What a very merry Christmas it would have been today for people around the world had the recent climate talks in Copenhagen produced the treaty everyone was hoping for.
Rather than the 80 percent reduction in emissions by 2050, legally binding targets and the thorough emissions verification system that had been talked about, we were instead treated to an almighty dollop of fudge — the entirely wrong variety for the festive season.
The results were thoroughly depressing for those expecting positive collective action from supposedly wise world leaders on what is the most pressing problem ever faced by humankind.
Of course, even if a deal had been reached on legally binding targets, there was always the possibility, given the outcome of the Kyoto Protocol, that many countries would fail to meet them. But at least an ambitious agreement would have been a real statement of intent.
Instead, the summit produced a woolly jumble of intentions without targets or a deadline for a binding treaty.
The pantomime villain, according to those present at the talks, was China, which rejected outright the inclusion of targets, protecting its agenda to continue economic growth without the limits that legally binding cuts could pose.
A report in the Guardian newspaper revealed that Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao (溫家寶) was not even present at the crucial final negotiating session. Instead, he sent a second-tier foreign ministry staffer to the talks, which in Chinese culture amounted to a crude snub to the other world leaders present and a sign that China was never considering signing up to any targets.
It was always the case that rich and powerful countries — including China — were not going to sign up to a deal that would harm their interests, and for that other countries must also take a share of the blame, but the summit’s disappointing conclusion has highlighted the problem of dealing with a growing world power that answers to no one.
As an authoritarian state, China doesn’t have to court public opinion and is under no pressure whatsoever from NGOs, while on a global scale its increasing economic leverage over other rich countries means it can thumb its nose at the global community — behavior that was on full display in the Danish capital.
Hopefully Copenhagen can also serve as another demonstration of the futility of the oft-espoused theory that increased participation in the global community and economy can “change” China.
It is now more than 30 years since Beijing began its “reform and opening” policy, and while many millions have been lifted out of poverty, the billions of dollars poured into China by foreign countries and industry have only strengthened the Chinese Communist Party’s grip on domestic power.
Rather than becoming a “responsible stakeholder” as the US government hoped, Beijing has instead become its main rival, distracting Washington with unproductive “help” on issues like North Korea and Iran while using its newfound wealth to develop a network of client states around the world — most notably in Africa.
Copenhagen showed that China now feels confident enough to flex its muscles on the world stage in full view of everyone, using its new friends to do its dirty work while leaving the global community — a la Dr Frankenstein — to rue the monster they have created.
It was a display that should make democratic countries around the world — including Taiwan — very, very afraid.
As the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) reach the point of confidence that they can start and win a war to destroy the democratic culture on Taiwan, any future decision to do so may likely be directly affected by the CCP’s ability to promote wars on the Korean Peninsula, in Europe, or, as most recently, on the Indian subcontinent. It stands to reason that the Trump Administration’s success early on May 10 to convince India and Pakistan to deescalate their four-day conventional military conflict, assessed to be close to a nuclear weapons exchange, also served to
After India’s punitive precision strikes targeting what New Delhi called nine terrorist sites inside Pakistan, reactions poured in from governments around the world. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a statement on May 10, opposing terrorism and expressing concern about the growing tensions between India and Pakistan. The statement noticeably expressed support for the Indian government’s right to maintain its national security and act against terrorists. The ministry said that it “works closely with democratic partners worldwide in staunch opposition to international terrorism” and expressed “firm support for all legitimate and necessary actions taken by the government of India
The recent aerial clash between Pakistan and India offers a glimpse of how China is narrowing the gap in military airpower with the US. It is a warning not just for Washington, but for Taipei, too. Claims from both sides remain contested, but a broader picture is emerging among experts who track China’s air force and fighter jet development: Beijing’s defense systems are growing increasingly credible. Pakistan said its deployment of Chinese-manufactured J-10C fighters downed multiple Indian aircraft, although New Delhi denies this. There are caveats: Even if Islamabad’s claims are accurate, Beijing’s equipment does not offer a direct comparison
To recalibrate its Cold War alliances, the US adopted its “one China policy,” a diplomatic compromise meant to engage with China and end the Vietnam War, but which left Taiwan in a state of permanent limbo. Half a century later, the costs of that policy are mounting. Taiwan remains a democratic, technologically advanced nation of 23 million people, yet it is denied membership in international organizations and stripped of diplomatic recognition. Meanwhile, the PRC has weaponized the “one China” narrative to claim sovereignty over Taiwan, label the Taiwan Strait as its “internal waters” and threaten international shipping routes that carry more
RSS