With the bulk of civil society being removed from the Bella Center, governments now bear the brunt of responsibility for a fair and effective climate change agreement in Copenhagen. But developed countries still refuse to deliver.

The pretends to be generous by offering to pay an undefined “share” of $100 billion long-term finance, which is a fifth of the estimated amount needed. Amounts offered by the European Union, , and other developed countries are negligible.

seemed to lead by offering $15 billion by 2020, but the lion’s share of this money had already been promised before.

It is clear that developing countries’ financial needs to deal with climate change will not be met if dependent on developed countries’ charitable mood.

Even the European Union, whose newly elected “President” at another occasion underlined the so-called “Christian values” that underpinned the Union, keeps it wallet tightly closed a few days before Christmas.

The values we need in the last couple of hours at the Bella Center might be African. Developing countries, with Africa and the Small Island States at the forefront, have not given up on pushing for limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees, therewith refusing to agree with a development pathway that is truly dangerous. , itself an oil-producing country, stands side-by-side with other African countries, including the Least Developed Countries that are anxious to ensure that climate change is truly tackled and the consequences are dealt with. Similarly, tries to get the best out of Copenhagen for Africa as a whole. But African solidarity does not stop at its continental borders. What Africa is proposing is a win-win situation for the Africa and the rest.

Tackling climate change saves money on the long run, and adapting to its consequences will prevent serious humanitarian consequences and spill-over effects that will affect each country in the world. At the very last day of the conference, Africa and the G77 continue to push for the establishment of a financial mechanism that would allow for financing mitigation and adaptation in places where the needs are highest. They are not impressed by the “charitable” gestures of those responsible for climate change, who prefer to play a game of which disastrous outcomes are virtually certain. The game is now played at the highest level. Even chief negotiators and ministers are waiting for their heads of state and government to come to an agreement – or refuse to do so – as the clock is ticking. Still, these negotiators play a key-role in informing their leaders about the intricacies of this game, which has been going on for more than 15 years and still has not lead to the change the world is in need of. The text that is currently considered by heads of state seems to pave a way for continuation of non-action, with 2 degrees warming as an aim to strive for and lack of concrete measures to ensure that even this lowest denominator is met.

It provides for the establishment of a financial mechanism and technology mechanism without the specific provisions that would guarantee its effective functioning. In an ideal scenario, developing countries' persistence could lead to a break-through in Copenhagen. Otherwise we might need to wait for a COP15-2.

Heads of states and governments continued making statements ranging from overly optimistic to deeply pessimistic. Some leaders seemed to have written their statements before the COP15 started, while others attempted to keep up with the process.

The Bolivian President Evo Morales had the courage to most clearly articulate the major issues involved in the problem of climate change, including the lack of transparency and inclusiveness of the process. Ironically, Morales was among those that were being excluded from the small group of states frantically working on a face-saving text. The Danish host and/or their UN counterparts even when so far as to technically interrupt the web transmission of his statement when he asked for the floor to draw attention to the real problems facing the people of the world just before lunch.

Subsequently Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez took the floor and admonished the process as lacking transparency and for failing to include the view of so many of the governments involved in the process.

At the same time hords of Americans accompanying US President Barak Obama were running around the Bella Center--after the UNFCC Secretariat excluded the civil society actors who might have stood in their way--threatening and bribing states' representatives to get them to accept their de minimus offers of financial assistance, cuts that amount to making developing countries carry the disproportionate burden of climate change, and an agreement that would have no more legal force than the developing countries agreement to provide 1% of the GDP in Overseas Development Assistance made in Monterrey almost four decades ago but which these countries have almost never respected.

The weak face-saving thirteen paragraph text that on which selected leaders were working was published by the Guardian newspapers http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/18/copenhagen-climate-change.

Note: In the afternoon the COP15 is scheduled to hear a statement by civil society representatives from Klimaforum09.

Whatever the outcome COP15 is likely to be remembered for the role that propaganda played. Not only the well-resources western states and their media, but even the host government itself did their utmost to control the media message and manipulate what was being reported, whether truth to fiction, to meet their own ends.

