中国和我

China and me. I believe that the mock negotiation was the epitome of problem solving for the Fall 2014 Honors class. I became so educated in the climate change policy of China that now I feel differently about climate change policy than I did in the past. You know how actors live the life of their character in order to play said character better? That’s how I felt during the negotiations. I wasn’t Alex from New Jersey, but the Delegate from the People’s Republic of China. During said negotiation, we were tasked with producing some sort of protocol that would set the basis for the Paris 2015 negotiations. Needless to say, it was a very unproductive negotiation, given the requirement for consensus for all parties to the conference.

Given that I represented China, I had to represent my country with the utmost force. In other words, my way or the highway. Originally, my plan for the negotiations was to simply disagree with any language that would inhibit China’s growth as a world power. Now here’s where the problem solving comes in. Two days before our scheduled class for the negotiation, China and the United States made a bilateral deal that threw my whole plan out of wack. China was actually doing something to reduce climate change?! Unbelievable! Anyway, I had to make a deal with the Delegate from the United States, Aaron, and alter a protocol that the conference was going to use as a starting point for the negotiations.

Let’s talk about the actual negotiations. Given that I came in with a protocol (and might I add that it was a FAIR protocol), I felt that it was unnecessary to yield in one way or another to other parties to the Conference, and therefore I argued to keep the status quo of the document that the United States and I produced. That was the plan, and I stuck to it throughout the entire process. As I mentioned before, it did not produce results. Yet, I believe that I represented my nation properly. Regardless, I found a problem and attempted to solve said problem. Was it an issue with my solution? I don’t think so. It’s a complication with the UNFCCC structure and its need for consensus. But that’s a blog for another time.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *