191 China launches world's fastest train - yet counted as a Developing Nation at Copenhagen

(1) China launches world's fastest train - yet counted as a Developing Nation at Copenhagen
(2) China launches world's fastest rail link
(3) Wuhan-Guangzhou high speed railway to open  
(4) Kyoto Protocol: "Common but differentiated responsibility" means the West pays for Historic Injustice
(5) "Common But Differentiated Responsibilities" - means "the West pays"
(6) UN Earth Summit, Rio de Janeiro 1992 - Annex I & II countries
(7) Lima Declaration 1975: tariff reductions to industrialize 3rd World (de-industrialize West)
(8) Danish Draft vs Kyoto Protocol - a Marxist perspective on Copenhagen 2009
(9) Danish text divides; China, India, Sudan, Venezuela block "One World" agenda

(1) China launches world's fastest train - yet counted as a Developing Nation at Copenhagen

Peter Myers, December 28, 2009

Developed nations are counted as Annex 1 nations, in UN documents of the Rio Earth Summit and the Kyoto Protocol. Japan is the only non-Western Annex1 nation listed.

Annex2 nations are those developed nations who have to PAY for the environmental costs of the Developing nations.

This obliges us even though we "Developed" nations are in serious debt to such Developing nations, having moved our manufacturing industries there, as per the UN-sponsored Lima Declaration of 1975.

China's launching of the fastest train in the world, on top of its manned space launches, shows that the UN's division of countries into two categories, Developed and Developing, with China in the latter, is ludicrous.

The Rio Summit & the Kyoto Protocol even bind Western Countries heavily indebted to China, to PAY for China's voluntary efforts under Kyoto (only Annex 1 & 2 countries are BOUND).

Reclassification of countries from Developing to Developed is VOLUNTARY.

This was the chief sticking point at Copenhagen. Western countries tried to get around it by issuing the "Danish text" (Danish draft). China rallied the "Developing" countries against it, accusing the West of trying to void the Kyoto Protocol.

The Rio Earth Summit & Kyoto Protocol say that Developed countries must PAY not only their own environomental costs, but those of Developing countries, as reparation for the Historic Injustice of the last 200 years (associated with Western colonialism).

A counter-argument to that is that there's been a huge Technology Transfer from Western/Developed countries to Developing countries, which cancels any such reparations, if indeed such a claim was valid.

The UN's Lima Declaration of 1975 sets out a program of the dropping of import tariffs, to transfer Industry from the West to the Third World. The document has a Marxist tone.

Now, 34 years later, it's clear that the major benificiaries of that policy have been Confucian countries (China, Singapore, Hong Kong), which have displaced the West as colonizers.. They are now major financial centres, lenders to the West, and colonizers of Africa and other Third World zones.

The Marxists at the UN cannot wrap their minds around such realities, so fixed is their focus on Western Imperialism.

The 1975 Lima Declaration, formally called Declaration and Plan of Action on Industrial Development and Cooperation, was adopted on 27 March 1975 in Lima by the Second General Conference of UNIDO, by 82 votes in favour, 1 against (United States), and 7 abstentions (Belgium, Canada, West Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, UK.).

Israel's abstention shows that Zionist Jews had split from Marxist Jews by that time.

Reference:
Encyclopedia of the United Nations and International Agreements: vol 2, G to M, By Edmund Jan Osmanczyk, Anthony Mango, 2003/4

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=QqlFx7xHiSUC&pg=PA1325&lpg=PA1325&dq=%22Declaration+and+Plan+of+Action+on+Industrial+Development+and+Cooperation%22+1975+in+Lima+%22Second+General+Conference+of+UNIDO%22&source=bl&ots=vGxMOxYvFp&sig=vclip4ewgFQ3VwdcBnSDBKCfJO8&hl=en&ei=vpA4S-LxEo3Y7AOOkNgo&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAcQ6AEwAA

These same Marxists hoped to get the world to sign up to World Government at Copenhagen ... in the fine print.

Subsequent bulletins will make that case.

China was the one country smart enough, organized enough, and strong enough, to see the ruse and destroy it.

The message is that the Marxists will never get their World Government after all. Perhaps they'll reconsider their policies which are transferring the Imperial Succession from West to East.

