<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Daniel Michaeli: Asia Ruminations &#187; Copenhagen</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.asiaruminations.com/tag/copenhagen/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.asiaruminations.com</link>
	<description>Asian Geopolitics, Domestic Politics, and Everything in Between</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 Nov 2011 06:28:46 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Fizzling of the &#8220;G2&#8221;: Opportunity for India</title>
		<link>http://www.asiaruminations.com/2009/12/28/fizzling-of-the-g2-opportunity-for-india/</link>
		<comments>http://www.asiaruminations.com/2009/12/28/fizzling-of-the-g2-opportunity-for-india/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Dec 2009 23:11:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Daniel Michaeli</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[India]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[China]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Copenhagen]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[G2]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. China Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[United States]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.asiaruminations.com/?p=622</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[After Copenhagen, many are beginning to rethink their expectations for collaboration between the United States and China. The idea of a &#8220;Group of Two&#8221; (G2) was always far-fetched and, arguably, misguided. But now that popular perception of a G2 is changing as the world finds it harder to work with China, there could be new opportunities for Asia&#8217;s other rising great power: India.
The notion that the United States and China could get together, harmonize their positions, and rule the world as a &#8220;Group of Two&#8221; (G2) was always an illusion. ...]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.asiaruminations.com/2009/12/28/fizzling-of-the-g2-opportunity-for-india/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Is China Afraid of International Scrutiny?</title>
		<link>http://www.asiaruminations.com/2009/12/24/is-china-afraid-of-international-scrutiny/</link>
		<comments>http://www.asiaruminations.com/2009/12/24/is-china-afraid-of-international-scrutiny/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Dec 2009 15:49:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Daniel Michaeli</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[China]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chinese Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Climate Change]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Copenhagen]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Corruption]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wen Jiabao]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.asiaruminations.com/?p=598</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A Foreign Policy article from earlier this week argues that China is &#8220;afraid to shine too bright a light in dark places,&#8221; revealing the corruption and disorder in most of China&#8211;and that this is why Wen Jiabao refused to subject Chinese emissions to outside scrutiny at Copenhagen. But the article&#8217;s author, John Lee of the Hudson Institute, is focusing on exactly the wrong part of the picture.
The article confuses the interests of the central government and local governments. Indeed, if (as claimed), the central government was planning on &#8220;cooking the books&#8221; ...]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.asiaruminations.com/2009/12/24/is-china-afraid-of-international-scrutiny/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Copenhagen: &#8220;China Won&#8221;?</title>
		<link>http://www.asiaruminations.com/2009/12/21/copenhagen-china-won/</link>
		<comments>http://www.asiaruminations.com/2009/12/21/copenhagen-china-won/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Dec 2009 22:47:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Daniel Michaeli</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[China]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Climate Change]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Copenhagen]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[European Union]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[G77]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wen Jiabao]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.asiaruminations.com/?p=554</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[British Prime Minister Gordon Brown is expected to say in a podcast that a deal at Copenhagen was &#8220;held to ransom by a handful of countries.&#8221; His climate secretary wrote, more specifically, that it was China that had &#8220;vetoed&#8221; crucial proposals the entire developed world and most of the developing world stood behind.
The Financial Times reports seeing &#8220;a more assertive China&#8221; at the summit. And at least one paper&#8217;s conclusion from Copenhagen is: &#8220;China won, the world lost.&#8221;
But did China really win? It kept the Kyoto agreement intact and avoided ...]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.asiaruminations.com/2009/12/21/copenhagen-china-won/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

