Dear Ian, Thank you for the clarification ... although there seems to be relatively little disagreement between us. The article emphasizes precisely what you write: First and foremost, the Accord is a vacuous text designed to save face, appallingly inadequate in terms of policy content. This is a central point in the publication made abundantly clear. Second, the article also acknowledges that "island nations pursued faithfully until the end" a binding treaty (p. 9) and noted Tuvalu's detailed text proposal for an ambitious agreement that would limit temperature rise to 1.5 degrees (footnote 4).
The only point I obviously misunderstood is in footnote 8. The reason why I wrote that Tuvalu 'softened its stance' is that after your articulate and strong "30 pieces of silver" statement on Saturday morning, you seemed quiet for the rest of that final session. The ensuing embroglio involved mostly Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Bolivia and Sudan and the pressure they came under to embrace the Accord. The Latins and Sudan appeared to be the ones who dug their heels in preventing formal adoption of the Accord. I am really glad to hear from you that Tuvalu continues its opposition, apologize for having suggested otherwise, and will continue praising to my students your valiant efforts as I have for years. Sincerely, Radoslav S. Dimitrov, Ph.D. Associate Professor Department of Political Science University of Western Ontario Social Science Centre London, Ontario Canada N6A 5C2 Tel. +1(519) 661-2111 ext. 85023 Fax +1(519) 661-3904 Email: [email protected] On May 12, 2010, at 1:21 AM, Ian Fry wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > There are insiders and there are observers to the Copenhagen process. I would > like to make a few corrections to the self-promoted observations made by Rado > in his paper in Global Environmental Politics. Firstly Tuvalu did not soften > its stance on the Copenhagen Accord. We rejected it then and we continue to > reject it now. This is primarily due to content reasons rather than process, > although we also had concerns about the process. Therefore our position was > quite different to those expressed by the ALBA group of Latin American > countries. For instance, a reference to 2deg C would mean the end for Tuvalu. > No world leader should be asked to sign on to an agreement that would in > effect spell the demise of his/her country. Certainly the Prime Minister of > Tuvalu was not willing to do this. The linkage of funding for adaptation and > response measures (compensation for oil producing countries) is unacceptable > and immoral. > It was our perception that the Copenhagen Accord was primarily a face saving > exercise produced for President Obama. Without domestic legislation President > Obama had nothing to bring to the negotiating table. Without commitments to > significant emission reductions by the US (the highest greenhouse producer in > the world) it is perfectly understandable that India and China were not > willing to agree to targets (and indicated by the "secret recordings"). I > hope this helps clarify a few misconceptions. > sincerely > Ian Fry > International Environmental Officer > Government of Tuvalu > ph: +61 (0)432489479 > > On 12/05/2010 1:08 PM, Radoslav Dimitrov wrote: >> >> Dear colleagues, >> >> The 'secret recordings' video is generally accurate and fair but quite >> basic; it underscores how little the media knew about the negotiations. >> Attached is the brief 'behind-closed-doors" account of Copenhagen published >> in the current issue of Global Environmental Politics. It clarifies what >> happened there and assesses the current state of global climate governance. >> It argues the overall picture is quite good, and calls for creating a >> 'barometer' of climate governance. >> >> "Inside Copenhagen: The State of Climate Governance" >> >> Abstract This article clarifies the outcome of the Copenhagen climate >> conference from the perspective of a government delegate. Access behind >> closed doors reveals the full extent of the damage. The failure at >> Copenhagen was worse than our worst-case scenario but should not obscure a >> bigger and brighter picture. Aggregate climate governance is in healthy >> condition that contrasts with the plight of multilateral climate governance. >> While the multilateral UN process is damaged, multilevel governance >> comprising regional, national and local climate policies worldwide is >> steadily gaining speed. The challenge to the academic community is to >> develop a composite measure of multilevel governance that captures aggregate >> public and nonstate policy initiatives at various levels. >> >> >> >> >> Radoslav S. Dimitrov, Ph.D. >> Associate Professor >> Department of Political Science >> University of Western Ontario >> Social Science Centre >> London, Ontario >> Canada N6A 5C2 >> Tel. +1(519) 661-2111 ext. 85023 >> Fax +1(519) 661-3904 >> Email: [email protected] >> >> On May 11, 2010, at 12:11 PM, Greg White wrote: >> >>> Dear Colleagues: >>> >>> Perhaps people have already seen this: >>> http://www.spiegel.de/video/video-1063770.html >>> >>> The Guardian covered it as well. >>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/may/07/secret-copenhagen-talks-climate-recording >>> >>> Apart from the ominous music cues - and the gentle treatment of Merkel - I >>> wonder if it's a fair distillation of the "secret recording." For >>> students, it might be useful heuristically - especially when Sarokozy >>> raises "organized hypocrisy" as an issue. (Wonder if he's read Krasner...) >>> >>> Does anyone have any thoughts/insights on the video's treatment of the >>> "secret recording"? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Greg >>