(2) China launches world's fastest rail link

Radio Australia News Sun, 27 Dec 2009 12:45:00 +1100

http://www.radioaustralianews.net.au/stories/200912/2781143.htm?desktop

China has inaugurated what it says is the world's fastest rail link, connecting the southern city of Guangzhou and Wuhan in central China.

State media says that after a successful final trial earlier this month, the service has now gone into operation.

At an average speed of 350 kilometres an hour, the train reduces the time for the one-thousand kilometre journey from more than 10 hours to just under three hours.

Over the next three years, China plans to build more than 40 high-speed passenger rail-lines, aiming to get the travel time from Beiing to most provincial cities down to less than eight hours.

(3) Wuhan-Guangzhou high speed railway to open  
www.chinaview.cn   2009-12-25 13:29:13

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-12/25/content_12703772.htm

    BEIJING, Dec. 25 -- The Wuhan-Guangzhou high speed railway will go into operation Saturday with 28 passenger trains carrying an estimated 1,300 people. Travel time between Wuhan, the capital of central China's Hubei province, and Guangzhou, the capital of south China's Guangdong province, will be cut to only three hours.

    The high speed rail link is nearly nine-hundred and 90 kilometers in length and is built to the highest technical standards. The stations along the line have distinct designs representing local styles and are built to be environmental-friendly with easy access for disabled people. Thursday, the first batch of five hundred passengers got to take a test ride.

(4) Kyoto Protocol: "Common but differentiated responsibility" means the West pays for Historic Injustice

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol

Kyoto Protocol

... The Kyoto Protocol is a protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC or FCCC), aimed at combating global warming. ...

The Protocol was initially adopted on 11 December 1997 in Kyoto, Japan and entered into force on 16 February 2005. As of November 2009, 187 states have signed and ratified the protocol.[2]

Under the Protocol, 37 industrialized countries (called "Annex I countries") commit themselves to a reduction of four greenhouse gases (GHG) (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulphur hexafluoride) and two groups of gases (hydrofluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons) produced by them, and all member countries give general commitments. Annex I countries agreed to reduce their collective greenhouse gas emissions by 5.2% from the 1990 level. Emission limits do not include emissions by international aviation and shipping, but are in addition to the industrial gases, chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs, which are dealt with under the 1987 Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. ...

Each Annex I country is required to submit an annual report of inventories of all anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions from sources and removals from sinks under UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol. ...

Common but differentiated responsibility

UNFCCC adopts a principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities." The parties agreed that:

1.the largest share of historical and current global emissions of greenhouse gases originated in developed countries;

2.per capita emissions in developing countries are still relatively low;

3.the share of global emissions originating in developing countries will grow to meet social and development needs.[11]

China, India and other developing countries were not included in any numerical limitation of the Kyoto Protocol, because they were not main contributors to the greenhouse gas emissions in the pre-treaty industrialization period. China has since become the largest greenhouse gas emitter.[12] However, even without responsibility under the Kyoto target, developing countries are also committed to share the common responsibility of all countries to reduce emissions.

The protocol defines a mechanism of "compliance" as a "monitoring compliance with the commitments and penalties for non-compliance."[13] ...

This page was last modified on 23 December 2009 at 00:28.

(5) "Common But Differentiated Responsibilities" - means "the West pays"

http://www.cisdl.org/pdf/brief_common.pdf

The Principle of Common But Differentiated Responsibilities: Origins and Scope
For the World Summit on Sustainable Development 2002
Johannesburg, 26 August
I. Definition of the Principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities
The Principle of Common But Differentiated Responsibilities: Origins and Scope
For the World Summit on Sustainable Development 2002
Johannesburg, 26 August
I. Definition of the Principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities
The principle of ‘common but differentiated responsibility’ evolved from the notion of the ‘common heritage of mankind’ and is a manifestation of general principles of equity in international law.

(6) UN Earth Summit, Rio de Janeiro 1992 - Annex I & II countries

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Framework_Convention_on_Climate_Change

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC or FCCC) is an international environmental treaty produced at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), informally known as the Earth Summit, held in Rio de Janeiro from 3 to 14 June 1992.  ...

The treaty itself sets no mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions for individual countries and contains no enforcement mechanisms. In that sense, the treaty is considered legally non-binding. Instead, the treaty provides for updates (called "protocols") that would set mandatory emission limits. The principal update is the Kyoto Protocol, which has become much better known than the UNFCCC itself. ...

