Uncle Sam’s toxic ways

The Kyoto Protocol was miraculously revived recently after it was endorsed by Russian State Duma. President Bush, who had made his campaign ...

The Kyoto Protocol was miraculously revived recently after it was endorsed by Russian State Duma. President Bush, who had made his campaign pledge in 2000 to curtail emissions of carbon dioxide, abandoned the Protocol in March 2001. Soon thereafter, Condoleeza Rice informed the European Union that the Protocol was ‘‘dead’’.

The Kyoto Protocol was signed by 84 countries in 1997. It envisaged that the Protocol had to be ratified by countries accounting for at least 55 per cent of global emissions. The United States is the world’s largest emitter of heat-trapping gases responsible for global warming. Without US endorsement, most countries will have to bear substantial economic costs in fulfilling their pledges to reduce their emissions of heat-trapping gases. The future of the Protocol thus hangs in balance. However, the world has to act now to reduce substantially the emission of potentially dangerous gases. It is this realisation which has led the EU to enshrine its Kyoto targets into a binding legislation. Evidently, Russia’s endorsement of the Protocol is linked to very persuasive efforts of the EU, and friendly countries like India.

Undoubtedly, sustaining the global environment has emerged as one of the leading issues in international politics. Is it possible that the EU would secure either partnership or some form of cooperation of the US? Apparently, there is no possibility of any honeymoon. President Bush’s second innings in the White House is unlikely to be much different in substance from his first. Since he is hemmed in, he may try to sound less aggressive. He may cut down some arrogance in US foreign policy. However, he won’t give up unilateralism and hegemonism.

Story continues below this ad

The Bush administration’s foreign policy was premised on what is called ‘‘ABC rule’’, that is, Anything But Clinton. Bush and his Republican associates totally rejected the worldview of Bill Clinton. Like most Americans, Clinton also liked American preponderance. However, inspired by the Wilsonian vision, he wanted to build US-dominated World Order based on the ‘‘rule of law’’. It was this approach that led him to pursue arms control agreements such as the CTBT, Biological Weapons Convention, Kyoto Protocol etc. He saw the need to secure international cooperation, building multilateral organisations to deal with emerging set of policy challenges. Bush, and his team of ‘‘vulcans’’, rejected Bill Clinton’s policy decisions on numerous grounds. They favoured the unilateral exercise of power and decried the ineffectiveness of multilateral organisations. They particularly despaired at the constraints the multilateral bodies placed on America’s freedom to act. Within a few short months of coming to office, Bush withdrew from at least five major multilateral treaties and international agreements, including the Kyoto Protocol. Bush’s opposition to these was particularly heavy-handed, which indicated what is called ‘‘just-say-no’’ foreign policy. He withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol entirely on small domestic considerations, arguing that the ‘‘idea of placing caps on CO2 does not make economic sense for America.’’

President Bush visited Europe in June 2001. On the eve of his visit, he pointedly reiterated his stern opposition to Kyoto. His diplomacy in Europe flowed directly from his core worldview and beliefs. If all states pursue their self-interest, the US should do the same without being questioned. There was no need to search for common policies, even with its European allies. He believed that Clinton had indulged the Europeans in their misguided view of multilateral agreements. It was expected that the US allies would feel obliged to adjust to American unilateralism. Soon after the conclusion of his European visit, he told Peggy Noonan, Ronald Reagan’s speechwriter: ‘‘I wasn’t going to yield. I went to dinner with 15 leaders of the EU, and patiently sat there as all 15…told me how wrong I was about the Kyoto Protocol. And at the end I said, I appreciate your point of view, but this is the American position because it is right for America.’’ It sounds, as one analyst put it, ‘‘more fitting to a Cold War summit with the Soviet leaders than a peacetime meeting with America’s closest allies’’.

It is indeed naive to assume that President Bush and his vulcans have now relented and thus changed their convoluted worldview. In October 2002, Bush observed: ‘‘I am amazed that there is such misunderstanding of what our country is about. Like most Americans, I just can’t believe it. Because I know how good we are.’’ Apparently, he has adopted the motto: ‘‘Let them hate as long as they fear.’’ Whatever Bush may proclaim about his Christian ideology, it is rather un-Christian to walk out of the Kyoto Protocol.

The writer is Dean, School of International Studies, JNU