SeriousBull

What do Kyoto, Palestine, Iraq & Bali have in common?

Tags: Bali + Bush + Dollar + Greenhouse Gases + Kyota + UN

Once again the US steadfastly objected to signing any agreement to limit hydro-carbon emissions by 2020.  And this time when consensus at the summit pushed and literally jeered the US to lead or get out of the way, the US fell back to its ’smart’ negotiation tactics–to delay agreement of “how much, by when” pending final agreement on all the terms to be negotiated no later than 2009.  Japan supported the

delay as a quite ”reasonable” approach to which  the Bali world delegates conceded rather than end the summit without progress.

One has to wonder why the US has been so adamantly opposed to what the rest of the developed world can so readily agree on, and why the US would seek to defeat what would benefit their citizens as well? Perhaps there’s an answer and reasonable explanation?

Could it be that the US government envisions the cost/benefit of its cooperation as too damaging to its current, national interests? Sounds ludicrous when the vast majority of scientists, including US scientists, warn of the devastating long term economic peril of doing nothing. But just maybe the Bush Administration is right? It’s manufacturing base is rapidly moving offshore. Its labor costs, its tort costs, its insurance costs, its regulatory costs, its terrorism costs, and pension costs (Government retirement & Social Security) place it at a huge competitive disadvantage. Its dollar has been pummeled, its GDP is clearly anemic, its paying over two times the cost just a few years ago for its energy, its financing a war for democracy in the Middle East, and now the Housing crisis threatens the very viability of its banking system.  What indeed should the world expect from the US?

 A more important question is: Can the world any longer permit one nation state, no matter that it is a super-power, to act in its own best interest with peril to the rest of the world?  And indeed if  a nation’s economic circumstances are such a consideration and impediment to doing what’s right, shouldn’t the world community look also to see if there are other (perhaps convert) foreign policies that undermine the common good of nations? And finding that such policies do exist, shouldn’t the world act to change such policy actions, by demand resolution, by economic sanctions, by some democratic means?

For surely the ramifications of doing nothing could be great. For example, consider that the US is the largest debtor nation in the world. Because it must finance its growing deficit approaching $10 trillion, what does this imply that its policies may be with regard to its financial need to service its debt? SeriousBull (SB) hypothetically asks: would a nation with such a debt burden be in favor of peace, stability, and growth in the financial markets, or more likely adopt and favor policies that are disruptive, chaotic, and destabilising? The former policy would likely increase its costs of debt service as global investors favored equity investments thereby increasing interest costs, while the later policy would likely lower its debt service costs as investors favored safe-haven investments to avoid risk in chaotic markets? 

SB asks: Should not some world body, like the United Nations, act as a Global Regulator to both examine its member’s current accounts and impose greater oversight and regulation of its member’s international political-economic activities just as it does their military activities? To ignore the implication of financial circumstance on foreign policy seems to be tantamount to ignoring that “white collar” crime is motivated by something other than money. It would seem important to the security of all nations that the world moves toward recognizing that nations act out of their own self-interests and in a growing Capitalistic world, that self-interest is largely the pursuit of greater wealth where real power is derived. Surely the world needs a formal mechanism, a democratic means, to deal with the ramifications of excess nation state debt or insolvency?

And if the world accepts the tenant that financial circumstance may inadvertantly lead to unintended consequences in a nation’s foreign policy, any directive must address the lack of wealth (poverty) as well. It would seem that on-balance nations must ask what non-punitive policies may be adapted to thwart inevitable problems and foster more growth and more wealth more evenly distributed.  For surely whether the corrective policy action is toward a ‘Have or Have Not’nation state, the problem may only be made worse with purely punitive policy. Instead if policies are made to give those without something to lose, and those with something to value, surely progress can be made. SB argues that the world community of nations should adapt a point of departure that recognizes that we are not in a ‘zero sum gain’ world economy. Indeed, working together may foster the realitization that less can be actually be more!  Moreover such an approach to solving a problem may curtail exploitation and develop co-dependent nation state ethos. And in SB’s mind, that would be a good thing.

December 17, 2007 - Politics