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
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
Every analyst watching Iran’s succession crisis is asking who would replace supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Yet, the real question is whether China has learned enough from the Persian Gulf to survive a war over Taiwan. Beijing purchases roughly 90 percent of Iran’s exported crude — some 1.61 million barrels per day last year — and holds a US$400 billion, 25-year cooperation agreement binding it to Tehran’s stability. However, this is not simply the story of a patron protecting an investment. China has spent years engineering a sanctions-evasion architecture that was never really about Iran — it was about Taiwan. The
In an op-ed published in Foreign Affairs on Tuesday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) said that Taiwan should not have to choose between aligning with Beijing or Washington, and advocated for cooperation with Beijing under the so-called “1992 consensus” as a form of “strategic ambiguity.” However, Cheng has either misunderstood the geopolitical reality and chosen appeasement, or is trying to fool an international audience with her doublespeak; nonetheless, it risks sending the wrong message to Taiwan’s democratic allies and partners. Cheng stressed that “Taiwan does not have to choose,” as while Beijing and Washington compete, Taiwan is strongest when
RSS