Before Chinese coal dust had time to settle on the snow in Denmark, China had been accused of hijacking negotiations at the Copenhagen climate change summit last month in an aim to protect its own economic interests.

Is China a convenient scapegoat for other major polluting economies? In an interview with Danwei, The Guardian Asia Environment Correspondent Jonathan Watts states: “China and the US, the world's two biggest emitters, came away happier as they can now continue emitting without legal constraints for a longer period of time, perhaps indefinitely.”

A number of articles in Watts’ newspaper this past week have held China chiefly responsible for what many see as the failure in Copenhagen to reach a more progressive agreement. But doesn't America's economic stability now rely on China's continued high-polluting economic growth? More interestingly, why is Beijing so touchy on the issue of foreign monitoring on Chinese soil of the country's progress in reducing emissions?

For a summary of some of the accusations against China, scroll down to veteran journalist's Rose Luqiu's December 25 blog post on the subject. The Guardian article accusing China of hijacking negotiations at Copenhagen was quickly translated and has been posted in a many number of online spaces; at FreeMoreNews.com, Nick Tung makes the comment that:

一个高度工业化的中国需要碳排放量。如果被控制了碳排放量，就被控制了工业化发展，中国是不会自己转这个套的。

这篇文章的倾向性太强，没有多大参考价值。说的obama好像救世主一样。也许在美国他是，但是对这个世界而言，他不是。

A highly-industrialized China is going to need to emit carbon. Regulation of carbon emissions will mean regulation of industrial development, a road China will not choose on its own. This article is too one-sided, not much worth in the long run. It makes Obama out to be a messiah or something. Maybe in America he is, but for the rest of the world, not even.

At Baidu, user zhangyanwu007 finds some common ground in criticism being made of China:

中国有“劫持”哥本哈根气候变化会议谈判进程之嫌疑，我是完全理解别国有这样的看法的，中国虽然是发展中国家但是却不能以发展中国家之名义，而置哥本哈根气候变化会议之宗旨于不顾。中国是发展中国家，但却是大国，人多也最多，自然污染更为严重。于是理应承担的责任，比起其他任何国家也应该更多。哥本哈根气候变化会议不是讨价会，而且一场对人类生存的责任会。大家不应该推卸，找借口，而应该勇敢承担责任！

China has been accused of “hijacking” negotiations at the Copenhagen climate change summit, and I can completely understand why some countries would see it that way. Even though China is still a developing country, it can't use that as an excuse to disregard the objectives set for the Copenhagen climate change summit. China is a developing country, but it's not a superpower, and with the world's greatest population, its pollution levels are quite serious. So the reasons for it to be responsible also surpass those of any other country on earth. The Copenhagen climate change summit was not meant for haggling a bargain, but a meeting for taking responsibility for the existence of humanity. People should not be shirking their responsibility or looking for excuses, instead they should be brave and accept their responsibility!

More typical this week is the kind of articulate retort given by Wykehamist blogger Jiong:

我的看法很简单也很直接，那就是：随你们说去，中国就没诚意参加哥本哈根了，又如何？美国有诚意么？美国不是也公然说绝不加入《京都议定书》或任何类似的协议？中国作为人均CO2排放量只及美国四分之一、只及一直口口声声老爱强调环保的欧洲两分之一的发展中国家，凭什么要再承诺减排？白人就有权比黄种人多排放两倍、多排放四倍的二氧化碳了？

[…]

我觉得中国官员在哥本哈根会议上的表现非常好，第一次让我看到中国也可以像美国人那样如此明目张胆地、强硬地捍卫自己的利益。温宝宝年纪也一大把了还飞那么远到个穷乡僻壤的小破城市开会已经表现得很有诚意，至于最后到底是出席了会议还是选择躲在房间里睡觉其实根本不重要，因为无论他出现在哪这个会议也不可能有什么成果。我们现在只需要脸皮再厚点，对英国这种二流国家报纸上的愚蠢报道和之后会铺天盖地涌出来的响应叫骂声，一律忽视之。

My view is simple and straightforward: say whatever you want, China wasn't sincere about attending Copenhagen, so what? Was America? Didn't America openly refuse to take part in the Kyoto Protocol or any agreement like it? As a developing country with a fourth of the CO2 emissions per person of America, and half that of the ever green-talking Europe, why on earth should China commit itself to reducing emissions? Or do white people have the right to emit twice or four times as much carbon dioxide as yellow people?

[…]

I think Chinese officials acted splendidly at the Copenhagen summit; this was the first time for me to see China be bold like Americans in standing up tough for its own interests. As old as Wen Jiabao is, he flew all the way to that crappy little backwater city for the meeting, and attended in full sincerity, knowing that it wouldn't have mattered if he attended all the meetings or just hid in a back room and slept through it all, that the outcome would have been the same, that being not much at all. All we need now is to get thicker skin and just ignore it when newspapers in second-tier countries like England publish idiotic reports that come out shouting and cursing.

Comments on the translated Lynas piece at the GZNF bbs read:

ayuze:

哥本哈根是谁的胜利？我想肯定不是全人类的胜利。

Just who was the winner coming out of Copenhagen? I think it definitely wasn't a victory for humankind.

kevin:

就算达成协议又如何？有无认真执行有系另一回事！呢d系天朝系人所皆知家啦！

So what if they had reached an agreement? Whether or not it would be strictly implemented is a completely different story. This is something that all Chinese understand very well.

answer:

这篇文章是想说，全是中国的错？

So this article just wants to say that everything is China's fault?