The parties to the convention have met annually from 1995 in Conferences of the Parties (COP) to assess progress in dealing with climate change. In 1997, the Kyoto Protocol was concluded and established legally binding obligations for developed countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. ...

Parties to UNFCCC are classified as:

 Annex I countries (industrialized countries and economies in transition)

 Annex II countries (developed countries which pay for costs of developing countries)

 Developing countries.

Annex I countries which have ratified the Protocol have committed to reduce their emission levels of greenhouse gasses to targets that are mainly set below their 1990 levels. ...

Annex II countries are a sub-group of the Annex I countries. They comprise the OECD members, excluding those that were economies in transition in 1992.

Developing countries are not required to reduce emission levels unless developed countries supply enough funding and technology. Setting no immediate restrictions under UNFCCC serves three purposes:

 it avoids restrictions on their development, because emissions are strongly linked to industrial capacity

 they can sell emissions credits to nations whose operators have difficulty meeting their emissions targets

 they get money and technologies for low-carbon investments from Annex II countries.

Developing countries may volunteer to become Annex I countries when they are sufficiently developed.

Some opponents of the Convention argue that the split between Annex I and developing countries is unfair, and that both developing countries and developed countries need to reduce their emissions unilaterally. ...

[edit]Annex I countries

Annex I countries (industrialized countries): Australia, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States of America

(40 countries and separately the European Union)

[edit]Annex II countries

Annex II countries (developed countries which pay for costs of developing countries)
Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States of America

(23 countries and separately the European Union; Turkey was removed from the annex II list in 2001 at its request to recognize its economy as a transition economy.) ...

This page was last modified on 24 December 2009 at 19:26

(7) Lima Declaration 1975: tariff reductions to industrialize 3rd World (de-industrialize West)

Full text is at http://www.netbay.com.au/~noelozzy/hansard/limafull.htm

United Nations Industrial Development Organisation

Second General Conference
of the
United Nations
Industrial Development Organisation Lima, Peru, 12-26 March 1975

LIMA DECLARATION
AND PLAN OF ACTION
ON
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
AND CO-OPERATION*

*Adopted by the Second General Conference
of UNIDO
at its final plenary meeting

LIMA DECLARATION AND PLAN OF ACTION
ON INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENT AND CO-OPERATION

A. DECLARATION

1 The Second General Conference of the United Nations Industrial Development Organisation, convened by General Assembly resolution 3087 (XXVIII) of 6 December 1973, entrusted with establishing the main principles of industrialisation and defining the means by which the international community as a whole might take action of a broad nature in the field of industrial development within the framework of new forms of international cooperation, with a view to the establishment of new international economic order, adopts

the LIMA DECLARATION ON INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND CO-OPERATION

2 Having examined the situation with respect to industrialisation in the developing countries during the past decade, ...

12 Recognising that the developing countries constitute 70 per cent of the world population and generate less than 7 per cent of industrial production, that the gap between the developed and developing countries has been widened owing, inter alia, to the persistence of obstacles in the way of the establishment of a new international economic order based on equity and justice,

13 Taking into account the fact that industrial progress has not displayed significant advances in the developing countries as a whole, in spite of serious efforts on their part, and that in many cases, the dependence of their economics on the export of primary goods and the measures taken in the majority of the developed countries have not made it possible to achieve a profound dynamic effect which would be capable of transforming internal socio-economic structures and laying the basis for real development,

14 Bearing in mind that any real process of industrialisation worthy of the name must conform to the broad objectives of self-sustaining and integrated socio-economic development and that all countries have the sovereign right to make the necessary changes to ensure the just and effective participation of their peoples in industry and share in the benefits deriving therefrom, ...

20 Convinced that the establishment of a new and just international economic order based on the common interests and co-operation of all States can only be achieved through the equitable participation of the developing countries in the production and exchange of goods and services, in order to achieve just and equitable international economic relations,

21 Persuaded that, since not all developing countries have socio-economic structures which permit them, through industrialisation, to attain the objectives pursued by the establishment of a new international economic order, it is essential to adopt more favourable treatment for the least developed, landlocked and island developing countries to render possible harmonious and balanced development,

22 Having decided to adopt a common position and line of action,

SOLEMNLY DECLARE

23 Their firm conviction of the role of industry as a dynamic instrument of growth essential to the rapid economic and social development of the developing countries, in particular of the least developed countries;
...

