When I was in high school a few buddies and I finagled our way from Detroit to D.C. to represent Somalia at the Model United Nations. I won’t go into all the sordid details; it’s enough say that the trip is affectionately known in our historical canon as “Fear and Loathing in Washington.”

It was the Year of the Refugee, so we had scored big with our randomly assigned country as Somalia was the unfortunate host of millions of displaced persons. During the first day’s plenary session, we thought it would be a good idea to break the ice by sending a note via floor page to our nemesis, Ethiopia, a country we were at war with and in real life had severed all ties: “Party in our hotel room tonight! Go OAS!” Yes, that refers to the Organization of African States, and no, the hostile delegation did not think this funny.

Within moments of reading our missive, one of our adversaries rose to his feet shrieking to the Chairman: “Point of order! Calling for the immediate censure [or whatever] of Somalia for attempting to initiate contact!” Evidently, we were not allowed to even pass a note to our (c’mon, not really) enemy and we were embarrassingly taken to task in front of the session. We immediately struck back by pointing out to the same Chair the “Ethiopians” failure to wear neckties. This breach of decorum was, it turned out, as grave an error on their part as was our failure to not communicate. Needless to say, we Somalis learned our lesson and avoided our fellows from the Horn of Africa – and co-creators of the world’s largest refugee problem – for the rest of our time in Washington.

No meaningful resolutions were passed.

I recall this story in the light of WikiLeaks’ recent release (to five major news outlets) of a large number of United States diplomatic cables between the State Department and its operations around the world. The “leaks” are the beginning of the third in a series, following the exposure of Afghan War and Iraq War documents earlier this year. The incident has become a global sensation, bringing to light the way in which diplomatic activity is conducted – and calling into question the security of intra- and international communications surrounding that activity. (Adding to the drama was WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s recent surrender to British authorities as a result of a sexual assault investigation in Sweden.)

High school memories aside, I do recognize the gravity of the situation here, and I, for one, am as dazzled as anyone by the savage behind-the-scenes elicit interactions, horse trading, strong-arming and bribery that seems to be the norm when it comes to what our American delegations – from the United Nations in New York to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change conferences in Copenhagen and Cancun – like to call “delicate negotiations” or “meetings of the minds.”

Of course, we at EcoSalon are concerned about the diplomacy around climate change negotiations – and as the data comes in regarding what went down in Copenhagen, for example, we’re seeing quite a troubling picture. By way of background, the accord, which allows each nation to choose a target for greenhouse gas cuts, was designed in part to make it easy to get countries likes China and rapidly developing nations on board, though many feel it falls way short of needed measures. Moreover, opponents said it would get in the way of extending the binding provisions of the Kyoto Protocol – placed on richer nations – and it was thus opposed by many poorer countries.

Here’s what we know from the Guardian (guardian.co.uk), one of the five news organizations that has access to the leaks: The United States began “a diplomatic offensive” to get the accord signed and cables show that the U.S. sought “dirt on nations opposed to its approach to tackling global warming.” This included going after “human intelligence” from UN diplomats. One cable “names specific countries of interest, including China, France, Japan, Mexico, Russia and the European Union, and seeks biographical details of individuals such as credit card and frequent-flyer numbers. It also seeks compromising intelligence on the officials running the climate negotiations, such as ‘efforts by treaty secretariats to influence treaty negotiations or compliance.’”

Meanwhile, the “Basic” nations (Brazil, South Africa, India and China) mounted their opposition. Says another cable: “It is remarkable how closely coordinated the Basic group has become in international fora, taking turns to impede US/EU initiatives and playing the US and EU off against each other. Basic countries have widely differing interests, but have subordinated these to their common short-term goals.”

And then there was another huge player, Saudi Arabia. A cable from Ambassador James Smith says, interestingly, that officials from the oil-producing giant “have suggested that they need to find a way to climb down gracefully from the country’s tough negotiating position. … Saudi officials are very eager to obtain investment credits for carbon capture and storage (CCS) and other technology transfer projects.”

The bottom line is that everyone was maneuvering hard. Some nations were even willing to sell their vote to the highest bidder.

Ugly, huh?

But here’s the rub, and the question on the street in Cancun, where this year’s conference is currently underway. With the fear that back-room dealings might be exposed to the public – including the benign, the ugly muscling and the sometimes uglier beddings among those who don’t want anyone to know that they’re engaged in any contact – could progress be slowed to crawl, or even doomed?

What role could secret talks play in allowing an obstructionist country to “climb down gracefully,” or the U.S. and the E.U. to work together to prevent a China from killing a (more comprehensive than Copenhagen) deal? Or who’s to say that less-developed nations (perhaps even outwardly adversarial ones) ought not to be able to secretly gather in their own smoke-filled rooms to circumvent the agendas of richer nations? After all, from the Middle East to Middle America, anyone familiar with diplomatic negotiations knows that a lot of trees are often quietly felled in very private forests before breakthroughs occur.

This is not to say that exposure of dirty deals and powerful countries abusing less-powerful ones isn’t a good thing. In fact, the WikiLeaks witch-hunt and censorship effort is somewhere between abhorrent and Orwellian.  But some players would tell you this: If next year’s dealings in Durban – where real, binding breakthroughs are not out of the question – were to be conducted with the presumption of complete transparency, progress might be no more than an elusive dream.

So here is the essential quandary of the Wikileaks phenomenon. Says Julian Assange in yesterday’s The Australian: “The truth will always win.” Nice sentiment. Will it? So much of what has been revealed is opening the world’s eyes to the gruesome underbelly of how nations deal with each other to manipulate people and populations to the benefit of the greedy and the powerful. Yet the question remains, without the ability for nations to conduct business in private, would certain essential bridges never be built, subterranean ties never be made, diplomatic infrastructure never exist that could open doors to change and allow for conflict resolution?

