In the wake of COP15, I think it’s important to draw a little attention away from the political ramifications for Obama and the stubbornness of China. The real issue, as Klein frames the argument, is the results for the least developed and most vulnerable countries: namely the countries of Africa.

A global increase in temperature of 2 degrees Celsius equates to a 3-3.5 degree increase for the African continent. Increases that substantial in a country just beginning to take steps toward modernization could prove disastrous. Millions may be displaced. Agricultural industries, already struggling because of mismanagement in places like Kenya and Zimbabwe, may collapse completely.

African leaders adopted a very strong tone before the meeting, but fell flat when it came to standing up in Copenhagen. The walk-out was a bust. The leader of the African climate negotiating group started making concessions as soon as he arrived. They simply did not take a hard enough stand, considering the grave dangers facing them. All of the attention was sucked away from them because of in-fighting amongst the richer countries.

The story of COP15 is one of American hubris, Chinese defiance, and European marginalization. Africa got $100 billion for the next ten years to shut up, and they fucking took it. Not all of them. Some are still trying to speak up like Archbishop Tutu, but there doesn’t seem to be any indication that the content is going to turn around any time soon.

I’m not sure if it was naivety or if Zenawi got bought off, but the 10 billion dollars a year for the next decade looks to me like a slap in the face. The worst part of it is the domestic price the US will pay for it. I’ve already heard some very pointed criticism from the right of Obama for giving the Africans money at all. The frame of the debate has already been set as “Should we help the Africans (through aid) improve their standard of living at a cost to ourselves or not?” This completely misses the point. The whole point of COP15 was to try our damnedest to reverse the problems that may befall us all on climate change. We shouldn’t be setting up a Help Hundreds of Millions of People with Peanuts Fund. We should be fully investing ourselves in making this a non-issue. Making a climate change dichotomy between the African charity drive and the struggle to wrestle China into doing anything we ask destroys any chance at solving the problem.

All week Obama has said he’d rather come home with something crude and nascent than come home with nothing, but for Africa Desmond Tutu puts it best. “It’s better to have no deal than to have a bad deal.” This climate deal is awful. It makes climate change an even hotter button issue, politicizes common sense measures to preserve our future, and sells Africa down the stream.

My prediction: This is not the end of attempts at global cooperation, but it is the last time China or the US will have any shred of credibility in the discussions. Their clash may draw some media attention, but within the decade, Brazil and India and the strongest voices for change in Europe will have to carry much more of the burden to get anything legitimate done. I don’t think we can rely on the two top producers or their victims to lead the charge on anything soon.

I felt it apt to do a little reflecting on an article this evening since my brain hasn’t been stirred into anything particularly fresh. Attached to this article is also a 3 minute audio interview with Edward Luce about the significance of Obama’s China visit.

The real point to draw from the article (and the China visit itself) is the nature of the relationship between what are undoubtedly the two most influential powers on the world stage. Obama has now met with Hu Jintao three times, discussing such wide issues as human rights, economic collapse, and energy policy. Though I have not been entirely impressed with the tangible results thus far, it seems great headway is at least being made toward setting the groundwork for cooperation.

China has not yet developed into the world economic player it hopes to become, and America realizes it cannot feasibly tackle all of the world issues alone. Coming into their third meeting with these two things in mind, it seems that each country needs the other, and that the world would be better off with both of them on friendly terms.

But those are broader issues not specifically related to what the talk really seemed to be about. The subject of the meetings with Premier Wen was the same as the subject of the entire ten day Asian tour: trade. Both parties (China and the US) renewed vows to open up trans-Pacific trade. I could not ask for more refreshing words. Do I believe them? That remains to be seen. But in light of the recent tariffs leveed against tires from China and the sporadic but concerning protectionism from most of the countries involved in the London G-20 Summit, I’m pleased to see the two major economies of the world at least paying lip service. It sets a good example.

The conversation continued into conversation about the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). China sang of how it aims to make conducting business 25% cheaper. The US pledged to be remain active.

Beyond APEC were very specific policy changes. Obama waxed poetic about the importance of cracking down on piracy, and China talked of opening markets for energy and pork of all things.

All in all, the meeting sounded out the right tune, and Obama’s willingness to call out China (even in the abstract) over internet security speaks a little to the nature of the relationship. It’s tentative. There’s a lot of common ground and a lot of room for criticism. If both powers can be candid and on the same page, I’m not sure there are many world issues that can’t be attacked with at least modest success.

US and Canada

The US is still the preeminent military power in the world and the lynch-pin for most major projects of world reform. Being of great size, shorter history, and greater physical distance from the rest of the world players, US policy tends to progress much more slowly. Politics are divisive and designed to keep real change from happening without significant majorities and a real moral imperative. Contentious political squabbles are typically fueled by private interest because the system basically requires that corporations try to buy politicians instead of seats at the table. American people are generally self-interested and willfully ignorant of the country’s shortcomings.