28 That, in view of the low percentage share of the developing countries in total world industrial production, recalling General Assembly resolution 3306 (XXIX), of 14 December 1974, and taking into account the policy guide-lines and qualitative recommendations made in the present Declaration, their share should be increased to the maximum possible extent and as far as possible to at least 25 per cent of total world industrial production by the year 2000, while making every endeavour to ensure that the industrial growth so achieved is distributed among developing countries as evenly as possible. ...

36 That developing countries with sufficient means at their disposal should give careful consideration to the possibility of ensuring a net transfer for financial and technical resources to the least developed countries; ...

47 That it is urgently necessary that the developing countries change their traditional method of negotiation with the developed countries. To bring this about they must undertake joint action in order to strengthen their negotiating position vis-a-vis the developed countries. For this purpose, the developing countries must consider all possible means of strengthening the action of producers associations already established, encourage the creation of other associations for the principal commodities exported by them, and establish a mechanism for consultation and co-operation among the various producers' associations for the purpose of the co-ordination of their activities and for their mutual support, in particular as a precaution against any economic or other form of aggression;

48 That developing countries should use effective means of strengthening their bargaining power individually and collectively to obtain favourable terms for the acquisition of technology, expertise, licences and equipment, fair and remunerative prices for their primary commodities and improved and substantially liberalised access to the developed countries for their manufactures;

49 That developing countries should place a premium on self-reliance in their development effort for the realisation of their full potential in terms of both human and natural resources and, to that end, adopt meaningful and concerted policies and pursue action directed towards greater technical and economic cooperating among themselves;

50 That developing countries should lend support to the concept of an integrated and multisectoral approach to industrial development whereby the technological and the socio-economic implications of the process are fully taken into account at both the planning and implementation stages;

51 That, in view of the basic complementarity between industry and agriculture, every attempt should be made to promote agro-based or agro-related industries which besides arresting rural exodus and stimulating food-production activities, provide an incentive for the establishment of further natural resource-based industries;

52 That developing countries should devote particular attention to the development of basic industries such as steel, chemicals, petro-chemicals and engineering, thereby consolidating their economic independence while at the same time assuring an effective form of import-substitution and a greater share of world trade; ...

B. PLAN OF ACTION

I. Measures of National Scope

58 In the developing countries, national industrialisation policies should lay emphasis on the following elements:
(a) The formulation of long-term and clearly defined industrialisation plans and strategies ...

59 The developed countries should adopt the following measure:
(a) Progressive elimination or reduction of tariff and non-tariff barriers and other obstacles to trade, taking into account the special characteristics of the trade of the developing countries, with a view to improving the international framework for the conduct of world trade. Adherence to the fullest extent possible to the principle of the "standstill" on imports from developing countries and recognition of the need for prior consultation where feasible and appropriate in the event that special circumstances warrant a modification of the "standstill";
(b) Adoption of trade measures designed to ensure increased exports of manufactured and semi-manufactured products including processed agricultural products from the developing to the developed countries;

{end} more at http://www.netbay.com.au/~noelozzy/hansard/limafull.htm

(8) Danish Draft vs Kyoto Protocol - a Marxist perspective on Copenhagen 2009

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2009/978/envrnmnt.htm

Denying democracy is what ultimately led to the debacle of ineffective action on global climate change, write
Curtis Doebbler and Margreet Wewerinke

What started as a festive effort to do something good for our planet ended in a heap of acrimonious recriminations and a meaningless declaration that does little to slow our planet's journey down a path of mutually assured destruction. How did it all fail?

The setting was ideal. The Danish hosts had planned the event so well as to entice over half the world's leaders to come to the otherwise unceremonious Fifteenth Conference of the Parties (COP15) on the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the simultaneously held Fifth Conference of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol.

The Danish government had also made a significant effort to ensure that civil society groups -- the real proponents of efforts to save our planet -- could also be in Copenhagen despite the prohibitive cost of visiting one of the most expensive cities in the world. The hosts went so far as to provide free accommodation (thousands of Danes hosted visitors in their homes), free local and sometimes international transportation, free Internet access, including computers, and a full schedule of political, social, educational and merely entertaining events.