The manipulation even led to journalists being questioned on the streets, having their mobile telephone and internet communications interfered with, and even the publication of often misleading news on the official website of the host country. For example, on 17 December (today) in the afternoon the website reported that "COP15 Agree on Procedure" insinuating that it was developing countries that had caused the delay and that this agreement was somehow a concession by developed countries. No mention was made of the fact that the two-track approach that had been agreed (negotiating an extension of the Kyoto Protocol emission-limit obligations while at the same time negotiating a new and more comprehensive treaty) already in Bali two years ago. In reality it was developing countries that were merely calling on COP15 chairperson Connie Hedegaard to respect what they had already agreed upon...something the Danish could not accept until the second to last day of the COP15.

CNN however probably gets the propagandist of the COP15 award with there approximately eight minute coverage of the second to last day when American Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arrived. The main story for CNN (as well as the official COP website) was Clinton's promises to participate in a creating a 100 billion USD fund to assist developing countries with mitigation and adaption. This was news?  CNN was ignorant of (or intentionally obscuring) the fact that the US controlled World Bank estimated that as a minimum 200 to 400 billion dollars were needed each year to assist developing countries with mitigation and adaption to climate change. Moreover CNN called the deal breaker the failure of developing countries to agree on allowing monitoring of emission cuts. This is at best a distortion of the truth and at worst an outright lie.  It is a lie to say that developing countries refuse monitoring of their emission cuts for several reasons. First, the Us is the country that refuses to even agree to emissions cuts over 5%...when at least 40% is needed to make a difference. Second, developing countries have repeatedly said they will agree to monitoring of their emission cuts if developed countries agree to monitoring of their commitments to provide financing. It is actually the US that refuses to agree to allow monitoring of financing commitments to indeed to even make legally binding financing commitments. Uhmm...does this mean that it is actually the US that refuses to agree to allow monitoring?

The COP15 official website hosted by the Danish government often reported events in manner that rarely showed the problems that their own Minister and President of COP15 was causing by providing text through an undemocratic process that largely excluded the developing countries that represent most of the people in the world. even the 'resignation' of the President of the COP15, Danish Minister Connie Hedegaard, was reported as a Danish enhancement,despite the fact that she was essentially forced out by developing countries who had lost trust in her objectivity and her unwillingness to even consider the point of view of the governments representing the majority of the people in the world.

They also did not report the speeches of heads of state that criticized the hosts, preferring rather to give themselves  accolades for hosting the failed negotiations.

Foremost of the manipulation was the effort to portray developing countries as blocking agreement when in reality developing countries were not even being consulted or had objections that reflected the concerns of the majority of the world and were widely supported by scientists and civil society.

These action by the host were complimented by their locking civil society out of the meeting claiming that they merely did not have room for them. They did not explain why they had not planned better when they had known fro months that more 30,000 participants were registered for a space which they claimed after the COP15 had started could only hold 15,000. UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer, taking the blame for the large scale exclusion of civil society, only offered the explanation that they did not think everyone would come or be there most of the time.  In other words civil society could participate, if they really did not participate.

Pessimism at Copenhagen has risen to such a level that many delegations, including the Danish host, apparently gave up on trying to reach an agreement in Copenhagen.

In the public COP/MOP session, Danish PM Rasmussen said there were “difficulties” but that an agreement could still be reached in Copenhagen. At the same time, there are persistent rumours that the Danish started to direct efforts towards reaching agreement on separate issues in preparation for a “COP15 Part 2”, to be held in July 2010 in Mexico.

Some developed country delegates, such as British climate secretary Ed Miliband, reportedly said the talks might strand due to disagreement on “procedural issues”, which he said would be “a farce”. He clearly ignored the statements made by a whole range of developing countries yesterday evening during the COP/MOP session. These countries, with Brazil, South Africa and Nigeria in the forefront, stated their exclusion from negotiating process was a “very substantial” issue.

