China Wrecked Copenhagen

What we got out of the Copenhagen Conference was a weak statement of political purpose, which was blamed mostly on Obama and his lack of backbone. An insider at the heads of state meeting has a different perspective on who is to blame:

Copenhagen was a disaster. That much is agreed. But the truth about what actually happened is in danger of being lost amid the spin and inevitable mutual recriminations. The truth is this: China wrecked the talks, intentionally humiliated Barack Obama, and insisted on an awful "deal" so western leaders would walk away carrying the blame. How do I know this? Because I was in the room and saw it happen.....
To those who would blame Obama and rich countries in general, know this: it was China's representative who insisted that industrialised country targets, previously agreed as an 80% cut by 2050, be taken out of the deal. "Why can't we even mention our own targets?" demanded a furious Angela Merkel. Australia's prime minister, Kevin Rudd, was annoyed enough to bang his microphone. Brazil's representative too pointed out the illogicality of China's position. Why should rich countries not announce even this unilateral cut? The Chinese delegate said no, and I watched, aghast, as Merkel threw up her hands in despair and conceded the point. Now we know why – because China bet, correctly, that Obama would get the blame for the Copenhagen accord's lack of ambition.....
Copenhagen was much worse than just another bad deal, because it illustrated a profound shift in global geopolitics. This is fast becoming China's century, yet its leadership has displayed that multilateral environmental governance is not only not a priority, but is viewed as a hindrance to the new superpower's freedom of action.

This is a good reminder that whatever mistakes the United States makes as the world's superpower, the alternative is much worse: a non-democratic Chinese superpower that cares less than we do about what's good for the world. The rise of China has happened amazingly peacefully, and they seem to have become a rational partner for general world stability. But that doesn't mean they would make a very good world leader. Chinese power is probably the best argument for a continued American international presence, even as we attempt to end the over-reaching of the Bush years.