No Deal in Copenhagen?

The negotiations have hit a snag. A key player won’t get on board. It’s going to end in failure. Health-care reform? Perhaps. But that’s the scenario being played out in Copenhagen, where lo and behold the Chinese are refusing to go along with efforts to hamstring their economy:

With just two days remaining in historic and contentious climate talks here, China signaled overnight that it sees virtually no possibility that the nearly 200 nations gathered would find agreement by Friday. A participant in the talks said that China would agree only to a brief political declaration that left unresolved virtually all the major issues.

Hillary Clinton cheerfully offered up the U.S. taxpayers’ money and unspecified private financing for a $100B fund to “help poor and vulnerable nations adapt to climate change and build more energy efficient economies,” but only if there’s a deal. She solemnly announced that “we actually think $100 billion is appropriate, usable and will be effective.” (I rather doubt that the taxpayers agree, and some might even think that such private financing might be put to better use to restart the U.S. economy.) Nevertheless, the Chinese seem impervious to our charms and the pleas of the developing countries. The latter are upset, you see, about “the economic and environmental tyranny of the industrial world”:

“The rich are destroying the planet,” said Hugo Chávez, the socialist president of Venezuela, on Wednesday. “Perhaps they think they’re going off to another one after they’ve destroyed this one.” On Monday, African nations briefly brought the climate talks to a standstill. China, by far the largest economic power in the group, has dragged its feet throughout the week by raising one technical objection after another to the basic negotiating text. And on Wednesday night, the group refused to take part in negotiations that conference organizers had hoped would produce a definitive negotiating text by Thursday morning. Instead, many Group of 77 leaders spent the day hurling accusations at wealthier countries.

But we want to give them a hundred billion dollars — isn’t that enough to buy some goodwill? Well, no. It’s shocking, I know, but just as they misread the IOC, the Obami didn’t appreciate “the depth of anger in the developing world and the height of grandstanding that would consume so much of the conference’s time.” They didn’t foresee the beg-and-bribe-athon, the spread-the-wealth frenzy, and the battle-to-hobble the West, nor it seems did they anticipate China’s refusal to offer up its own people’s economic opportunities for the sake of appeasing the likes of Hugo Chavez.

0
Shares
Google+ Print

No Deal in Copenhagen?

Must-Reads from Magazine

Unmasking Is Not a Distraction

Democrats will regret treating this as a partisan issue.

Whenever a former Obama administration official’s name comes up in the process of investigating the Trump campaign’s alleged links to Russian sources, Democrats take the position that the right’s penchant for “whataboutism” neutralizes the implication of wrongdoing. The Democratic objective is to shame those who are committed to crafting a full and unbiased portrait of the events of 2016 into ignoring inconvenient facts, but the Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee remains unintimidated.

3
Shares
Google+ Print

Will Mattis Betray the Gulf Allies?

Has Mattis gone rogue?

At the core of the Qatar dispute is the question of Qatar’s support for extremism. While many Gulf states have histories of donating to or promoting radical Islamism, many have made real reforms. Saudi Arabia, for example, became much more serious about the need to curtail support for radical groups after the Kingdom started suffering blowback with terrorists targeting foreigners living in Saudi Arabia and senior Saudi officials. Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, meanwhile, has cracked down not only on the Muslim Brotherhood but has also moved to sever the life-line Egypt often provided Hamas leaders in Gaza. Qatar, however, continues to set itself above the rest in its support for Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.

4
Shares
Google+ Print

Partisanship Masquerading as Wisdom

Anger over health care clouds the left's judgment.

Nate Silver spoke for most of the liberal blogosphere when he objected to the mainstream media’s coverage of Senator John McCain’s speech on the Senate floor on Tuesday.

27
Shares
Google+ Print

A Familiar Paranoia

Donald Trump sees disloyalty even in his closest supporters.

In a performance that would have shocked sensibilities if they weren’t already flogged to the point of numbness, President Trump delivered a nostalgic, campaign-style stem-winder on Monday to a troop of boy scouts. The commander-in-chief meandered between crippling self-pity and gauche triumphalism; he moaned about his treatment by the “fake media,” praised himself for the scale of his Electoral College victory, and pondered aloud whether to dub the nation’s capital a “cesspool” or a “sewer.” Most illuminating in this manic display was an exposition on the virtues of fealty. “We could use some more loyalty; I will tell you that,” the president mused. These days, Trump seems fixated on treachery—among Republicans in Congress, among his Cabinet officials, and among his subordinates in the administration. His obsession may yet prove his undoing.

9
Shares
Google+ Print

Salaita, Out

Sympathy deferred.

I have written before about Steven Salaita. Once a tenured professor of English at Virginia Tech, he resigned from that position on the strength of an offer from the University of Illinois-Urbana Champaign to serve in the American Indian Studies program. But in the summer of 2014, UIUC rescinded the offer, mainly over of a series of reprehensible Salaita tweets.

4
Shares
Google+ Print