The developoing countries  statements came after Danish PM Rasmussen called on all countries to stop discussing issues that were just “procedure, procedure, procedure”. Several media sources then reported that it was developing countries who were trying to block the talks by playing procedural games.

The real picture is more complex. Developing countries having more to lose from failure in Copenhagen than most developed countries. Climate change impacts will be most devastating in developing countries, and sustainable development to reduce poverty is hard to realize without the necessary technology and financial resources. International cooperation is needed to achieve these goals. Yet, what is happening in Copenhagen is not an example of international cooperation. Instead, it is 'business as usual' for rich countries that are trying to impose decisions on the rest of the world.

Developing countries are being expected to remain passive and to accept whatever is being offered to them by the rich countries. The truth is, however, that the amounts of money pledged today by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and those made previously by the European Union in no way reflect the estimated needs of hundred of bil;ions annually for the mitigation and adaptation actions of developing countries.

The current offers on th the table amount to merely freeing the rich from their historic climate change debts. In the high-level segment today, Bolivian President Morales and Iranian President Ahmadinejad clearly rejected such an agreement. They called for solving the underlying causes of climate change, including imperialism, war-driven economies and an undemocratic international order.

It is democracy that could still save the Copenhagen conference.

The AWG-LCA and AWG-KP texts, however imperfect, have been worked on for years by all parties to the Convention and the Protocol. These texts form a basis for an outcome in Copenhagen. Any other kinds of agreements, developed behind closed doors in small groups, will likely be rejected by a majority of countries.

The Copenhagen negotiations are becoming more opaque and more sinister.

The developed countries, including most European countries, the USA, Asutralia, and New Zealand, seem intent on protecting the wealth that they have acquired over the pass two centuries no matter what is costs the world. To this end they have repeatedly shown themselves willing to block real action against climate change unless they are able to keep their advantages. This of course means that they have to suppress the development of almost every other country. They have indicated very clearly in Copenhagen that this hey are willing to do.

The best indication of this bad faith is the de minimus offers they are making for financing the adaptation and mitigation efforts of developing countries. They are offering an insulting 10 to 30 billion Swiss Francs over three years with no realistic longterm financing plan, the private market is suppose to take care of this. To put this in perspective one only needs to look at the World Bank estimates for what is needed to adapt to and mitigate the adverse impacts of climate change. The World bank estimates 200 to 400 billion Swiss Francs minimum are needed. Other issues like technology transfer are not even on the table.

 

New pledges by the US (100 billion Swiss Francs over an unspecified number of years) and Japan (15 billion Swiss Francs over an unspecified number of years) appear to be merely enticements (accompanied by threats that this money will be withdrawn) against developing countries to try to force them to sign on to an unfair agreement. It will be a real test of the courage and convictions of Southern leaders to see if they will contiue to standup to this pressure.

More disturbing however is hat the gallant efforts of the African Group, G77 and Small Island State negotiators look in jeopardy as their leaders show up singing more conciliatory tunes that appear to have reversed the courageous work that negotiators like Lumumba Diaping (a Sudanese representing the G77) and Kamal Djmaeooui (the Algerian representing the African Group) have done for months to hold a united and firm line for the developing world to ensure that the two hundred years of exploitation does not turn into another two centuries of unfair exploitation that guarantees the hegemony of the Europeans, the North Americans and their few allies.

The irony is that the South has the resources, both human and natural, to reverse this trend and to make the world a more equal place where countries from the South are allowed to develop to the same extent as those in the North. For this to happen the North must take on its historical responsibility. The developed countries must play for the extraordinary right of exploiting the world's resources and polluting the world for two centuries to such a great extent.

Will Southern leaders like Iran President Ahmedinejad, Bolivian President Morales, Venezuelan President Chavez and Ethiopian President Zenawi have the courage and ability to stand up to the threats and bribes to which they will be subject to get an agreement that requires the developed countries to bear their historical responsibility?

That is the question that so many people in the world will be asking of their leaders who will be speaking for them as civil society has been all but excluded from the discussions.