Denmark's anticipatory sale of Tibet bears no fruit

Did you know that Denmark sold Tibet's historical status as a sovereign state and the Tibetan people's right to struggle for freedom from Chinese rule at the beginning of the COP 15 meetings (on December 9) to appease China, in the hopes that China will behave like a responsible superpower? [Denmark is not the only country that has sold Tibet. Last year England issued a similar statement.] So what did China do during the COP 15 negotiations? An insider at a crucial meeting of two dozen heads of states, Mr. Mark Lynas, blames China for the failure of the COP 15 summit. I was most startled to read 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."

While I don't believe in everything noted by Mr. Mark Lynas, his conclusion about China's game plan makes sense: "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'."

I have been to several international environmental conferences, including IUCN 2000, IUCN 2004 and WSSD 2002, and I have seen with my own eyes how these negotiations work, especially at the UN level. You get to see basic world politics in operation. World politics, by the way, are different from international politics, which again are different from global politics. By basic world politics in action, I mean that states quickly get grouped into the politics of "developed countries" versus "developing countries." Issues of global politics, such as human rights, poverty reduction, environmental protection and women's empowerment will get hijacked under international (between key states) and world (developed vs. developing states) politics.

What is interesting is the level of world politics that operates at these conferences: it's so basic! The developed versus developing countries politics is so 80's and it still dominates these meetings. While I definitely came across undercurrents of deeper layers of world politics, such as the aspirations of the 53-member African states and the Muslim bloc, these don't come up in an articulate and forceful way. These, somehow, get subsumed under the larger 'developing versus developed countries' politics. The African and Muslim blocks, for example, are generally happy to vote "No" to anything that the developed countries, usually headed by the U.S., put forward. And China is really good at taking advantage of this situation.

What is even more interesting is how the vastly different developing countries, from major powers like India and Brazil to climate-vulnerable states like Maldives and Bangladesh, allow China, which is so much more powerful and has completely different sets of interests, take the lead in these negotiations. Amazing, really. Will China advocate for the interest of countries like Maldives? Read an observation by Mr. Lynas:

"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."

So there, Denmark sacrificed Tibet on the altar of a global environmental issue, but to no avail. With the lessons learned, does Denmark have the integrity to acknowledge its mistakes and retract the statement?