Give Us Your Money--Or Else!

After having been treated to diatribes against the developed, capitalistic countries from such astute political and social scientists as Hugo Chavez, Robert Mugabe, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the nations assembled in Copenhagen are now attempting to salvage a done deal on the horrid beast called "Anthropogenic Climate Change." At the root of the deal making is--what else?--money and its partner in crime: power.

Actually there are two money issues in play. The more obvious one is how much filthy capitalistic lucre can be extorted from the developed nations of the so-called "Global North" by the Mob of the "Global South." Closely related to the first issue is the second: Who or what will control the receipt and expenditure of the money meant to address the challenges of meeting climate change and assuring that at least some of the great carbon sump contained in tropical rain forests continues to exist.

The US has reportedly broken the seeming logjam over the amount of money to be "donated" by the North to the (let's be polite and sensitive about national egos) "lesser and least developed" states of the "South." Secretary of State Clinton has opined that one hundred billion bucks over ten years sounds about right.

This figure is lower than the European Union estimate of 150 gigabucks. It is a whale of a lot lower than the 350 billion dollar commitment demanded by some of the more ambitious governments on the make.

While the total dollar amount of the ransom to be paid by the posse of evil doers known as the advanced economies is important, the question of what entity will disburse and account for the payments is equally important. And, in Copenhagen, equally divisive.

Not surprisingly, the motley congeries flying the flag of the G77 want the money to be funneled through the 192 member Conference of Parties. This assembly would (presumably) appoint an executive committee which would oversee the orderly transfer of ransom funds from the extorted to those running the extortion racket.

A primary advocate for this approach is Farrukh Khan of Pakistan who is a representative of the G77 countries. As a Pakistani he is well acquainted with the mechanisms by which both bi-lateral and international organization provided aid can be hijacked for the benefit of members of any nation's elite.

Mr Khan justifies the use of the Conference of Parties mechanism in lieu of established international bodies such as the World Bank by saying the aid needed in the next few years is not simply business as usual assistance but rather a means of "basically compensating the poor so vulnerable and exposed to the effects of climate change." Oy veh! The chutzpah of this argument is utterly mind blowing!

The US and other "doner" nations favors the World Bank for the obvious reasons of honesty, transparency, accountability, and, compared to either the UN or some new outfit run by the recipient nations, lacking in corruption. Quite correctly, representatives of these nations in Copenhagen have stated with a slightly categorical edge that the money for climate adjustment purposes must be appropriated by national legislatures and these bodies (to say nothing of the taxpayers who are ultimately being mulcted) will insist upon rigid standards of both practice and transparency.

Like all the games nations (and politicians) play the real deal here is power. The international extortion effort is an exercise in wealth transfer of prodigious proportions. Whatever body runs it will become a very major player on the global scene.

It is not surprising at all that representatives of countries ranging from the large (such as Brazil, South Africa and India) to the truly piss-ant (not named for reasons of political correctness) wish most fervently for the Conference of Parties to have the ultimate say over the flow of cash. It is equally void of drama that the Great Powers (as well as the Nearly Great) want to see control and thus power reside in trustworthy hands--their own.

As the Geek has posted before, the realities of climate change and its cause do not matter. Neither does the view of at least half of all Americans. The political class of both advanced and poor nations as well as the UN and status conscious scientists hold the position that global warming is both real and man made. As a consequence, life and the world as we have known it will change dramatically in the next few years and decades.

The goal of the US government must be that of assuring the changes will have a minimal negative impact upon the citizens of this country. That is called defense of national self-interest and any government which ignores this imperative does so at great peril to its continuation in power.

So far, the Obama administration (or at least the Secretary of State) has taken a firmer line in Copenhagen than many feared (or hoped.) It must continue to do so regardless of the mighty moans and fierce threats coming from the general direction of the G77 dacoits in diplomatic dress. After all, the only real concern for an American government should be, must be, the well-being of the American people.