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
US political scientist Francis Fukuyama, during an interview with the UK’s Times Radio, reacted to US President Donald Trump’s overturning of decades of US foreign policy by saying that “the chance for serious instability is very great.” That is something of an understatement. Fukuyama said that Trump’s apparent moves to expand US territory and that he “seems to be actively siding with” authoritarian states is concerning, not just for Europe, but also for Taiwan. He said that “if I were China I would see this as a golden opportunity” to annex Taiwan, and that every European country needs to think
Why is Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) not a “happy camper” these days regarding Taiwan? Taiwanese have not become more “CCP friendly” in response to the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) use of spies and graft by the United Front Work Department, intimidation conducted by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and the Armed Police/Coast Guard, and endless subversive political warfare measures, including cyber-attacks, economic coercion, and diplomatic isolation. The percentage of Taiwanese that prefer the status quo or prefer moving towards independence continues to rise — 76 percent as of December last year. According to National Chengchi University (NCCU) polling, the Taiwanese
Today is Feb. 28, a day that Taiwan associates with two tragic historical memories. The 228 Incident, which started on Feb. 28, 1947, began from protests sparked by a cigarette seizure that took place the day before in front of the Tianma Tea House in Taipei’s Datong District (大同). It turned into a mass movement that spread across Taiwan. Local gentry asked then-governor general Chen Yi (陳儀) to intervene, but he received contradictory orders. In early March, after Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) dispatched troops to Keelung, a nationwide massacre took place and lasted until May 16, during which many important intellectuals
US President Donald Trump’s return to the White House has brought renewed scrutiny to the Taiwan-US semiconductor relationship with his claim that Taiwan “stole” the US chip business and threats of 100 percent tariffs on foreign-made processors. For Taiwanese and industry leaders, understanding those developments in their full context is crucial while maintaining a clear vision of Taiwan’s role in the global technology ecosystem. The assertion that Taiwan “stole” the US’ semiconductor industry fundamentally misunderstands the evolution of global technology manufacturing. Over the past four decades, Taiwan’s semiconductor industry, led by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), has grown through legitimate means
RSS