The U.S. constantly fights for its security, negotiates for trade... the environment? That's something they're gonna find out about when Saudi Arabia runs out of oil and they end up buying it off the Russians (at extortionate prices)
Or so it seems.
As much as we would like to deny the current hegemonic statues of the United States of America, it seems to not only exist, but is endorsed by others. Recent proof of this could be seen in London at the G20 summit. The British national newspapers on the 1st of April were plastered with president Obama's face and a heading saying that Brown should be given credit for all the preparations that he had organized ahead of the summit. Bet no one thought of saying thanks to Brown before that. I'd lay odds that if Bush Jr. had said it, we'd all be spitting feathers and calling him a condescending, patronizing little *@£$+^!. However, that is a discussion for another day.
The reason I am pointing out (repressed and denied) American hegemony is because I would like to illustrate, with this particular nation state, a possible approach to the 3 different aspects of diplomacy that we have been asked to analyze this week: trade, security and the environment.
To begin with security, we know that the US has legitimate security concerns. It fears for its energy security, and is playing its never-ending strategy game of the 'war against terror' which under the Bush administration, and with Guantanamo Bay was looking more and more like the 'war against Islam'. (Thankfully Obama's sorted that out - see what I mean about hegemony?)
So, establishing contacts for them is vital. Intelligence gathering (of the kind that the public probably doesn't find out about, like the extent of Iran's nuclear development programme) is no doubt extremely important for them. Having allies - above all - is the absolute imperative.
The post-Cold War period has shown us that other factors are increasingly considered as legitimate security concerns(Riordan). The most obvious being non-state actors as a threat (particularly after 9/11) and the global economic downturn. The G20 endorses, therefore, the notion that security is no longer an issue in terms of state integration (or disintegration in the case of civil wars) but also in non-state centric terms. And the US has fought for this, long and hard.
Now on trade. Diplomatic trade relations are useful for a number of reasons, one of them being that they could set out a framework or raise a platform on which to discuss other topics. Trade has been one of the longest standing forms of interaction between different nation states. Cross continental trade routes, such as the Silk Road were being used prior to 100 BC.
With the US having almost 17% of the voting weight in the IMF, and all the money it has invested in the IMF, WTO and other such organizations it is no surprise that . According to Barston, trade policies and foreign policies must be combined effectively to mutually support each other. The GATT and its system of codes (such as government procurement, trade in civil aircraft etc..) was used by the US to increase trade with those countries that adhered to the codes that they considered most important. Although it has been identified that trade disputes have also been on the rise with increased globalization. Here we see proof too that the Americans worry about establishing good trade relations (its trade relations with Japan aside). Especially when it comes to oil (or would they have bothered to intervene in the First Gulf War if they had not thought that Sadam would have eventually reached Saudi oil reserves?)
However, green is not a colour that seems to appeal to the US. With their reluctance to sign the Climate Convention (Kyoto Protocol) and their few token moves towards helping the environment (including fishing for dolphin-friendly tuna), they don't seem too worried about the effects of global warming, or ozone depletion, or the massive spread of greenhouse gases. The effects of the US (being one of the major greenhouse gas emitters) 'ignoring' or 'sidestepping' environmental issues (and remember, we've established it as a hegemony) has proved to be quite detrimental on an international level, as was demonstrated (again) by the G20 summit; the agenda consisted of three things:
the financial crisis (and possible solutions)
the financial crisis (and possible solutions)
and the financial crisis (and possible solutions).
Granted, it was and still is a major priority, but surely not the only thing to talk about? Couldn't they have made a tiny statement on the environment? (even though they admitted to deferring agreements on the environment until the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference in December this year). Sustainable development even?
With the US the environment seems to be an element of soft power that is used against them to place pressure on the fact that they have not cooperated as other developed countries, for example those in the EU, have.