The Danish also resorted to some less welcoming techniques like giving the police overly broad powers to act in violation of individual human rights, which the police obligingly exercised regularly against demonstrators. As a result, reports of police brutality, arbitrary arrests and detentions, and gratuitous violence, significantly outnumbered reports of climate change activists causing problems.

The Danish also put their own ecological ingenuity to work to ensure offsetting the huge carbon footprint generated by the nearly 40,000 airline passengers, 1500 limousines, and countless tons of waste and pollution that marked the conference.

The stage was set. The setting could hardly have been better equipped. But for all the good intentions and meticulous planning, the hosts and many others had appeared to forget what was at stake.

Problems were apparent early. Indeed, before COP15 opened it was clear to everyone involved in the past two decades of negotiations that only if the will and courage could be mustered to make hard decisions could the goal of protecting our planet from global warming be achieved. At the first plenary meeting of the COP15 the small island state of Papua New Guinea made an impassioned plea from a country threatened with extinction by rising sea waters and that ended in a simple request: let us make decisions by voting instead of waiting for everyone to reach consensus.

The Danish minister of environment and newly elected president of the COP15, Connie Hedegaard, seemed flustered. She seemed unable to deal with this simple request and merely deferred it to an unspecified time. This deferral prevented a shift in power from the politically and economically powerful states to a majority of states that will be harshly hit by climate change impacts and for whom finding real solutions is a matter of survival. Copenhagen could have had a very different outcome had Papua New Guinea's simple request been honoured. ...

As the first of two weeks progressed, and negotiations spread into nights, a clear pattern of entrenched positions emerged. While the majority of the world was focused on finding solutions for climate change in a manner that would prevent its devastating impacts, business-as- usual scenarios were being proposed by the minority of rich states. The conclusion was obvious: the richer and more industrially developed states were more interested in protecting the advantages they had accrued, and trying to shift responsibility for climate change to emerging economies, than actually addressing the environmental risks faced by millions of people around the world.

The political setting for negotiating these differences was as frosty as the freezing, sometimes snowing, weather in Copenhagen. Neither side had been drawn closer to the other by the hosts. In fact, the hosts, a rich developed country, acted in ways that exacerbated disagreements. Within days of the opening of COP15, the political preparation that the Danish had done became apparent. Rather than facilitating consultations with all countries, a text was circulated by the European Union, of which Denmark is a member, which was rumoured to have been drafted by the chair with the help of its European allies and the United States.

Immediately the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), the 50 plus African States Group, and the 130 plus members of the Group of 77 (G77) reacted in surprise and disappointment. For two years they had been working along the lines of the Bali Action Plan that was adopted at COP13 and which called for work to be done on extending the Kyoto Protocol and a separate treaty to be prepared to complement or eventually replace it with more ambitious commitments. The new draft that was attributed to COP15 President Hedegaard, despite her denials, became known as the "Danish Draft". It was an agreement drafted by a few states and that was intended to be adopted by all states, as if it were an ancient monarchical decree that had been ratified with little choice.

The "Danish Draft" infuriated the majority of countries for several reasons. At face value, it was an attempt to kill the Kyoto Protocol and deny the principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities" that is one of the foundational principles of the international climate change framework. It was also the product of a process that was characterised by exclusiveness. Speaking with Terraviva, a group of African journalists, Bolivian Ambassador Angélica Navarro wondered who had decided that 30 handpicked states could decide for all 190 states. "What really drew my attention was the lack of democracy, participation, inclusiveness and transparency in this process, which we are not used to from our European friends, who we want to urge to return to the route of democracy," Navarro reportedly said.

DEFLECTING CRITICISM: Cries of "foul play" from developing countries were answered by British Climate Secretary Ed Miliband with the misleading claim that the talks might stall due to disagreement between developed and developing countries on "procedural issues".

Substantively, the Danish Draft merely re- entrenched what the developed countries had been claiming for years without compromise: there were no binding commitments on developed countries to tackle climate change as the draft suggested that global warming "ought" to be limited to two degrees Celsius. At this level many small island states will entirely disappear under rising seawaters. The Danish Draft also reiterated that developed states were not willing to provided the financing that developing countries need to mitigate the effects of climate change or to adapt to it adverse effects.