There’s a lot of support for WikiLeaks out there. And there are a lot of critics. But there are a lot of mixed feelings, as well. “What ifs” are easy, but I have to ask these questions: If every Soviet constituency knew of Mikhail Gorbachev’s interactions with Washington, would he have made it to the finish line? If certain Republicans knew of Richard Nixon’s interactions with Mao Tse-Tung, would relations with China have opened? How much sooner might Anwar Sadat have been murdered had his back-room dealings with Menachem Begin been revealed? There are no easy answers, but there’s a lot to consider, as well as a lot of trust going on that publications like the The New York Times, Der Spiegel and the Guardian will be making some wise decisions.

In the meantime, in the world’s diplomatic circles the question continues to be asked, often in secret: “Can we talk?” The answer:  “Maybe. Depends who’s listening.”

Image: p373

The post About WikiLeaks: Can We Talk? appeared first on EcoSalon.

Climate control freaks?

Geoengineering is exactly what it says it is – engineering our geo. But here’s a cooler definition from the National Academy of Sciences:  “Options that would involve large-scale engineering of our environment in order to combat or counteract the effects of changes in atmospheric chemistry.” Consider this: when Mt. Pinatubo, in the Philippines erupted in 1991, its bad-ass belch of some 20 million tons of sulfur dioxide dropped world temperatures by an average of half a degree. Scientists now have the technology get the same job done without any help from the volcano gods; they can use airplanes to inject sulfur dioxide right into the stratosphere. One way to combat global warming? Maybe, but hey, maybe it’s a good idea to set up some rules here before we get all crazy, no?

Who’s upstairs?

There are lots of breakthroughs these days regarding our knowledge of what’s happening at the helm of our own personal wheelhouses. While we’re always going on about how we should all be thinking, buying and even voting green, how much control do we really have as to where our minds and dollars go? What we’re getting here is, do you know what the “neuromarkerters” are up to these daze? Do you know the role they played in this month’s election? Stay tuned in (if you can) for tales about who’s trying to take control of your controls.

Insides Out

While we’re looking at what’s under the hood, how about them stem cells? We’re all about sustainability here, right, and what could be more sustaining than potentially life-giving research opportunities? Well it depends on who you ask. What’s happening on the biotech ground – from university and corporate labs to the halls of the Hill – affect our current and future quality of life every day, and the latest rules and regs and funding issues are playing a major role in how we approach these issues as a society. Who are the players on these issues and what do they have cookin’ up in their petri dishes?

It’s in the air

Blown away by all the wind-generated energy hubbub? Swept up by the grand promises while suffering though the doldrums of slow-to-no progress? Well, we are too. With plans for massive “farming” projects everywhere from the Great Plains to off our coastlines, there are a lot of questions to explore about what’s the right way to go about an effective wind grabbing. What are the costs? What are the potential rewards? Who’s primed to make coin on these deals that could make large-scale engineering efforts like the Hoover Dam seem like specs in our collective rear view mirror? And as a nation, are we interested in taking the innovation lead?

What’s happening?

Save the date! Our global(ish) eco-social is coming up this month in sunny Cancun, Mexico, where the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is guaranteed to entertain. And who better to cover the red carpet happenings than EcoSalon? The background from the UN is this: “Over a decade ago, most countries joined an international treaty – the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) – to begin to consider what can be done to reduce global warming and to cope with whatever temperature increases are inevitable. More recently, a number of nations approved an addition to the treaty: the Kyoto Protocol, which has more powerful (and legally binding) measures.” Here’s the subtext for this 16th meeting: Might a new binding treaty emerge? Don’t hold you breath – or maybe hold it. In any case, we’ll be covering the event! (In fact, we should send a reporter, right? Um, editor at ecosalon dot com. Tell her Scott sent you.)

OMG! It’s getting warmer in here!

If you thought we were going to leave Rep. Shimkus alone (note our shot across the bow last week), you’re mistaken. Not that we’re not saying there’s anything wrong with a Godly approach to life, but if he is speaking to us at all, he’s probably saying “knock it off with the greenhouse gases!” Anyway, it’s not just Shimkus we’re worried about. We’ll be keeping our eye on the climate control-busting shenanigans class of 2011. No quarter here. That’s a promise.

Duck and cover

Picking up on the Shimkus wave, we’re here to remind you that the War on Science is alive and well – and well-funded. Science denial seems to reaching a crescendo these days, whether deniers are taking on Einstein or climate change, the span between what science is telling us and what we believe seems to be growing. What are the facts on this issue? Does anyone care? Who wants you not to know better?

Is this thing (still) on?

Do I really need a new laptop already? It seems like I just bought one. Well, surprise, surprise, my breakdown might have been planned to go down well before my box was boxed. Planned obsolescence is a story not only about marketing and corporate greed, but about product footprints, waste and and throwaway culture. As our pal Brian Clark Howard recently said over at The Daily Green, “The issue has big environmental implications, because our insatiable appetite for stuff drives carbon emissions and pollution.” Quick, before the warranty expires, let’s take a look at this issues, and why it’s not necessarily an all-bad phenomenon.

Okay, so there’s a little EcoSalon skin. Hot huh? We missing anything? Thoughts? Ramblings? Send us a note at contact at ecosalon dot com.

Images: World Economic Forum, flydime, Liberal Democrats, James & Vilija, , phault
World Economic Forum, danielfoster437, woodleywonderworks, m.gifford

The post Not Quite 10 Stories (Okay, 8) We’ve Got Our Eyes On appeared first on EcoSalon.