To answer the question posed then, on what the key differences are between the three types of diplomacy, i would say that one of the main differences is evident in the priority that different states give to the different aspects. The US is not under an immediate threat of flooding in lowland areas due to global warming (not in a major way), and would probably be able to find new cooperating partners for trade should any of their current ones fail them. Security is their biggest issue, both at home and abroad. If we compare this to say, Bangladesh, then for them environmental concerns will be more relevant because they are at risk of losing a substantial amount of lowland due to flooding.
The manner in which different countries choose to pursue certain policies is also important. While trade wars exist, it is hard to see the use of hard power being used by any country in order to secure trade with another country. Having said that, speculation about the lengths that America is ready to go to in order to secure oil is still a question (although it was more of a question during the Bush Jr. administration than it is now). Similarly, the use of military power to defend the environment or environmental causes is also unlikely to be a cause for conflict or war.
As with many aspects of diplomacy, security, the environment and trade are all important relative to the circumstances that they apply to.
Isn't it also important to make the point that previous behaviour of the United Stated has brought some of the troubles that they (and the rest of us) are seeing now? Surely, as a hegemon, they should also try and be at least a bit responsible about what they do, but if we look back at the main events of the past decades, the US is involved, and can be said to have, directly or indirectly, have caused quite a few of them. 9/11 - some say they had it coming. Iraq. Afghanistan. Credit crunch. And then intense diplomacy (such as the G20) to try and convince the rest of the world to help them clean up the mess they've made. I bet you, if the environment situation goes south in a few years, we're all going to shake our heads and blame Uncle Sam and Bush Jr.
ReplyDeleteSurely the G20's decision to soley discuss the financial crisis was the right thing to do in the circumstances. If they had taken time to debate climate change (a debate they need to have) people would have been critisizing them for talking about it then when there is a whole summit dedicated to the subject at the end of the year. Whether they had spoken about it or not they would have been open to critisizm.I also think attention should be drawn to the flooding of New Orleans and the melting of the Alaskan ice sheets i.e. It is not that America doesn't care about global warming because it will not be effected, it's because a small minority of wealthy buisnesses with the ear of the Senete don't want to be inconvienianced.
ReplyDeleteIf the links between security (specifically war) and trade(specifically oil) , and environment and trade are undoubtadly present then surely Governments should be seeing these issues as 3 sides of the same dice, throw one and you have to throw them all. At the moments it seems major world governments do not think in terms of consequences and spend a fair amout of time contradicting themselves and doing damage that they hope will not need rectifying until 'the next guy' comes to power.
I enjoyed your original post, having said that however i think that, although cynisim is a healthy necessity when dealing with governments too much can devalue the points made. by sounding wholly anti-american you may have detracted slighttly from your very valid argument
Hey guys.. thanks so much for the feedback.
ReplyDeleteSofia, I completely agree with you on the point that the US has probably brought most of their problems onto themselves. But as we know well, there is no 'global watchdog' big enough to address this issue. We kind of rely on those countries that are developed enough and have the means that others don't, to behave in a certain way (a more responsible way) because they can. And we are deeply disappointed when they don't.
Jamie, I do realize that I have embarked on what seems to be an America-bashing mission. It was partly in response to the fact that the most of the other posts seem to answer the question more generally and didn't seem to spark any controversy, (so I thought I'd do the honours) and partly because I like to indulge myself once in a while :-) (apologies if i have offended anybody, it certainly is not my intention)
Regarding the comments themselves, the reason why I focused on a particular nation and its policies was precisely to highlight how there can be no single view on the relationship between trade, security and the environment. In the case of America, we can go so far as to propose a direct link between security and trade in terms of Saudi oil. In the case of Bangladesh, there is a very direct link between the security and the environment. (Rahman and Roncerell mention that 11 million Bangladeshis would be seriously affected by the current uncontrolled sea-level rise.)
Also, you are right when you say that talking environment at the G20 in London this year is probably out of place. However, I am one of the skeptics that believes that throwing 1 trillion USD at the IMF is not going to solve very much. Without a better solution I am in no position to criticize, but if that was the best major proposal that they came up with (bailing out banks globally as well as locally - because no doubt that is where the money will end up), i'm not sure that they wouldn't have been more constructive if they had discussed the environment.