Copenhagen has been defeated for the second time, and it hasn’t even happened yet

After the recent meeting of G20 finance ministers and last week’s APEC summit in Singapore, where Barack Obama was part of the Asian tour, it is clear that in about 20 days in Copenhagen there will be no solid agreements on greenhouse gas emissions.

Written by: Vanja Figenwald
[email protected]

The second meeting on the other side of the world was no more successful than the brainstorming of finance ministers from the 20 most developed countries a month earlier. In both St. Andrews and Singapore, world leaders seem more ready to draw their guns, but significantly more indecisive when it comes to firing. The awareness of the ecologically unsustainable concept of global development is so high that those who are conscious will soon start to feel pressure in their heads, yet there is no agreement ahead of the climate change conference in Copenhagen.

After the clinical death of the Kyoto Protocol was established, world leaders are feverishly trying to reach a new agreement, this time one that might actually be implemented, but it seems that, having learned from the experience of previous pledges to children and mothers, they are now not willing to concede so easily. At the Asia-Pacific Cooperation Forum meeting in Singapore last weekend, leaders from 21 countries, which make up 40 percent of the world’s population and 54 percent of global GDP, failed to agree on targeted greenhouse gas quantities by 2050, although this was anticipated in a previous draft agreement. Instead of a concrete agreement, they opted for yet another pledge towards a new growth strategy for the future.

In the absence of an agreement on the de facto only relevant issue related to the ‘chatter’ in Copenhagen, which is now gaining legendary status, the leaders of the region, accompanied by U.S. President Barack Obama, simply changed their perspective on the whole matter, deciding that they would no longer view Copenhagen as a final destination, i.e., a place where something serious must be agreed upon, but rather as one of the stops on a long journey towards a more environmentally friendly future. How close they are to alignment is indicated by a statement from a Chinese official that the goal of a 50 percent reduction in emissions is ‘a very controversial topic in the global community’ that could ‘disrupt the negotiation process.’ The slim chances of finding any purpose for the meeting in Copenhagen were cemented by President Obama’s advisor, Mike Froman, who stated that the leaders concluded it is unrealistic to expect a complete, legally binding agreement in the period leading up to Copenhagen, which begins in 22 days, thus merely reiterating his boss’s stance. Not even close, in other words.

Asia as the EU?

There are many stumbling blocks on both sides. Developing countries are responsible for about two-thirds of total pollution, but they are unwilling to bear the full weight of cuts, while Americans and developed nations, who are not shy about polluting, are not ready to reduce emissions either. Achieving a serious agreement will indeed be a difficult task. Thus, it was ultimately concluded that an agreement could be reached in Copenhagen in principle, but it would not be a legally binding agreement, but rather a politically binding one. How reliable politicians are as obligors has long been known. Copenhagen has thus been defeated for the second time, and it hasn’t even started. The stumbling in St. Andrews emerged on the topic of distributing money to poor countries to combat this problem.

Much more aligned tones could be heard on some other topics. Obama was undoubtedly the star of the evening, but judging by the style of communication, it was primarily a regional happening, where things occurred in line with the latest trends. The idea of regional unification, which pops up every now and then, is gaining more momentum, although it never seems to act as a serious intention. Things have started to change, and the number of supporters for closer cooperation in this increasingly important part of the world is growing.

A particularly strong wind for the idea of mimicking the European Union concept was recently given by the new Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama, and unexpectedly warm support came from Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd at the summit in Singapore. According to him, the best solution in the sea of various regional Asian institutions and cooperation forums is ASEAN, but so far this form of cooperation has been, as its name suggests, limited to Southeast Asia. The Prime Minister proposed the establishment of a community that would cover all aspects of cooperation, from economic to security to political, which strongly resembles the beloved European Union, especially considering Hatoyama’s proposal for a common currency.

Reconciliatory Obama

Obama, who increasingly feels like a man without a home club, used his tour of Asia to further send conciliatory messages and strengthen cooperation with his most generous creditor, China. Japan served him as an opportunity for a somewhat ambiguous statement about the necessity of changes in global economic relations, in which the word ‘imbalance’ is mentioned again, which could be interpreted in two ways. ‘We cannot follow the same policy that has led to such an imbalance in development. If we continue on the same path, we will slide from crisis to crisis, which is a misguided direction that has already had devastating consequences for our citizens, businesses, and governments,’ he said. At first glance, it seems he is talking about the failed model that the world has been cursing since the crisis began, but if one recalls the constant urging of China to stop manipulating the exchange rate and spend a little more, the aforementioned claims can also be understood as a veiled accusation of China for the imbalances that some quietly claim caused the collapse of the Anglo-American house of cards, built on a nonexistent financial economy and consumption.

APEC has not had particular weight in global frameworks, nor have other Asian cooperations, but in a time that suggests significant changes in the global order, gatherings in Asia are being watched more closely and not without reason. The world is undoubtedly moving towards regional clubs that firmly close their entrances, while America is becoming a country that actually has no such club. Collaborations and associations on the American continents have long been slowly pushing the U.S. aside, while those led by the U.S. currently lack sufficient cohesive tissue. The role of the only global superpower has its advantages, as well as disadvantages, especially when it begins to drown in increasingly stronger multilateralism and countries turning to their neighbors. However, stronger rapprochement in Asia is likely harder to achieve than anywhere else because, on one hand, there are a large number of countries in play, while on the other, there are huge differences in mentalities, historical legacies, levels of development, and interests.