Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: le responsabilita' della Cina nel fallimento di Copenhagen

assordante silenzio dei rossobruni
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/22/copenhagen-climate-change-mark-lynas
Mark Lynas
Copenhagen was a disaster. That much is agreed. But the truth about what 
actually happened is in danger of being lost amid the spin and 
inevitable mutual recriminations. The truth is this: China wrecked the 
talks, intentionally humiliated Barack Obama, and insisted on an awful 
"deal" so western leaders would walk away carrying the blame. How do I 
know this? Because I was in the room and saw it happen.
China's strategy was simple: block the open negotiations for two weeks, 
and then ensure that the closed-door deal made it look as if the west 
had failed the world's poor once again. And sure enough, the aid 
agencies, civil society movements and environmental groups all took the 
bait. The failure was "the inevitable result of rich countries refusing 
adequately and fairly to shoulder their overwhelming responsibility", 
said Christian Aid. "Rich countries have bullied developing nations," 
fumed Friends of the Earth International.
All very predictable, but the complete opposite of the truth. Even 
George Monbiot, writing in yesterday's Guardian, made the mistake of 
singly blaming Obama. But I saw Obama fighting desperately to salvage a 
deal, and the Chinese delegate saying "no", over and over again. Monbiot 
even approvingly quoted the Sudanese delegate Lumumba Di-Aping, who 
denounced the Copenhagen accord as "a suicide pact, an incineration 
pact, in order to maintain the economic dominance of a few countries".
Sudan behaves at the talks as a puppet of China; one of a number of 
countries that relieves the Chinese delegation of having to fight its 
battles in open sessions. It was a perfect stitch-up. China gutted the 
deal behind the scenes, and then left its proxies to savage it in public.
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".
Shifting the blame
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.
China, backed at times by India, then proceeded to take out all the 
numbers that mattered. A 2020 peaking year in global emissions, 
essential to restrain temperatures to 2C, was removed and replaced by 
woolly language suggesting that emissions should peak "as soon as 
possible". The long-term target, of global 50% cuts by 2050, was also 
excised. No one else, perhaps with the exceptions of India and Saudi 
Arabia, wanted this to happen. I am certain that had the Chinese not 
been in the room, we would have left Copenhagen with a deal that had 
environmentalists popping champagne corks popping in every corner of the 
world.
Strong position
So how did China manage to pull off this coup? First, it was in an 
extremely strong negotiating position. China didn't need a deal. As one 
developing country foreign minister said to me: "The Athenians had 
nothing to offer to the Spartans." On the other hand, western leaders in 
particular – but also presidents Lula of Brazil, Zuma of South Africa, 
Calderón of Mexico and many others – were desperate for a positive 
outcome. Obama needed a strong deal perhaps more than anyone. The US had 
confirmed the offer of $100bn to developing countries for adaptation, 
put serious cuts on the table for the first time (17% below 2005 levels 
by 2020), and was obviously prepared to up its offer.
Above all, Obama needed to be able to demonstrate to the Senate that he 
could deliver China in any global climate regulation framework, so 
conservative senators could not argue that US carbon cuts would further 
advantage Chinese industry. With midterm elections looming, Obama and 
his staff also knew that Copenhagen would be probably their only 
opportunity to go to climate change talks with a strong mandate. This 
further strengthened China's negotiating hand, as did the complete lack 
of civil society political pressure on either China or India. Campaign 
groups never blame developing countries for failure; this is an iron 
rule that is never broken. The Indians, in particular, have become past 
masters at co-opting the language of equity ("equal rights to the 
atmosphere") in the service of planetary suicide – and leftish 
campaigners and commentators are hoist with their own petard.
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.
China's game
All this raises the question: what is China's game? Why did China, in 
the words of a UK-based analyst who also spent hours in heads of state 
meetings, "not only reject targets for itself, but also refuse to allow 
any other country to take on binding targets?" The analyst, who has 
attended climate conferences for more than 15 years, concludes that 
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".
This does not mean China is not serious about global warming. It is 
strong in both the wind and solar industries. But China's growth, and 
growing global political and economic dominance, is based largely on 
cheap coal. China knows it is becoming an uncontested superpower; indeed 
its newfound muscular confidence was on striking display in Copenhagen. 
Its coal-based economy doubles every decade, and its power increases 
commensurately. Its leadership will not alter this magic formula unless 
they absolutely have to.
Copenhagen was much worse than just another bad deal, because it 
illustrated a profound shift in global geopolitics. This is fast 
becoming China's century, yet its leadership has displayed that 
multilateral environmental governance is not only not a priority, but is 
viewed as a hindrance to the new superpower's freedom of action. I left 
Copenhagen more despondent than I have felt in a long time. After all 
the hope and all the hype, the mobilisation of thousands, a wave of 
optimism crashed against the rock of global power politics, fell back, 
and drained away.

 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/22
i compagni del Guardian si impiccherebbero piuttosto che ricordare chi
è che si fece eleggere promettendo mari e monti in tema ambientale, e
poi non è capace neanche di firmare una cagata come Kyoto. Cosa che
potrebbe fare a prescindere da Copenhagen, ma non ha ancora fatto, e
non farà mai.

 ha scritto nel messaggio 
news:b23aeb9d-5f9c-4cd8...@e37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...

forse sarebbe più facile guardare in faccia alla realtà...la Cina vi ha 
'traditi'... :-)