This blog is taken from the Adelaide Advertiser, where our delegate Joel Dignam is writing regularly.
In the UN, one would hope that the beautiful idea of democracy would take pride of place.
But, while each state is given a chance to speak and vote on an equal footing, it is crushing to see how the unjust distribution of national resources has so much impact over the ability of states to influence the process.
Consider Australia’s place in these negotiations. Rudd is going to Copenhagen with a delegation of 114 people, and Australia’s delegation office inside the Bella Centre is one of the largest. Having more people in these negotiations does help Australia: with heaps of events and sessions taking place at any time, our negotiating power is increased by being more involved in everything taken place. Similarly, a member of Rudd’s entourage tasked solely with arranging phones or hairdryers for other members frees up their time.
On the other hand, we have states like Zimbabwe. I bumped into two party delegates in the exhibit hall on Friday, and offered them a free badge promoting “1.5°C to Stay Alive”. After they expressed their gratitude, we had a short talk. They asked me where they could exchange money within the Centre, so that they could get – and here one looked at the other, slightly unsure – SIM starter packs. I helped them as best as I could.
I discussed this later with other youth delegates. One had a similar story. Another had found herself paying for somebody else’s meal after ending up in line behind a delegate who couldn’t afford his food.
This made me realise how unquestioningly I myself had accepted this state of affairs. With Australia sending over 100 people to these negotiations, can we keep pretending that their outcome is truly democratic? That each state has an equal say in the decisions that are made? Or is it time to admit that even here money is power, and that even here the interests of a powerful minority can set the policy agenda?
The African Union is asking developed countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by at least 40% on 1990 levels by 2020. Similar targets have also been called for by the Alliance of Small Island States. Unfortunately, it is unlikely that these targets – the only ones which guarantee survival for all nations – will be agreed to at these negotiations. Even more unfortunately, this isn’t because these targets are unscientific, or because they are unachievable, but rather because they are being called for by nations that simply lack the resources to make their voices heard.