The developed countries also claimed that they would only provide de minimus financial contributions to developing countries if developing countries with emerging economies agreed to emission cuts that would be fatal for their own development. And the developed countries, especially the United States, demanded that they be able to closely monitor how their de minimus financial contributions were being spent, and how developing countries were cutting emissions, even though they refused to accept monitoring of their own obligations to provide even the inadequate 10 billion Swiss Francs a year.  ...

The Danish had promoted -- and civil society had responded to -- a global call to take the action necessary to save our planet and deal with climate change. Leaders had more than a mere mandate to arrive at conclusions that "save face". But just as the ultimate decision makers, the heads of states and government were arriving, was when the Danish hosts pulled the rug from under civil society by coordinating the obstruction of their activities with the UNFCCC Secretariat. The lengths to which they went have rarely been witnessed at UN conferences. From 2am to 4am on Wednesday night, security personnel "cleaned" the entire negotiating venue, the Bella Centre, of NGO delegates, threatening them with arrest if they would not leave immediately.

Civil society representatives that were forced to leave included a group of youth representatives from all over the world who intended to stay in the Bella Centre until governments concluded an agreement that was "adequate, effective and legally binding". The group was reading out a list of millions of signatures on a petition asking world leaders to seal a meaningful deal in Copenhagen. In the following days only 300 out of 1,500 NGO representatives were granted access to the Bella Centre, with even a smaller number being able to access the decisive plenary session.

Thus NGOs were kept out of the Bella Centre at crucial times. While NGOs were evicted, urgent consultations took place on the ministerial level between the United States, the European Union, China, India and Brazil. The excuse for limiting NGOs to fewer and fewer participants was that the venue could only hold a limited number of participants, despite the fact that the Bella Centre was almost empty Wednesday night and often looked sparsely inhabited in the final days. ...

Muller referred to the "backroom deals" that were constantly being made as "unwarranted". The executive director of Greenpeace International, Kumi Naidoo, was more direct calling Copenhagen "a climate crime scene" because world leaders who "had a once in a generation chance to change the world for good, to avert catastrophic climate change" confined their efforts to producing "a poor deal full of loopholes big enough to fly Air Force One through." ...

In the end, selfishness and greed triumphed as the legacy of Copenhagen.

Curtis Doebbler is professor of law at An-Najah National University in Nablus, Palestine, and Margreet Wewerinke represents Nord-Sud XXI, an international NGO, at the United Nations

(9) Danish text divides; China, India, Sudan, Venezuela block "One World" agenda

Copenhagen: The last-ditch drama that saved the deal from collapse

In the end it came down to frantic horse trading between exhausted politicians. After two weeks of high politics and low cunning that pitted world leaders against each other and threw up extraordinary new alliances between states, agreement was finally reached yesterday on an accord to tackle global warming. But the bitterness and recriminations that bedevilled the talks threaten to spread as environmental activists and scientists react to what many see as a deeply flawed deal

John Vidal and Jonathan Watts

Sunday 20 December 2009

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/20/copenhagen-climate-global-warming

The Copenhagen accord was gavelled through in the early hours of yesterday morning after a night of extraordinary drama and two weeks of subterfuge. It is a document that will shape the world, the climate and the balance of power for decades to come, but the story of how it came into existence is one of high drama and low politics.

Amid leaks, suspicion, recriminations and exhaustion, the world's leaders abandoned ordinary negotiating protocol to haggle line-for-line with mid-level officials. An emergency meeting of 30 leaders was called after a royal banquet on Thursday evening because of the huge number of disputes still remaining.

China and India were desperate to avoid this last-minute attempt to strong-arm them into a deal. The Indian prime minister Manmohan Singh's plane mysteriously developed a problem that delayed his arrival. Chinese premier Wen Jiabao simply refused to attend, sending his officials instead. In a collapse of protocol, middle-ranking officials from the two countries negotiated line by line on a text with Nicolas Sarkozy of France, Germany's Angela Merkel and US secretary of state Hillary Clinton. Gordon Brown felt the only way to overcome the logjam was for leaders to descend into the detail and take on officials. Yet there was still no agreement by 7am on Friday.