Canada has a significantly less intrusive foreign policy, a population akin to those of European countries, and vast tracks of land that really aren’t suited for significant human settlement. Canada’s break with England was much less bloody than their southern neighbors. Their relationships in the Anglosphere and Europe are pleasant as long as little is required of them. There rests a certain disdain for the broader Canada in the French province of Quebec. Quebec nearly declared its independence in the 90s, but since then, the national Canadian government has made it very clear that Quebec’s independence will come with great expense (a fifth of the national debt, exclusion from the North American Free Trade Agreement, etc.)

Central America

Historically a moderately productive region focused on material and agricultural economics, Central America suffers from a legacy of dependence and corruption. The smaller countries in the last half-century have been fed by Soviet and American interests or been bought out by United Fruit Company (hence the term “banana republic”).

The drug trade mars much of the region, offering opportunities to the disadvantaged. Narcotics trade tends to be more a product of regional governments pocketing money meant for the general welfare.

Mexico specifically tends to bear the brunt of American scorn. Illegal immigration may be a better indicator of the troubles facing the future of the Mexican peoples than anything else. Perhaps the protectionist policies of the 80s did not rocket the Mexican economy back onto its feet and into good standing on the international stage.

The two brightest spots in the region are Costa Rica and Panama. The former has a standard of living close to that of the English-speaking countries far to its north. Costa Rica has no standing military and nearly perfect climate, but still had the foresight to invest in fiber-optics and other tech-boom industries- a perfect example of a tourist country being mindful of the benefits of economic diversity. Panama’s history has only recently begun to uptick as its retained control of the canal and begun taking steps toward positioning itself as a major naval trade power in the western hemisphere.

Caribbean

The Caribbean seems split between to extremes: dire poverty and flagellating economies based on tourism. There’s little good to be said for much of the region outside of reverence for their distinct culture. Either content to mooch off cruise ships or living in the shadows of brutal dictators, the Caribbean is not diverse enough to avoid some pitfalls and not large enough to do anything to change it.

South America

Easily the furthest left region of the developing world, South America has embraced social programs in the wake of almost 100 years of military dictatorships. South Americans have traditionally been pretty good at overthrowing power but not so great at establishing something beneficial once they ascend.

The problem of race is not universal, but there’s no denying that the incredible diversity of people and their respective racial and class distinctions has sewn tensions together across the continent. Their history is steeped in Spanish hierarchy and Catholicism.

A good deal of the continent shows promise for the future. Whether it be the Argentines piecing together the largest proportional middle class or Brazil setting a green example for the world, there is much to be hopeful about in this southern continent.

Sub-Saharan Africa

The dismantling and exploitation of the structures of Sub-Saharan Africa may possibly be the saddest story of world history. One could make an argument that these peoples have been put in chains for a thousand years. Isolated, fractional, and inefficient, Africa is a massive continent with a dramatic past.

But that chapter may soon be coming to a close. Between the heavy investments of the Chinese, the world’s tremendous dedication to eradicating diseases, and a shift in America’s perspective on the nature of aid, Africa has a very legitimate shot at pulling itself into a much better place in fifty years. I’m not going to be so optimistic as to say that most southern African countries will be enjoying the luxuries of Bulgaria or Colombia, but key countries (like South Africa, Angola, Tanzania, and Kenya) are proving that with proper investments in the businesses of Africa rather than the dismally poor we may promote the general good.

Zimbabwe and the Congos are fast becoming the exception, not the rule in Africa. There will be new problems that come and go, but the most positive results seem to come from focusing on unemployment, infrastructure, and medical care.

North and Northwest Africa

To try to make it less ambiguous, I’m really referring here to traditional North Africa and those countries west of Chad. This region may be home to the most tumultuous domestic politics in the world. It houses an exploding Nigerian population, an eradicated Sudanese one, a newly corrupt Liberia, the only true failed state left in the world (Somalia), and a Libyan former terror leader who has appeared in the last ten years to make tremendous strides toward the standard western positions. North Africa appears the most politically diverse region in the world.

The motives are confusing. The behavior is largely ignored until it effects the Western World. Even the most affluent countries have their major issues: a collapsing Egyptian economy and a decades long political dispute over wastelands south of Morocco. Without drastic change, this region may sink to where Sub-Saharan Africa has just crawled out of.

Near East (Including Iran)

Characterized more by irrational fear than any economic or cultural distinction, The Near East has never really been on the same page. Since the establishment of the state of Israel, those historic tensions have bubbled over even further.

Backed by the full force of America, Israel has been able to bully its way into indefensible actions while still crying victim. An artificial peace may be generated sooner rather than later as Israel erects a massive wall, cutting into the natural Palestinian borders just enough to stir up resentment but not spark an all out war.

