imagine, is very old and outdated. It isn't. It still dominates these meetings. While I came across deeper undercurrents of world politics, such as the aspirations of the 53-member African states and the Muslim bloc, these do not come up as forcefully in the proceedings. These undercurrents, somehow, get subsumed under the larger 'developing versus developed countries' politics. The African and Muslim blocs, for example, are generally happy to vote "No" to anything that the developed countries, usually headed by the U.S., put forward. And China, as a leader of developing countries bloc, takes advantage of this condition efficiently and effectively.
What is even more interesting is how the vastly different developing countries, from major powers like India and Brazil to climate-vulnerable states like Maldives and Bangladesh, allow China, which is far more powerful and has completely different sets of interests, take the lead in these negotiations. This raises a question: will China advocate for the interest of countries like Maldives? Read an observation by Mr. Lynas:
"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."
So there. Denmark has sacrificed Tibet on the altar of a global environmental issue to no avail. With the lessons learned, does Denmark have the integrity to acknowledge its mistakes and retract the statement?
So how did China respond during the COP 15 negotiations?
An insider at a crucial meeting of two dozen heads of states, Mark Lynas, blames China for the failure of the COP 15 summit:
"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."
Accoring to Mr. Lynas, "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'."
I have been to several international environmental conferences, including IUCN 2000, IUCN 2004 and WSSD 2002, and I have seen with my own eyes how these negotiations work, especially at the UN level. At these meetings, world politics is more influential than global or international politics. By world politics, I mean that states quickly get grouped into the politics of "developed countries" versus "developing countries" or the First World versus the Third World countries. Issues of global politics, such as human rights, poverty reduction, environmental protection and women's empowerment will get hijacked under international (between key states) and world politics.
What is interesting is the level of world politics that operates at these conferences. The developed versus developing countries politics, one would imagine, is very old and outdated. It isn't. It still dominates these meetings. While I came across deeper undercurrents of world politics, such as the aspirations of the 53-member African states and the Muslim bloc, these do not come up as forcefully in the proceedings. These undercurrents, somehow, get subsumed under the larger 'developing versus developed countries' politics. The African and Muslim blocs, for example, are generally happy to vote "No" to anything that the developed countries, usually headed by the U.S., put forward. And China, as a leader of developing countries bloc, takes advantage of this condition efficiently and effectively.
What is even more interesting is how the vastly different developing countries, from major powers like India and Brazil to climate-vulnerable states like Maldives and Bangladesh, allow China, which is far more powerful and has completely different sets of interests, take the lead in these negotiations. This raises a question: will China advocate for the interest of countries like Maldives? Read an observation by Mr. Lynas:
"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."
So there. Denmark has sacrificed Tibet on the altar of a global environmental issue to no avail. With the lessons learned, does Denmark have the integrity to acknowledge its mistakes and retract the statement?
6 comments:
I wouldn't expect Denmark to retract its mistake, any more than Britain will retract its revocation of recognition of Tibet's suzerainty status -- a move made by the Miliband brothers (one is the UK Minister for Climate Change, the other the UK's Foreign Minister) last year. If we want freedom for Tibet, we need to change tactics. We cannot depend on fickle world leaders or governments to pressure China. The change must come from the grassroots. It must be economic pressure. Boycott anything made in China. If it says "Made in China" don't buy it! Read more about what can be done at www.FreeingTibet.com. Take action!
Thank you for visiting and for your comments Mr. John Roberts.
Tashi la, yes I can read the Tibetan on your blog. The font is a bit erratic, moving back and forth between uchen and umed, I've had the same problem too and don't know how to fix it. But any way, at least I can read Tibetan on your blog, yes.
I'm glad you like the lyrics of my song about nomadic life. I'll send you a rough recording soon.
Thanks Tendor. It's strange that some of the Tibetan fonts show up as umed. It must me something to do with Monlam font, but I don't know what exactly is causing it. A part of the problem may be with Mac/PC issue. As a reader of this blog, PeeWee, said, we are in the year 25 of the internet and we still have such problems.
I look forward to listening to your song!
The China Beat blog has published a nice critical review of Mark Lynas' article and China and the COP 15 more generally.
Disgusted on Danish Government's support of the Chinese dictatorship and its occupation of Tibet, many join I oppose the Danish Government's agreement with China on Tibet in face book.
Post a Comment