It's widely believed that the two-week Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, which convened on December 7, may not be able to deliver any substantive result and could possibly turn out to be a tug-of-war of national interests shrouded in power politics.

Coping in Copenhagen. [Ma Dengjia/China.org.cn]

The past few days justifies this concern. The EU, eager for a commanding vantage, has proposed a target that it considers convincing enough; while the United States, which never ratified the Kyoto Protocol, seems to be looking up and down, wavering between the lofty and the ugly. The developing countries, in their difficult process of industrialization, are making calculations in order to sustain domestic growth, which may be even more imperative for them than cutting emissions. For the least-developed nations of this planet, the idea itself of cutting emissions is somehow far-fetched. And to those small island countries struggling with the tragic prospect of disappearing from the horizon, Copenhagen could be their last chance. What a difference!

As with other multilateral frameworks, power politics will have its play in the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference. That's why the whole world is looking to major stakeholders, who are also major emitters. Without their inputs and efforts to bring about concrete and constant action, curbing global warming would simply be out of the question.

Given the EU's high-profile commitment to cut emissions, the United States, China and India have all taken initiatives to combat global warming, although controversy remains regarding the percentage cuts. How to achieve equilibrium on the basis of "common but differential responsibility" and hence precipitate a legally-binding pact calls for a better global vision and greater political wisdom from world leaders.

With the agenda gradually unfolding and deepening, conflicts are accumulating. From day two of the conference, there have been fierce debates in Copenhagen. However, this multilateral framework is not intended for meaningless quarrels and charges. Leaders of the world should be aware of two points: first, multilateral diplomacy is far more effective in pooling consensus than arguing; second, democracy is not to be wasted in vain.