United States foreign policy addresses environmental issues through several institutions that oversee and implement environment protection and enforcement. However, the problems that arise from environmental degradation are trans-state in nature and require international support and cooperation. While there is a collective agreement worldwide that the effects of environmental degradation, such as global warming, are an international concern, the domestic priorities of first and second tier countries are in conflict which intensifies the difficulties of achieving a consensus on the proper resolution. President Bush stated in 2002 (as cited by U.S. Dept of State, http://www.state.gov/g/oes/env/trade/index.htm) that “History shows that as nations become more prosperous, their citizens will demand, and can afford, a cleaner environment.”
Economic prosperity can be achieved in development through free trade, which in turn leads to the exploitation of resources. This contradiction promoting prosperity through development therefore demands the United States to act in ways that promote its environmental protection agenda. Therefore, the Trade Promotion Authority, which resonated from the Trade Act of 2002 aimed to protect the environment in its policy initiatives in two ways: by ensuring that free trade partners enforce their environmental laws, and that free trade partners are given the capacity in which to promote sustainable development.
The State Department of the United States has implemented several institutions throughout its environmental offices to “forge this cooperation and these commitments thorough a variety of diplomatic approaches globally, regionally, and bilaterally (http://www.state.gov/g/oes/env/).” Such institutions are the Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, The Office of Environmental Policy, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, and the Office of Ecology and Natural Resource Conservation. Although each of these offices orchestrate and promote multilateral and bilateral agreements specific to their cause, collectively they represent the United States interests in environmental issues through Environmental Diplomacy.
Through its negotiations and active participation in global initiatives, such as those promoted by the United Nations, World Trade Organization, etc., the United States has a very positive and pronounced foreign policy on environmental issues. As an economic world leader, it has the opportunity to aid and assist countries by engaging them in environmentally friendly trade policy that reinforces their “efforts to economically develop states of the Second Tier….. In ways that do not further pollute and already polluted environment (Snow, p327).” By aligning trade agreements with environmental policy in ways that promote development, then the United States leadership will prove the philosophy of Bush (as previously stated) valid, which would result in the convergence of domestic and foreign policy that promotes a cleaner global environment.
References:
Snow, D. (2005). United States Foreign Policy: Politics Beyond the Water’s Edge. Third Edition. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth Publishing.
U.S. Dept. of State. (n.d.). Supporting Free Trade and Environmental Protection. U.S. Department of State: Diplomacy in Action. Retrieved from http://www.state.gov/g/oes/env/trade/index.htm
U.S. Dept. of State. (n.d.). Environment and Conservation. U.S. Department of State: Diplomacy in Action. Retrieved from http://www.state.gov/g/oes/env/
8 comments:
While I agree that the United States has taken a broader approach towards the issue of environmental degradation, I feel it needs to more domestically on this issue by demanding its corporate citizens to develop more stringent policies and practices that promote better environmental stewardship.
disagree with the position taken in the article. In my view, aligning free trade with international environmental policy is a disaster in the making. Corporations, by and large, have no obligations to the commons (the transboundary environmental grounds such as the Mekong River or the oceans which are accessible to all nations); the only legally defined obligation of corporations is that dictated by national law, but primarily by the shareholders. Profits are still the name of the game. By espousing free market capitalism as part of the solution to environmental issues, you actually only get accelerated deterioration of the environment at the hands of corporations who seek more massive production volumes to benefit from a lower cost-per-unit basis.
The free trade agreements that the U.S. has put forward, often through the IMF, have beggared thy neighbor on multiple occasions. Structural adjustment policies (SAPs) in the 1980s - 90s were largely a disaster for Asia Pacific countries trying to follow the Western model of development at the cost of IMF loans. In some cases, the countries ended up more in debt 10 years after taking the loan than they were before taking the 'development' loan.
Furthermore, the US has consistent spoken out of both sides of the mouth. In order to qualify for these development loans, countries usually have to abandon their tariffs and other domestic subsidies which artificially keep their consumer goods at a reasonable cost. However, since the US does not have to 'qualify' for development loans of its own, they are free to continue to subsidize their domestic markets. The US subsidizes its wheat and corn markets extensively; the result is that international communities in Asia and Latin America (having newly abandoned their own subsidies) cannot compete on a cost basis, and they end up importing US grain and killing their own domestic market. Paul Roberts writes extensively about this issue in the book "The End of Food".
Environmental protection is a costly activity: that is why only prosperous countries can afford it (as in President Bush's citation). In a globalized world, wealthier nations should help lower income countries in taking care of their environments. That is what COP15 in Copenhagen was all about. The question is: how do we proceed on that? What help is actually to be given? Who should give what? To what extent a country can be called to cooperate and help, and another country can ask to be given?
I think there is no hope for a global-wide agreement, one of a binding kind, I mean, at least for the time being. We need a group of countries to take the lead and start enhancing stricter, certified environmental standards. Perhaps turning to limiting access to its market for non-participating countries. Would this lead to a trade war? Probably, but if we stand still and wait for a global agreement to come to life, we would still have a trade war...at a a much lower level, as all nations would strive for the lower possible costs in order to stay on the market.
Much better, than, a trade war where the benchmark is set a higher level.
Integration of efficient flow sheets into developmental planning and execution is the only way to retard environmental degradation.
Improvement in quality of life creates degradation of environment hence, all consumers need to participate equitably in degradation reduction strategies.
Free trade as a way of creating economic prosperity is a crazy idea. It allows for exploitation of others, but generally it is better if you just create good local economic systems. After all it is the local economics that most people are involved in.
Global economics cannot be avoided these days, and it has its place, but it is hardly the beginning of ordinary peoples' prosperity.
Free trade as a way of creating economic prosperity is a crazy idea. It allows for exploitation of others, but generally it is better if you just create good local economic systems. After all it is the local economics that most people are involved in.
Global economics cannot be avoided these days, and it has its place, but it is hardly the beginning of ordinary peoples' prosperity.
Eyebright,
Precisely. Free trade does not take into account the needs of others as states seek to promote their own domestic economy and thus serve their best interests. I just wrote an article on 'the morality of profit' for a scholarship submission which addressed just that. Is it possible both morality and the pursuit of profit to harmonize? Well, yes, in a perfect world it is, but this is less than a perfect world. Profit does not have to mean greed but often it does as states are competitive for their security, stability, power, and socio-economic conditions. While sound local economic systems are the foundation for global economic prosperity, I certainly agree that "it is hardly the beginning of ordinary peoples' prosperity." With unequal distribution of wealth, resources, and further shared ideology - entering into the global economy with a weak economic system can be devastating to the nation-state.
to save the environment you need to show how development can go along with environmentalism - at the moment people feel like it is one or the other, so they don't fully jump for environmentalism, but if they realised the truth - that true environmentalism creates wealth they would all leap for it.
Post a Comment