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 president-elect Donald Trump continues to make nominations for his Cabinet and US agencies, with most of his picks being staunchly against Beijing. For US ambassador to China, Trump has tapped former US senator David Perdue. This appointment makes it crystal clear that Trump has no intention of letting China continue to steal from the US while infiltrating it in a surreptitious quasi-war, harming world peace and stability. Originally earning a name for himself in the business world, Perdue made his start with Chinese supply chains as a manager for several US firms. He later served as the CEO of Reebok and
US$18.278 billion is a simple dollar figure; one that’s illustrative of the first Trump administration’s defense commitment to Taiwan. But what does Donald Trump care for money? During President Trump’s first term, the US defense department approved gross sales of “defense articles and services” to Taiwan of over US$18 billion. In September, the US-Taiwan Business Council compared Trump’s figure to the other four presidential administrations since 1993: President Clinton approved a total of US$8.702 billion from 1993 through 2000. President George W. Bush approved US$15.614 billion in eight years. This total would have been significantly greater had Taiwan’s Kuomintang-controlled Legislative Yuan been cooperative. During
US president-elect Donald Trump in an interview with NBC News on Monday said he would “never say” if the US is committed to defending Taiwan against China. Trump said he would “prefer” that China does not attempt to invade Taiwan, and that he has a “very good relationship” with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). Before committing US troops to defending Taiwan he would “have to negotiate things,” he said. This is a departure from the stance of incumbent US President Joe Biden, who on several occasions expressed resolutely that he would commit US troops in the event of a conflict in
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in recent days was the focus of the media due to his role in arranging a Chinese “student” group to visit Taiwan. While his team defends the visit as friendly, civilized and apolitical, the general impression is that it was a political stunt orchestrated as part of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) propaganda, as its members were mainly young communists or university graduates who speak of a future of a unified country. While Ma lived in Taiwan almost his entire life — except during his early childhood in Hong Kong and student years in the US —
RSS