Bali and world politics

I am very interested in what we can learn about the current state of world politics from watching the current UN Climate Change conference in Bali, Indonesia. The biggest dispute there today was reportedly between the US (with a few supporters) and the Europeans.
Bush is still proceeding with his ‘coalition-of-the-willing” type of approach to dealing with the climate change issue. The basic idea of COTW, regarding climate change, nuclear non- (or counter-) proliferation, invading Iraq, or any other issue is that it is (a) always US-led, and (b) intentionally opposed to the kind of true multilateralism in which the US like all other parties commits itself to reciprocally binding agreements.
Bush’s first attempt to use COTW with regard to climate change was notably to stay out of the Kyoto Protocol, and to urge/encourage other governments to do likewise. (So you might also call it Coalition of the Unwilling, I suppose.)
Then in June, at the G-8 summit in Green-strong Germany, he proposed this notably non-UN gathering of “industrial nations” that would be convened by the US to discuss the issue. The invitees politely went along, but sent only very low-level people to the meeting, which was held in the US in September.
Bush did at least agree to send administration officials to the current UN gathering in Bali, where the main task is to negotiate a follow-on to the Kyoto Protocol, which will expire in 2012. But the US official delegation dug in its heels in opposition to the idea of any mention of actual targets for the CO2 emission reduction. Washington apparently has the support of Canada, Japan, and Russia in the anti-targets position it has adopted. Also, Australia’s newly elected Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has signaled that he wants to back the US position, which is particularly sad given that many of his supporters back home had hoped that his election would mark an end to Australia slavishly following Washington in its foreign policy errors.
The EU, which favors targets, has now come flat out and accused Washington of being the main obstacle to success in Bali.
We can note that this is at a time of increasing disagreement between the US and many European nations over Afghanistan, as well, with US Defense Secretary Bob Gates publicly criticising the Europeans for not sending enough troops to Afghanistan.
In Bali, the Chinese seem to be sitting outside the main arena of the EU-US conflict. This Reuters article from Bali says,

    The Chinese team has been applauded by other delegations and activists for its cooperative attitude, but says its proposals to do more in return for help with clean technology have foundered amid squabbling over who is responsible for rising temperatures.

Regarding China’s role on the future of climate-control efforts, this short essay by Swiss writer Christoph Neidhart suggests that China may soon be in the forefront of the technological innovation processes required to wean the world off greenhouse-gas-emitting fuels: “It seems likely that the next industrial revolution – which will be as transformative as the introduction of coal, steam-power and the combustion-engine – will take off in China or elsewhere in east Asia.” Worth reading the whole argument he makes there…
I have a suggestion. The US is still a huge weight within the world community. I truly don’t think the US is going to be a force for constructive engagement on climate issues so long as GWB is president. Kyoto– with all its flaws– runs until 2012. I realize that the post-Kyoto arrangement will take time to implement. But couldn’t we all just postpone the next round of Bali negotiations till after January 2009? Even if that would delay arriving at an agreement by, say, 15 months, and might delay being able to implement the agreement reached by something like that period of time, wouldn’t it be better to wait till we have a person in the White House who is open to the idea of mutually binding multilateral agreements, and less fixated on the dreadful and nearly always very damaging COTWs?
We should remember, too, that the effects of global warming are already posing life-and-death risks to large populations in a number of countries– and might well pose a risk to international peace and security within just the next few years. If the US persists in its stubborn and selfish pursuit of “CO2 emissions R Us”, then the rest of the world would have every right to impose sanctions against us until such time as our country stops poisoning the six billion people who live outside our borders.

9 thoughts on “Bali and world politics”

  1. The new Prime Minister of Australia Kevin Rudd, is not in any way supporting George Bush at Bali. Though it would be fair to say that he is not yet willing to close out the US, and other countries, with a declaration of targets. He wants Bali to be inclusive and produce a road map for the post Kyoto world. He believes that a commitment to action by all nations is the best outcome at this stage, as opposed to more fighting over strategic detail.
    The Rudd government has, domestically, commissioned a major study by Professor Ross Garnault on the economic impact that action on climate change will engender. This report is to be released next year, work that the previous government and Bush ally Howard, should have done long ago. Regrettably this lack of planning is still the case of many of the countries participating at Bali. Kevin Rudd is unlikely to preempt that report.
    This is not to say that his government is not alarmed about the dangers of global warming. Everyday Australians are facing the fact that the best case scenarios of its consequences are bad enough. http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22922998-29277,00.html
    Yes, an action plan is necessary. More importantly is that the world is working as one.

  2. Just to add a little to my comment on Australia’s role at Bali. The team within Kevin Rudd’s government that he has put together is amongst his most able heavy hitters. Particularly Minister Penny Wong who is leading the negotiating for Australia.
    But lets be clear about the state of play with global warming. It is no longer an issue that belongs to environmental advocacy groups.
    We are not talking about damming a river or building a paper mill. We are talking about irrevocable damage to the planet as a whole. Whatever we do to ameliorate CO2 emissions must be the responsibility of governments and brought about by their technocrats. Which means that the debate cannot escape its political dimension. And this in a world where most of the globe has yet to undergo an industrial revolution – an imperative in its own right.
    I can’t criticize China for being ambivalent – given the intransigence of countries that responsible for the situation in the first place.

  3. I’m really pleased to see your follow-up on Bali out so quickly. Thanks Helena!
    Gore’s speech, admitting America was principally to blame for the Bali failure is of course on youtube.
    At start of this antipodean spring while on holiday I walked through Melbourne botanical gardens. The smaller concrete ponds and fountains had been left dry due to water restrictions. All this wealth and yet no water. It was bizarre.
    I’m sure the New Zealand government would be happy to share with Kevin it’s information on predicted economic impacts of climate change in our region. The information that convinced them years ago of the need for targets, despite it upsetting the Bush administration. There is little that could be more important to any nation dependent on farming and tourism than it’s future weather.
    In any case, having seen the mood of the Australian electorate at fairly recent first hand, I am sure Kevin will do what he was elected to do, about climate change and about Iraq. Because, not only does he seem at first blush far more progressive and independent than Howard, but also he would be gone very quickly indeed were he not to.

  4. The most salient point that you make, Helen, is that any concerted action that international governments make in regard to global warming should be made exclusive of the US until after GWB leaves office. Unfortunately he never outgrew his small boy rebellious attitude of opposing any action that seems to draw consensus from others.
    The best way for a three year old to maintain attention on himself is to stubbornly say ‘no’ and at the same time stay in everyone’s path. The strategy seems to work just as well for the adult whose main purpose is self-aggrandizement.

  5. Ethelred the Unready bought off the Danes and bought time, but when the time ran out he had made no provision for the inevitable betrayal. That is the first political lesson I remember learning.
    Helena the Unready you will be if you get your wish and after 15 months the same USA is still playing the same tricks under a new President. Why would they not? It has been the same story for generations past.
    I am not saying you should not make a choice in the election. To abstain would be to be guilty of “Indifferentism”. The mistake is not in making a choice. The mistake is relying completely on the electoral democracy of the state, and in failing to organise in any other way.
    It is as if the US democracy is purpose-designed to train its Presidents that there is no other power, and no other possible power. The system demonstrates this to them. GW Bush is only a little more florid and frank in this regard than any other. His infantile “decider” remark is truth out the mouth of a babe. Like Caligula’s, his conduct says as much about the institution he personifies, as it does about himself.
    Don’t hesitate, organise.

  9. Patrick, thanks for that quite informative link. Did you read the slew of inane comments to that article? Is that mindset at all common in Canada, or is it something particular to the Globe and Mail’s readership?

Comments are closed.