英國衛報 Mark Lynas / 2009年12月30日
How do I know China wrecked the Copenhagen deal? I was in the room
英國衛報 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.
中國的策略很簡單：阻礙公開談判兩周，並且保證使關門協議看起來像是西方國家對窮國的背叛。可以十分肯定的是，救援機構，公民社會運動以及環境組織全都上了中國的當。Christian Aid說道：談判的失敗是"西方國家拒絕合理公平地承擔責任的必然後果"。"富國威脅了發展中國家" - 憤怒的Friends of the Earth International這樣說道。
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".
一切不出意料，但卻完全與事實相悖。Even George Monbiot在昨天的衛報上錯誤指責奧巴馬一個人。但是我看到的確是奧巴馬在為挽救協議的簽署全力以赴，而中國的代表確一而再再而三的將其否決。 Monbiot甚至頗為讚賞的引用了蘇丹代表Lumumba Di-Aping的話：哥本哈根協議是"一個自殺性，毀滅性的協議，其目的是為了保證少數國家的經濟主導地位"
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".
我在會議中所看到的非常令人震驚。中國總 理 溫 家寶，本人並沒有出席會議，而是派出了外交部的一個二級官員與奧巴馬面向而座。這個行為的暗示很明顯並且粗魯。以至於在會議進行中這些世界上最強大的國家的首腦甚至要等待中國代表離席以便給打電話向"上級"請示。
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.
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.
更重要的是，奧巴馬迫切需要向參議院證明他能夠將中國圈在任何一個氣候框架之內以便使保守的參議員們相信美國的減排不會促進中國的工業增長。奧巴馬和他的助手們意識到了中期選舉的不樂觀，他們也知道哥本哈根是使他們自己能夠打出強有力的氣候牌的唯一一次機會。中國在這一點上再一次佔到了優勢，因為中國的領導人完全不會受到來自國內的政治壓力。輿論群體永遠不會指責發展中國家的失敗 - 這是一條鐵打不動的定律。而中國已經超過印度，成為了最會利用這種公平言論（對於大氣層的平等權利）毀滅地球的能手，這使左翼社會活動家和評論員搬起石頭砸到了自己的腳。
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.
作為談判的最後一擊，中國代表堅持取消可能在海平面上升中喪失其國土的島國以及低地國家強烈要求的1.5攝氏度目標。馬爾地夫總統Nasheed 在布朗的支持下，為這個目標與中國代表展開了強烈的爭執，他質問道："你們怎麼能夠要求一個國家走向滅亡呢？" 中國代表假裝受到了很大的冒犯。這個數字被保住了，但是條款文本中的文字遊戲確使它失去了實質性的意義。談判就此結束。
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.