The 15th UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, is over. In the atmosphere of a confrontation between the world’s northern and southern hemispheres, the negotiations were deadlocked from beginning to end, resulting in a political statement that lacked legal binding force.
The main organizers’ true intentions in hosting the summit can be observed from several angles.
First, let’s look at the intentions of the Danish government. Obviously, it hoped that this global event would bring a new glow to the capital.
To achieve this, the focus brought by the attendance of many heads of state was not enough. The participation of a diversity of other groups was also necessary to bring unprecedented tourism benefits, reflected in the fact that local hotels were fully booked six months ahead of the conference.
Furthermore, the Bella Center in Copenhagen could only accommodate a limited number of participants, but, deliberately or accidentally, the host country had not passed this information to the UN Secretariat, which therefore accepted too many registrations to the conference.
This move leads to the reasonable suspicion that the climate change conference was just a cover up for the Danish government’s marketing policies.
Next, let’s look at the intentions of the secretariat of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.
During the conference, the secretariat was only interested in pushing the world’s leading powers to sign the Copenhagen Accord, while treating the non-governmental organizations (NGOs) as a bunch of tedious protesters outside the venue.
The environmental protection activists who went to the event at high expense, were blocked from entering the venue. No wonder people were left with the impression that, while the participation of civic groups and individuals from around the globe was nominally welcome, the true intentions were to prevent them from protesting and putting pressure on the delegations.
In the past, NGOs have been active on the international stage and, from a moral and ethical standpoint, uncovered global issues that have been ignored by various governments. At this conference, however, we could see how the NGOs were being ignored by international politics.
If the situation remains unchanged, the question is whether, in the upcoming conferences in Germany and Mexico next year, the Industrial Technology Research Institute should be the only participant in the Taiwanese delegation once more? Perhaps it would be a better idea if Taiwanese academics and specialists, as well as experts from other intergovernment groups or NGOs, were invited to participate, to assist and introduce Taiwanese officials to peripheral meetings.
Chen Wei-hua is the director of international affairs at Transparency International-Chinese Taipei.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
With its passing of Hong Kong’s new National Security Law, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) continues to tighten its noose on Hong Kong. Gone is the broken 1997 promise that Hong Kong would have free, democratic elections by 2017. Gone also is any semblance that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) plays the long game. All the CCP had to do was hold the fort until 2047, when the “one country, two systems” framework would end and Hong Kong would rejoin the “motherland.” It would be a “demonstration-free” event. Instead, with the seemingly benevolent velvet glove off, the CCP has revealed its true iron
At the end of last month, Paraguayan Ambassador to Taiwan Marcial Bobadilla Guillen told a group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators that his president had decided to maintain diplomatic ties with Taiwan, despite pressure from the Chinese government and local businesses who would like to see a switch to Beijing. This followed the Paraguayan Senate earlier this year voting against a proposal to establish ties with China in exchange for medical supplies. This constituted a double rebuke of the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) diplomatic agenda in a six-month span from Taiwan’s only diplomatic ally in South America. Last year, Tuvalu rejected an
US President Donald Trump’s administration on Friday last week announced it would impose sanctions on the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps, a vast paramilitary organization that is directly controlled by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and has been linked to human rights violations against Uighurs and other ethnic minorities in Xinjiang. The sanctions follow US travel bans against other Xinjiang officials and the passage of the US Hong Kong Autonomy Act, which authorizes targeted sanctions against mainland Chinese and Hong Kong officials, in response to Beijing’s imposition of national security legislation on the territory. The sanctions against the corps would be implemented
US President Donald Trump on Thursday issued executive orders barring Americans from conducting business with WeChat owner Tencent Holdings and ByteDance, the Beijing-based owner of popular video-sharing app TikTok. The orders are to take effect 45 days after they were signed, which is Sept. 20. The orders accuse WeChat of helping the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) review and remove content that it considers to be politically sensitive, and of using fabricated news to benefit itself. The White House has accused TikTok of collecting users’ information, location data and browsing histories, which could be used by the Chinese government, and pose