O Globo, Brazil

U.S.A. Inhibits Transnational Political Decision-making

By William Waack

December 14, 2007

Translated by Andrew Della Rocca

Brazil - O Globo - Original Article (Portuguese)

It is not much of a surprise when an American government interferes with negotiations to combat global warming.  But what is happening in Bali, Indonesia, when 190 countries discuss what to do to counter greenhouse gas emissions is new even to the usual standards of American interference in international agreements:  The delegation of the United States refuses to accept scientific data (prepared by a panel of experts from the UN) which it had welcomed two months ago.

The response of the Europeans was tough, and formulated in a bruising manner:  if, this time, the White House impedes the Bali accord, the Europeans will not participate in the round of negotiations called the MEM (the “Major Economies Meeting” – a euphemism for the major polluters) http://www.state.gov/g/oes/climate/mem/  organized and sponsored by the United States, scheduled for January in Hawaii.  The accord signifies, for the Europeans (among others) the adoption of targets – expressed in numbers – to reduce greenhouse gases.

You, internet user, will find here in section GI (the O Globo section on science and health) and in others, a universe of information about what is in play, in technical terms and in specifics, in the Bali negotiations.  What interests me is a point that appears to me to have enormous relevance, and that which looks like a classic issue in the field of international relations.  It is obvious that, in Bali, the strength of nations is relative to their capacity to express themselves in blocks.  But also obvious is the weight and importance of SOME nations themselves.

The old debate about nuclear energy (already a good thirty years old) was one which most called attention to problems that, alone, states would never have the ability to solve.  A nuclear accident in one country would have fatal consequences for others (like that which happened in Chernobyl).  How can this be resolved from the point of view of international law?  How can policies and measures to cope with such cases be articulated? 

Global Warming has made the issue even more difficult.  There are notorious champions against emissions, but this fact does not help states “protect” themselves from outside of their borders.  The problem can only be resolved through collective action – action that, in the understanding of many nations (especially the emitters) considerably restricts traditional concepts of sovereignty and autonomy.

Part of the foundation of the American position is that international agreements like the Kyoto Protocol, which create different obligations to particular groups of countries, could give competitive advantages to the economies and businesses of competitors.  But that is not the central problem (and there is an excellent proposal for the cement, steel, and aluminum industries that reductes of emissions without creating distortions in the market).

With remarkable consistency, regardless of whether the occupant of the White House is democrat or republican, Americans do not want to feel locked into collective decisions made in multilateral clubs (setting aside the dreams of Roosevelt after the Second World War).  Al Gore went directly from Norway, where he received the Nobel Peace Prize, to Bali to say, amidst great applause, that the White House is the principal obstacle to an agreement.  Gore suggested that there may be a change with the upcoming elections in the United States, when he anticipates that democrats will return to power in the executive branch, but he doesn’t guarantee the type of changes nor that they will even happen.

Confirming the point above, American multinational big business appears much more advanced than the government in its position to find some type of universal limits on emissions.  In the case of cement, steel, and aluminum, for example, 50% of world production is in the hands of fewer than 20 large companies, which fact would facilitate a mutual understanding.  The same occurs in the automobile sectors – furthermore, this type of corporation prefers self regulation more than international laws that are difficult to implement and easy to violate.

It is very possible that large companies stop pushing governments of large countries in directions that until now they have excused themselves from following.  But it would be totally superficial to say, then, that conventions about the climate serve only economic interests.  What they require is another type of understanding, on the part of governments, of the necessity to impose on themselves decisions that affect sovereignty and autonomy.

From there, it is my view, that the Europeans have a notable advantage over the United States.  Bad or good, the European Union worked in the last three decades as a supra-national body on which they bestow decisions which were before only made in government palaces of national capitals.  It is a good example.  It is an indication, embraced by some analysts and historians (Americans, included) that the 21st century, in spite of everything that’s been said, will be the century of Europe.