A lot of blame has been thrown around post-COP15 with regard to which country obstructed real progress from being made in the negotiations. Some say the BASIC (Brazil, South Africa, India, China) block’s refusal to consider any deviation from Kyoto was most detrimental, others argue the US’s fly-by-night back-door negotiation strategy was the most contemptible. Or was it China who singehandedly prevented the signing of a legally binding global agreement?
Though we can’t know for sure, the real culprit may have been in every negotiating room throughout the conference: the press.
No one can deny that China and other BASIC countries were utilizing all the political weight they could muster during those two weeks in December. It was difficult to predict that the UNFCCC would provide such a platform for displaying geopolitical power, especially when the globe was there to tackle such a grave issue. I guess the lesson learned is to never underestimate the opportunism of a country trying to claw its way to hegemony.
But the question stands: is there a way to frame the negotiation process such that individual countries are given less incentive to grandstand, sidetrack and filibuster for the sake of communicating their ability to do so? Perhaps the answer lies in taking away their ability to communicate with anyone (their public, the public of competing hegemonic powers…) except other negotiators, in other words, getting the media broadcasters out of the building.
Of course the appropriateness of this suggestion depends on the actual incentives for countries like China to grandstand during a COP. But common sense says when one is given the chance to communicate with the entire world and one has something to say, messages may come out that are not necessarily conducive to addressing the topic at hand (i.e. climate change). A negotiator most likely wouldn’t use the same language when speaking in front of a room full of lay/press people as she would if the room were filled only with other negotiating delegates.
Are we willing to kick out the press to see what might happen to the efficiency of the negotiating process? Maybe just for a trial period? Should civil society still be allowed to observe on the condition they don’t BLOG about anything?
What do we have most to fear from not knowing exactly what is going on inside the conference building until the negotiations are over? Are we simply concerned about the precedent this would set for transparency?
I’m interested to see what people think of this idea.