"I thought it was meltdown," said Ed Miliband, Britain's secretary of state for energy and climate change. Brown returned to the fray, cranking out 13 amendments designed to overcome the objections of the developing nations and press home Europe's desire to commit to a 50% reduction in global emissions by 2050 and a determination to make the process legally – not just "politically" – binding on all parties. Both goals were rejected by China and India, which had formed a strong alliance.

During the day, and the flurry of different texts, the leaders battled on, trying to reach an agreement that was not just about saving the Earth from global warming, but would also play an important role in reshaping the global balance of power. Barack Obama, who had flown in on Friday morning on Air Force One, joined the discussions immediately and held two sets of direct talks with Wen, who never once participated in the closed-room group meetings.

Around 8pm, after the second of these bilateral meetings, Obama returned to the negotiating room saying he had secured an agreement from Wen on the key issue of how promises to cut emissions would be verified by the international community. But a new fight then erupted in which China bizarrely insisted that Europe lower its targets for greenhouse gas emissions.

Merkel wanted to set a target for developed nations to cut emissions by 80% by 2050, but in the last gasp, China declared this unacceptable. This astonished many of those present: China was telling rich nations to rein back on their long-term commitment. The assumed reason was that China will have joined their ranks by 2050 and does not want to meet such a target. "Ridiculous," exclaimed Merkel as she was forced to abandon the target.

But it was not to be the final battle in a bruising conflict that left the negotiators drained and the draft diluted. The final text was released shortly before midnight. The final two-and-a-half-page political agreement – the Copenhagen accord – was vaguely worded, short on detail and not legally binding. Although it was hailed as a step forward by Brown and Obama, the weak content and the final huddled process of decision-making – ignoring the majority of the 192 nations present – provoked disappointment and fury.

Part of the frustration was the lack of new ambition. Due to the leaks, hold-ups and suspicion, China barely budged and the EU refused to raise it sights. Before the Copenhagen conference, the EU said it was willing to raise its emissions reduction target from 20% to 30% by 2020 if other countries also lifted theirs. That never happened. European commission president José Manuel Barroso said not one country asked the EU to move up to the higher figure, but counterparts had pulled down EU proposals to set a target for 2050.

"It was extraordinary," he said. "This is important for the record. Other parties do not have the interest and awareness in climate change that we have." Which other party was soon apparent. That night, immediately after the accord was announced and denounced for its weakness, the Observer asked the director general of the Swedish environment protection agency, Lars-Erik Liljelund, who was to blame for blocking a 2050 target for cutting emissions.

"China," he said after a dramatic pause. "China doesn't like numbers."

The drama was not over. Without recognition by the plenary session of all the delegate nations, the agreement was almost worthless. But the anger in the hall meant that approval was far from certain. When the Danish chairman, Lars Løkke Rasmussen, gave delegates just an hour to consider the accord, he was assailed by a storm of criticism.

The Venezuelan representative raised a bloodied hand to grab his attention. "Do I have to bleed to grab your attention," she fumed. "International agreements cannot be imposed by a small exclusive group. You are endorsing a coup d'état against the United Nations."

While the debate raged, China's delegate, Su Wei, was silent as Latin American nations and small island states lined up to attack the accord and the way it had been reached.

"We're offended by the methodology. This has been done in the dark," fumed the Bolivian delegate. "It does not respect two years of work."

Others resorted to histrionics. The document "is a solution based on the same very values, in our opinion, that channelled six million people in Europe into furnaces," said Sudan's Lumumba Stanislaus Di-Aping.

It was too much for Rasmussen, who looked strained and exhausted after a week spent vainly trying to bridge the schisms between the parties. He raised his gavel to close the debate, which would have aborted the Copenhagen accord and condemned the summit to abject failure.

The document was saved at the last second by Miliband, who had rushed back from his hotel room to call for an adjournment. During the recess, a group led by Britain, the US and Australia forced Rasmussen out of the chair and negotiated a last-minute compromise. The accord was neither accepted or rejected, it was merely "noted". This gave it a semblance of recognition, but the weak language reflected the unease that has surrounded its inception. Copenhagen was the leakiest international conference in history. The first leak, on the second day of the conference, came after a mysterious telephone invitation to meet a diplomat in a cubbyhole at the back of one of the delegation offices.

Two sheets of paper were handed over. They were the detailed analysis of the "Danish text", a widely rumoured but never seen document prepared by a few rich countries in secret and almost certainly intended to be sprung on unsuspecting developing countries when there was an impasse at a late stage in the negotiations.