Refer to an old blog of mine for an overview of Iran in the post under this.

Ethnic diversity, religious diversity, irresponsible borders, the nuclear potential of Israel, and unevenly distributed oil wealth are sure to keep this region in the news for the next hundred years. The Near East is a seemingly unsolvable problem. The only way to win is to stay out of the political game.

South Asia

One of three very important new players on the world economic stage (along with Brazil in South America and China in the Far East), the Indian subcontinent should be commended and scorned.

India itself has overseen measured, diverse economic growth concerned with the domestic well-being of its people. Though there have been and will be more mis-steps, the country is poised to throw its billion plus population weight around when it is sure a good number of those people have a say. Sri Lanka is finally working on rebuilding a new government outside of the shadows of the terror its felt for a decade now. Bangladesh meets resistance at every new turn, but it is trying to turn its economy in as good a direction as it possible. With the aid of the world community in rural areas, there’s an outside shot at seeing a Bengali suburbia if there’s no armed re-seizing of the government.

The real downside lies to the west. The -stans are typically either plagued by Soviet style corruption or a discouraged rural population willing to throw themselves in the line of fire to feed their family. Places like Afghanistan unfortunately weren’t afforded much in terms of natural resources. They can grow poppy and barley, but you’re not going to be able to support an economy on weeds.

Southeast Asia

Burma’s a shithole, but so are most military governments. Vietnam, the Philippines, Thailand, Malaysia, and Singapore seem eager to follow the old Far Eastern policies to greater and lesser extents. It’s all about creating and exporting and creating and exporting until you can start building infrastructure and grabbing at the regional power your people have worked for. The only strategic importance this region has in the world is their potential to stave off a Chinese take-over of the world east of Europe.

Far East

There’s also a pretty good bit of information on North Korea on my old blog. I’ll let you peruse it at your own leisure. The Far East is really a two story region nowadays.

First, of course, is the massive unchecked explosion of Chinese growth. Whether investing in an entire coast of the African continent or furnishing more aid than it can properly afford to give out, China wants to be a world power, and they want to get there as quickly as possible. They hold a lot of sway over the US. They will determine what sort of real energy policy will be implemented. China has a huge role to play in the world, but it already appears the thirst for power may be their downfall. Their goals are too ambitious and their focus is too external. With problems like Tibet, worried Americans, and an economic model that appears to expect the entire Chinese population to happily jump out of poverty in two generations by leaving their homes for 45 weeks a year to make peanuts in a factory, there is much China might not be able to do.

The second is the story of a country that jumped into the modern era too fast. Japan has an aging population, a young entrepreneurial female class with no interest in children, and a far less than welcoming immigration policy. This may be the real decline of Japan. For all their wealth, there’s a long arduous path ahead in trying to keep building it. There is some hope. Recently, the Japanese people have turned politics on its head and are trying to reposition themselves as aggressively as their biggest growth periods of the 70s and 80s. Whether they will compete like they have on the world stage in 20 or 30 years may not have as much to do with demographics as some predict, but it’s not a chance worth taking. There is serious need for immigration reform either way.

Russia and the Slavic Europe

The Ukraine will not join NATO without consequence. In fact, I doubt they get the chance to join at all. Russia may have released their former empire into a dozen splintered pieces, but they still have enough sway to get what they want out of their former European holdings.

Frankly, this probably isn’t such a bad thing. Russia needs more currency than oil and vodka. Americans may speak of energy independence from the Saudis and questionable countries of the Middle East, but when Europe speaks, they are directly addressing Russia.

Too large a country in too much debt with dwindling opportunities, the Russians better cling to Putin and his cronies. They may be corrupt and secretive, but its clear they’re headed in a direction that exploits what little advantages Russia has for the good of a pretty good number of the people. Never quite able to decide what part of Eur-Asia to identify with, the Russians are a dream for a dictator looking to reach as much of the world as possible and a nightmare for those trying to coordinate regulation of a diverse economy. For God’s sake, there are 11 time zones! It could be midnight and lunch time simultaneously in a country that size.

Eurozone

This topic was originally divided into three, but the European Union is quickly making regional distinctions irrelevant.

Brief highlights because I’m tired. France has a nuclear program that’s the envy of the world. Scandinavia has rocketed into a set of countries so wealthy and well-run that I’m not even sure you have to work in Norway anymore. The UK and Ireland are on their tireless float toward America. Turkey seems ready to make symbolic gestures to help their chances of entering the union, but seems reticent to actually make substantive changes. Look for Croatia and Iceland to enter sometime in the next 5 years.

That was a pretty interesting exercise. It really serves to highlight where the information gaps are. I always welcome feedback.

matt.lee.sharp@gmail.com

or

zoibac@gmail.com