RSS Feed MenuSo says a British writer present in one of the large session meetings.
And not only wrecked the talks, but did so with a conscious display of disdain toward the West generally and President Obama personally.
I saw Obama fighting desperately to salvage a deal, and the Chinese delegate saying “no”, over and over again. … 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”.
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.
You sometimes hear it said that environmental concerns will lead us to a new era of international cooperation. That prophecy never seemed very plausible, and post-Copenhagen, it looks less plausible than ever.
Now the next concern: if Europe moves to carbon restrictions today – and China or even the United States opt not to follow, or to follow at a slower pace – will carbon tariffs follow tomorrow?
Complying with carbon restrictions will be costly, and those countries that impose such restrictions on their industries or farmers will wonder why non-compliers should gain a competitive advantage in this way. Environmental disagreement could thus lead to trade conflict.
Meanwhile, an increasingly self-confident China may use its new creditor clout to defy international pressures – or possibly to bend the whole international order to its own will. China remains a surprisingly isolated country. The quoted story makes clear that Sudan was one of China’s main mouthpieces at Copenhagen, a sorry statement in itself. You’d think money could buy China a better class of friend. But that may be only a matter of time and accumulation.
lowandslow // Dec 23, 2009 at 11:51 pm
I think that’s the first time a Presidents ego and arrogance actually was beneficial to the country.
Arch // Dec 24, 2009 at 12:25 am
Meanwhile, an increasingly self-confident China may use its new creditor clout to defy international pressures – or possibly to bend the whole international order to its own will.
I think you’re right, and I think we’d better get used to it.
balconesfault // Dec 24, 2009 at 1:02 am
China has in the last few years started sprinting towards energy efficiency – their wind industry is booming, in 3 years they went from far behind in solar to outproducing everyone, and they are coming up with highly innovative new technologies for transportation, such as capacitor driven bus lines.
While we’re still fixated on military competitiveness, the Chinese are focussing on economic competitiveness, and I would not be surprised if they’re happy to allow the Americans to remain profilgate and dependent on Middle Eastern oil for as long as possible.
Marcianelbert // Dec 24, 2009 at 2:17 am
This site has good information.Thanks
http://ezinearticles.com/?Heel-Tastic-Review—Does-it-Work?&id=2852393
mlindroo // Dec 24, 2009 at 7:46 am
Frum’s opening paragraph:
> According to a British writer present at Copenhagen,
> not only did the Chinese wreck the talks,
> but they did so with a conscious display of disdain toward the West generally
> and President Obama personally.
This sort of conservative “doublethink” is both amusing and annoying at the same time.
Here we have a situation where the Chinese apparently refused to go along with the Western environmental left’s demands, and consequently the outcome of the Copenhagen meetings was rather disappointing to those who are worried about global warming. I guess this further decreases the likelihood of the U.S. implementing new binding carbon restrictions anytime soon. So conservative enviro-sceptics are naturally delighted, right? Well, yes, but since China also reportedly “snubbed” and “disdained” “the world’s most powerful heads of state” from the West, there is of course also ample reason to criticize Obama for the lack of progress!!
MARCU$
JeninCT // Dec 24, 2009 at 8:36 am
We’d have the same outcome if human rights were on the table rather than climate change. Chinese officials are laughing at Obama, you can be sure.
sinz54 // Dec 24, 2009 at 9:09 am
balconesfault: China has in the last few years started sprinting towards energy efficiency
Sprinting???
Right now, at this moment, China, not the U.S., is now the world’s biggest producer of greenhouse gases on this planet. And as their population increases and their economy expands, they’re going to remain the biggest producer of greenhouse gases. A lot of that “energy efficiency” technology you mentioned is likely to be for export.
For the Western Left, this is a new problem for them: They’ve got to start criticizing and lobbying a NON-WESTERN nation for a change.
franco 2 // Dec 24, 2009 at 9:10 am
mlindroo,
Good points. Frum though is also employing the “we need to go along with them now because the alternative is worse” thing that he keeps on doing.
“Complying with carbon restrictions will be costly, and those countries that impose such restrictions on their industries or farmers will wonder why non-compliers should gain a competitive advantage in this way. Environmental disagreement could thus lead to trade conflict.”
He is a defeatist of the highest magnitude.
balconesfault // Dec 24, 2009 at 9:11 am
Chinese officials are laughing at Obama, you can be sure.
In 2002, China held 118 billion in US treasury securities.
At the beginning of 2009, that was up 763 billion
They’re not just laughing at Obama. They’re laughing at America. And since they have largely financed our GWOT, they get to.
franco 2 // Dec 24, 2009 at 9:22 am
Caption to pic
Obama:” Were gonna pay you guys back , don’t worry. See, we have this lockbox… “
wrs10 // Dec 24, 2009 at 9:55 am
This guy is good:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI&feature=player_embedded
Although global warmers will prefer this:-
http://thehui.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/global-warming.jpg
LOL!
teabag // Dec 24, 2009 at 10:24 am
The fact is that we (Bush) put us in this weak position. By running 2 wars on the China credit card and ballooning their holding of US debt by 650% .
We are now in a position of being a beggar nation. Hoping to pick up the scraps. Well done Republicans, you suck at government.
Happy Christmas
franco 2 // Dec 26, 2009 at 11:17 am
teabag,
Good spin, if your audience is full of morons. Obama quadrupled the debt that Bush started and wants everyone to believe “Bush did it”. Even YOU don’t believe your own spin.
balconesfault // Dec 26, 2009 at 11:47 pm
Obama quadrupled the debt that Bush started and wants everyone to believe “Bush did it”.
WTF?
The national debt under Bush grew 4.9 trillion dollars. When he left office that national debt was 10.6 trillion.
When you say Obama quadrupled that … does that mean you think the debt currently is 19.6 trillion, or 42.4 trillion?
I’m trying to figure out just how economically illiterate you are.
CO Independent // Dec 27, 2009 at 5:40 pm
Thank God for the Chinese. They saved us from ourselves once again. Without their intransigence Obama probably would have signed onto a deal that would destroy the remains of our already shattered industrial economy. The irony of a nominally communist nation swooping in to save Americans from the folly of our globalist/socialist leaders is palpable.
I like the Chinese more and more every day. They are unashamed in their pursuit of industrialization to achieve higher living standards for their people, just as they should be. In the meantime, we in America elect a neo-Marxist for President and a bunch of corrupt socialists in Congress. Anyone care to wager which nation is going to come out on top?
blowtorch_bob // Dec 28, 2009 at 9:00 pm
Global warming is a hoax. Don’t blame the Chinese for not going along with this bag of tricks.