The article WikiLeaks cables reveal how US manipulated climate accord tells us how America used spying, threats and promises of aid to get support for Copenhagen accord. It reveals the hidden dark side behind the global climate change negotiations and the U.S. is the centre of this event. This diagram shows how the U.S. use diplomatic tactics to overwhelm opposition to the Copenhagen Accord. The beginning of this event is the increasing greenhouse gas emission, which results in global climate change. In order to better determine every country’s responsibility, an international climate treaty is needed. After long-term negotiation, Copenhagen Accord is the one that best fit the U.S. interest. In order to support this accord, the U.S. would need help from other countries to back this treaty. The U.S. use money and threats to buy political support and use spying and cyberwarfare to seek out leverage. WikiLeaks reveal diplomatic cables that the U.S. used to persuade other countries into signing the Copenhagen Accord. For example, although Saudi Arabia was not a fan of the accord, but the U.S. committed to help with its economic diversification on the condition of Saudi Arabia back the U.S.. By February 2010, 116 countries had associated themselves with the Copenhagen Accord, and 26 countries were intending to associate. The total of 140 nations represent almost 75% of the countries that are parties to the UN climate change convention and are responsible for over 80% of current global greenhouse gas emissions. With the majority of countries supporting the Copenhagen Accord, it would be beneficial to climate change.

Although the end result is to lower greenhouse gas emission and help the climate change problem, I think what the U.S. has done to gain more supports is not the best option. Climate change mitigation is a collective action problem, which means the individual interest conflicts with the group’s interest. Reaching an agreement on an international climate treaty is difficult, since every country has its own interest and different opinions. Poor countries thinks that it’s unfair for rich countries to ask them to reduce emissions since the the poor are just trying to develop a good living standard which the rich cause most of the emissions. Furthermore, reducing emissions is also very difficult since most greenhouse gases are emitted by the burning of fossil fuels, and limiting emission would also limit the use of fossil fuels. The U.S. used political and financial aids as leverage to persuade other less powerful countries to back the Copenhagen Accord, while not every one of these countries favor the treaty. But in order to receive help from America, these countries had to support the treaty and somehow “ignore” its own interest in this treaty. So I think it’s unfair to the other countries. Some ways to improve the current situation can be used to make this process fairer for every country. For example, countries can be devided into different development level, more developed countries can set a higher goal in reducing emission. Or they can be grouped by emission level, high-emission countries should take more responsibilities in reducing emission.