But without the actual text, the document was incomplete and hard to use. The leaker said that other papers would be handed over to the Guardian off the premises the next day, but the call never came. The day was only saved by an another leaker from another country who handed over a copy of the Danish text within 24 hours. The two leaks together exploded into the negotiations, with developing countries convinced of a conspiracy and rich countries furious as their plans were revealed. If adopted, the text would have killed off the Kyoto treaty, which puts legal demands on rich nations, but not developing ones.

As the conference went on, the leaks became more regular, until by the end there was a flood. Three days before the end, a confidential scientific analysis paper emerged from the heart of the UN secretariat, showing that the emission-cut pledges countries had made by that point would lead not to a 2C rise, as countries were aiming for, but a 3C rise that would frazzle half the world. Britain and other rich countries claimed that the figures were wrong, despite other analyses agreeing with them. But developing countries accused the UN of knowingly consigning countries to destruction.

In the last 24 hours, it became negotiation by leak. Secret documents were deliberately left on photocopiers, others were thrust into journalists' hands or put on the web. People were photographing them and handing them around all the time. All eight versions of the final text that world leaders were asked to sign up to were leaked within minutes of being published. The talks repeatedly teetered on the brink of collapse.

As the talks were snared on procedural issues inside the conference hall, civil society was getting angry. As the arrival of the 120 world leaders approached, more and more restrictions were imposed on who was allowed in. The 7,000 colourful and noisy kids, environmentalists, church groups, lobbyists, students, activists and others who had been allowed into the Bella centre every day were first reduced to 1,000 and then to just 90 on the last day.

Mainstream groups such as Friends of the Earth International and Greenpeace were cut down from hundreds of activists to only a few each. Asian and African groups were hit the hardest because entry was in proportion to membership size.

Posters went up – "How can you decide for us without us?" and "Civil society silenced" – and there were demonstrations, but by the end the Bella centre was silenced.

Before the start of the conference, it had been assumed the leaders would only have to settle two or three issues when they arrived at Copenhagen, but by the time they walked in there were still 192 disputed pieces of text in the drafts.

Rather than reopen debate following the frantic final 24 hours of horse trading, the new chair gavelled through the decision in a fraction of a second. Sudan, China and India expressed concerns, but the Copenhagen accord had been born. Though frail and unloved, this document will shape the lives of generations. Though many environmentalists claimed no deal was better than such a weak deal, those most closely involved in the negotiations said it marked progress of a sort.

"It was definitely worth saving," said Miliband. "This is the first time that developed and developing nations have agreed to deal with emissions and the first time the world has agreed on a deal on climate finance."

Money is likely to oil the deal. Only nations that accept the UN document will be entitled to some of the $30bn dollar start-up fund that will be made available over the next three years to tackle deforestation, share technology and deal with the impact of climate change.

UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon said the negotiations that ultimately involved 113 leaders were unprecedented in UN history, but the effort had been worth while.

"Finally we have sealed the deal. Bringing world leaders to the table paid off," said Ban, who had slept only two hours in the previous two days. "It's not what everyone hoped for, but this is a beginning."

The sentiments were echoed by John Hay, spokesman for the United Nations framework convention on climate change: "At the UNFPCCC, there has been quite a bit of drama over the years. But this may top the list."

Outside the conference hall yesterday, more than 100 protesters chanted: "You're destroying our future!" Some carried signs of Obama with the words "climate shame" pasted on his face.

Friends of the Earth said the "secret backroom declaration" failed to take into account the needs of more than a hundred countries". "This toothless declaration, being spun by the US as a historic success, reflects contempt for the multilateral process and we expect more from our Nobel prize-winning president," said the group's spokeswoman, Kate Horner.

Negotiators put on a brave face. In the early hours, as he headed out into the bitterly cold, Brian Cowen, the Irish taoiseach, expressed disappointment at the outcome.

"The substance of the European Union's [offers] was robustly put, but we couldn't get the commitment of others," Cowen said. "We did not achieve everything we wanted, but the reality is that this is as much as can be advanced at this stage."

China seemed more satisfied. "The meeting has had a positive result, everyone should be happy," said Xie Zhenhua, head of the Chinese delegation.