海天四望/Gazing across the ocean:

这篇文章告诉人们，中国要走向强国，道路曲折。

This article tells us that China needs to move to become a stronger nation, it's time to change direction.

Journalist and Twitter user Rose Luqiu, in her post yesterday, ‘The post-Copenhagen era‘, writes:

虽然哥本哈根峰会已经结束了好几天,但是各国之间似乎又开始了blame game, 也就相互指摘,这让人的感觉反差很大,因为如果光看中国媒体的报导的话,这次的协议,虽然没有法律效率,但是却是最符合各国利益的唯一选择.



其实不单单是英国把矛头指向中国,在气候峰会之后,如果看看英文媒体的报导,瑞典环境部长,也认为中国是导致最终产生一分没有法律效率,没有减排目标的协议的最主要因素.英国环境大臣米利班德在英国卫报上的署名文章,干脆用上'干扰'这次词来形容中国,结果中国外交部发言人不点名的批评他在挑拨中国和发展中国家的关系.这被视为峰会之后最先出现的外交风波.

Even though the Copenhagen summit wrapped up a few days ago, different countries have now begun playing the blame game, criticizing each other, quite a contrast if all you've been reading have been Chinese media reports, [which have been reporting that] this agreement, albeit legally non-binding, was the option which best aligned with every country's national interest.



Though actually, it's not just England who has been pointing fingers at China; if you've been following English-language media reports since the climate change summit, you'll have seen that the Swedish Minister for the Environment also feels that China was the main factor which resulted in this legally non-binding agreement with no carbon emission reduction targets. English Climate Secretary Ed Miliband, writing in the British Guardian newspaper, flat-out used the word “hijack” to describe China, resulting in China's Foreign Ministry spokesperson to, without naming names, criticize him for stirring up trouble in relations between China and other developing nations. This has been seen as the first diplomatic squabble to come out of Copenhagen.

奥巴马则要婉转很多,在接受美国媒体报导的时候,承认这分协议令人失望,但是重点在于这分协议的政治意义.当然,虽然没有把中国作为批评对象,但是不忘告诉大家,中国没有参与谈判的过程.



这样的表述,和我们从国内媒体上获得的消息又是截然相反,因为官方媒体的报导,显然是美国没有诚意,才会导致中国数次拒绝和奥巴马进行直接对话,是奥巴马硬要加入到发展中国家自己的协商过程当中,而在中国的最终斡旋之下,才有了这样一分协议的最终诞生.

Then Obama squirmed a lot, admitting in interviews with American media, that while the accord left him disappointed, but the main point of it being its political significance. Of course, while he didn't come out and criticize China, nor did he forget to remind everyone that China didn't take part in the negotiation process.



A statement like that is the complete opposite to information we've been getting from domestic media, with official media saying that clearly because America was not being insincere, would China repeatedly refuse to engage in direct talks with Obama, that it was Obama who forced his way into developing countries’ own process for negotiation, and that in the end it was only through China's mediation that such an agreement was ever born in the first place.

环保人士mark LYNAS描述了另外一个场景,这位马尔代夫环境问题顾问列席了其中一次的谈判会场.他说,当时五六十个国家的领袖进行谈判,而中国只派出了一个外交部的官员,也因为这样,所有的领袖,必须等候这位官员不停的打电话向上级汇报请示,尔正是中国,不同意在协议里面列名,发达国家在2050年实现减排百分之八十的目标.他描述了奥巴马沮丧的样子,还有德国总统默克尔以及澳大利亚总理杜克文当时的激烈反应,质问为何不同意发达国家只不过是列明自己的目标.用这位环保人士的话来说,事后证明中国这样的做法是正确的,因为外界只会谴责美国,因为在协议里面,没有为自己列出应尽的责任,显得没有承担.

Environmentalist Mark Lynas describes another scenario, a negotiation session in which this environmental consultant to the Maldives listened in. He says that at the time, leaders from 50+ nations were engaged in negotiations, but China alone sent only a foreign ministry official to take part, and in doing so, forced all leaders to wait while this official kept making phone calls to his superiors to give feedback and ask for instructions. And it was China who would not consent to be listed in the agreement as one of the developed countries with a target to reduce emissions by 80% before 2050. He described Obama's forlorn appearance, and the harsh reaction from German President Merkel and Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, demanding to know why developed countries shouldn't be allowed to publicize their own reduction targets. In the words of this environmentalist, what followed proved that China acted correctly, because everyone on the outside then aimed their condemnations at the USA; by not declaring its share of the responsibility, it was in effect shirking it.

Commenter on Luqiu's piece Guo Jun responded with:

咱们这个政府习惯了大政府的空话和对利益最大化的索取，而不愿意承担责任，这样的陋习是日久形成的….遗憾的是我们早已忘记了这世间还有‘尊重’这个词语。不论你有何种理由，把自己独立于普世价值之外，最终只能让对手或者别国更加鄙视你！

This government of ours is used to the empty rhetoric of big government and to seeking to maximize interests, being unwilling to take on responsibility, corrupt habits formed over the years…it's a pity that we here on earth long ago forgot the meaning of the word ‘dignity’. Whatever your reasons are, distancing yourself from universal values in the end will only make your rivals and other countries despise you even more!