The US and China Joined Forces Against Europe
By Gerald Traufetter
Last year's climate summit in Copenhagen
was a political disaster. Leaked US diplomatic cables now show why the
summit failed so spectacularly. The dispatches reveal that the US and
China, the world's top two polluters, joined forces to stymie every
attempt by European nations to reach agreement.
In May 2009 the Chinese leaders received a very welcome guest. John
Kerry, the powerful chairman of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee,
met with Deputy Prime Minister Li Keqiang in Beijing. Kerry told his
hosts that Washington could understand "China's resistance to accepting
mandatory targets at the United Nations Climate Conference, which will
take place in Copenhagen."
According to a cable from the US embassy in the Chinese capital, Kerry
outlined "a new basis for 'major cooperation' between the United States
and China on climate change."
At that time, many Europeans were hoping the delegates at the
Copenhagen summit would agree climate-change measures that could save
the planet from the cumulative effects of global warming. But that dream
died pitifully in mid-December 2009, and the world leaders went their
separate ways again without any concrete achievements. Confidential US
diplomatic cables published by WikiLeaks now show just how closely the
world's biggest polluters -- the United States and China -- colluded in
the months leading up to the conference. And they give weight to those
who have long suspected that the two countries secretly formed an
alliance.
The cooperation began under the last US president, George W. Bush. In
2007 Bush's senior climate negotiator, Harlan Watson, organized a
10-year framework agreement with China on cooperation on energy and the
environment. The two countries also agreed to hold a "Strategic and
Economic Dialogue" -- backroom talks that neither the Americans nor the
Chinese were willing to admit to at first.
China
and the
US
Continue Polluting
Bush's successor, President Barack Obama, and the new Secretary of
State, Hilary Clinton, continued this dialogue. During Clinton's
inaugural visit to China, Beijing agreed to the formation of a "new
partnership on energy and climate change," according to a US embassy
dispatch dated May 15, 2009. Here too the aim was to ensure the outcome
of the climate talks in Copenhagen would be favorable to Washington and
Beijing.
But was it really favorable for the two countries? Both had
previously managed to avoid committing to serious reductions in
greenhouse-gas emissions. The Kyoto Protocol, signed at the climate
summit that preceded Copenhagen in 1997, distinguished between
industrialized nations, which were to reduce their emissions, and
developing countries -- including economic powerhouse China -- which
could basically continue releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere
without restrictions. "Joint, but differentiated responsibility," was
the principle upon which the Kyoto Protocol was based.
Although the US signed the protocol, it never ratified it. As such,
the Chinese and the Americans can continue polluting at will. Meanwhile
European nations will have to cut their energy consumption. They,
therefore, fought for a new agreement in Copenhagen, one that would tie
the United States, China and newly-industrialized nations India and
Brazil to specific emission-reduction targets.
'Working Hard at Cutting Emissions'
During his visit to China, Senator Kerry, a former presidential
candidate for the Democrats, told the Beijing leadership that the
Europeans were determined to push through their goal for agreement on
concrete cuts in emissions for the US and other industrialized
countries. However, nothing would change for China. Together with the
other "developing countries" the Chinese would merely have to say they
would "work hard to reduce emissions."
A "scenesetter" drawn up for Kerry by American embassy officials
estimated China would invest "$175 billion in environmental protection
in the next five years" and that US companies were well positioned to
benefit handsomely from this investment. "Westinghouse, for example,
estimates that several thousand US-based jobs are retained every time
China orders another nuclear reactor from them," the paper claimed.
A note from the US ambassador in Canberra, Australia, showed that the
Europeans were well aware of the close relationship between China and
the United States.
The memo summarizes a conversation between an embassy employee and an
Australian climate negotiator, who reported on a preparatory meeting
for the G-8 summit in L'Aquila, Italy. He said the other delegations
"including the EU" had noticed the "visibly more comfortable"
interaction between the US and China. The Australian said the Europeans'
observations led them to doubt whether they could get their
climate-change measures approved.
The Germans Complained
In September 2009 the US State Department ordered its European
embassies to launch a kind of PR campaign. This was to be targeted
primarily at governments, but also to "the press, NGOs … and other
opinion leaders." The diplomats were to explain that "Obama is taking
the United States in a new direction in the fight against climate
change" and that he wanted a decisive 17-percent cut in greenhouse
gases.
However, the Europeans suspected that Washington was playing with
numbers by using the year 2005 as their baseline rather than 1990, which
European figures were based on. Nevertheless embassy staff tried to
convince the skeptical Europeans that the US government's targets "are
consistent with keeping the increase in global temperature to 2 degrees
Celsius."
When the leaders and representatives of 192 countries gathered in
Copenhagen last December, everyone was talking about an agreement.
However, at the decisive moment Europe's politicians were forced to
stand by helplessly while China, India, South Africa and Brazil met in a
hotel room and took matters into their own hands. They took the draft
Copenhagen agreement and struck off all binding obligations. Later on
the plotters were joined by Barack Obama. The outcome of this
paring-down is now known as the "Copenhagen Accord." In international
negotiations, this vague draft resolution now stands alongside the
specific plan demanded by the Europeans.
A month after the Copenhagen debacle, German negotiators complained
bitterly to the Americans. They said the "Europeans were unhappy that
they had not been included in important negotiations between the US and
China."
US Dangled Carrot in Front of Developing Nations
In contrast to the apathy that befell the Europeans after the summit, US
climate negotiator, Jonathan Pershing, went to great lengths to shore
up his country's advantage. He and his emissaries offered carrots in the
form of development aid to poorer nations in particular to get them to
agree to the "Copenhagen Accord."
For example, Pershing more-or-less forced an ambassador from the
Maldives to take millions of dollars in assistance. He said the
ambassador should simply state exactly how much his Indian Ocean
archipelago needed. This, Pershing claimed, would increase "the
likelihood" that Congress would quickly approve the funds. "Other
nations would then come to realize that there are advantages to be
gained by compliance," a US memo noted.
To help convey the message to developing nations, the Maldivian
ambassador suggested President Obama come to the islands to give a
speech on the issue. After all, the ambassador reasoned, the Maldives
would form "a dramatic backdrop" against which to talk about
environmental challenges.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,733630,00.html#ref=nlint