China's Part in Climate Change

Just recently, within the last two weeks, China has been dubbed as the lone leader in production of greenhouse gas emissions, which are undoubtedly one of the biggest environmental threats to our planet’s climate. At the UN gathering last week, President Obama addressed China’s newest title, asking that they stride for “drastic reductions” in their nation’s carbon emissions. Seeming almost too prepared to address Obama’s request, China responded with a swift refusal to simply cut emissions without heavy assistance from western developed nations.
A document that China submitted to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change goes on to state their expectations of the rest of the world, predominately developed western states and those who have ratified the Kyoto Protocol (the US did not) regarding the finances and technological logistics of reducing their own carbon emissions. These requests include payments of $1 Billion increments by developed western developed states, payments of 1% of GDP of these western developed states, and abolishment of western intellectual property rights which are argued to slow down technological advancement in developing countries regarding climate control. The document goes on to state that new plans for climate control should not only, as said, financed by the west, but should also be built upon the already existing Kyoto Protocol, which the US never ratified because of a disagreement regarding relaxed parameters the deal placed on the two of the biggest greenhouse gas producers in the world: China and India.
How Obama reacts toward China after these bold propositions will be interesting to look out for in the near future. It is pretty evident that by no means does China appear to believe that they are a ‘developed’ nation. Whether or not China is developed or developing can be argued extensively, however in this instance China appears to think they deserve to be treated like a strictly developing nation which severely needs the help of the western developed ones. When choosing how to deal with China regarding their demand for funds and technology, Obama and other western leaders should keep in mind exactly how China views themselves before making any decisions about assisting them with a problem which is in their “not developed” backyard. Of course the rest of the world has assisted China in creating the mess in one way or another, but whether or not Obama agrees China should avoid bearing the burden of the financial burden will contribute in whether he and others act in a liberal manner or one more similar to realism. The fact that China appears to be convinced that they are definitely not in the same league as western developed nations should also be noted when it comes to issues further down the road, involving the climate change or not. This is a pretty significant characterization of themselves and should definitely be taken into account when western nations choose to look out for their own interests or choose to bear this alleged burden upon themselves and agree with China’s assertions regarding how the climate change situation in their state should be dealt.

Realism Reigns Supreme in U.S. Environmental Policy

At the United Nations’ summit on climate change this past Tuesday, President Obama called for an international effort to cut greenhouse gas emissions and stop climate change. Coming on the heels of record environmental protests over the weekend, Obama’s speech focused on cooperation and advocated liberalism. But ever since climate change became an issue, the United States’ decisions on the matter have been realist and anything but cooperative.

Take one of the largest cooperative efforts to stop climate change to date— the Kyoto Protocol: a global effort to curb emissions that includes nearly all UN members. One rather significant country is missing from the party: the U.S., which signed but never ratified the treaty. This decision was realist to the core: developing countries, even powerful ones such as China and India, were and are not required to meet any emissions standards. Two of the main reasons cited by the U.S. for not ratifying the treaty were that those states would gain a comparative advantage, and that the protocol would be detrimental to the U.S. economy anyway.  In realism, a state thinks first and foremost of national interest and relative power, which is exactly what the United States did.

After all, who was going to stop them? The United States is the hegemon, the most powerful state on the planet. Who and what army can tell the U.S. how to conduct their affairs? That’s one of the largest issues with cooperation: if someone doesn’t want to play along, and no one can force them to, why should they? The same goes for China: the U.S. wouldn’t go to war with them over emissions standards, and no other country has the power to force them to change. Similar to the failure of the League of Nations, without the U.S.’s involvement, the Kyoto Protocol is now a shell of its original intent: Russia, Japan, and New Zealand no longer have emissions standards they need to meet, and Canada has dropped out altogether. This basically leaves European countries as the only ones making an effort to lower greenhouse gas emissions, which can’t hurt but is nowhere near the global impact the Kyoto Treaty was meant to have. This is the classic “tragedy of the commons” dilemma: with each country looking out for itself, things such as the environment get ignored.

The United States, however, is not often realist in the domain of international relations. In the name of democracy, capitalism, and/or global safety, the U.S. loves playing world police and has not hesitated to step in to other countries’ affairs (which a realist, who cares only of national security, would disagree with). Whether it’s to stop communism by invading Vietnam, promote democracy by fighting in Iraq and Libya, or prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, we have used our position as hegemon to (if you view things positively) set an example for the rest of the world.

But where is that example now? Instead of being at the forefront in the protection of our environment, the United States has backed off. President Obama can call for cooperation, but it seems hypocritical: we continue to rely on oil and natural gas instead of funding alternative energies such as wind and solar. The fact that the U.S. is even considering the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline to extract and transport tar sands (even dirtier and worse for the environment than regular oil drilling) says it all. President Obama is right: what we need is liberalism, for every country to work together to solve this problem, but we must first change our realist mindset and lead the way.

Links to sources:
New York Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/24/world/asia/obama-at-un-climate-summit-calls-for-vast-international-effort.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=HpSum&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=1
Kyoto Treaty information: http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php

Ebola Epidemic: A Lack of Response

Since the Ebola virus epidemic began in late 2013, almost 3,000 people in West Africa have died. From the start, we have been chasing this virus, and watched as it has affected the lives of thousands in West Africa. Efforts have been made to contain the virus, but little impact has been made to curb the effects of this vicious disease, which is continuing to infect more and more people. Sierra Leonean President Ernest Bai Koroma addressed the UN on Thursday saying that his country “was faced with one of the ‘biggest life and death challenges’ facing the global human community.” This is not just a problem of Sierra Leon, Nigeria, Liberia, and West Africa; it is a global problem, which needs to be addressed at a global level not a local/regional level.

It has been ten months since the outbreak of Ebola in West Africa, and we have yet to see significant intervention from the Western world, such as countries like the United States. This is a global issue, which needs attention from the world leaders but as of now the issue has gone pretty much untouched by the world powers.

            In the past week, President Obama, along with other countries, and organizations at the UN, pledged millions in aid and preached the message that an all out effort needs to and will be taken to end this epidemic. But leaders of those effected countries, and aid organizations, along with the sick have put little faith into the pledges of these donors because of the lack of support thus far.

            In many ways this situation gives off the impression of a realist stance from the US on the issue. It seems as if we are protecting our own interests over those of the people in West Africa. Security first, ideals second, in other words the security and well being of the United States takes precedent over our morals. It would be ethically moral to go over and offer assistance and aid to these countries, but it seems as if we have taken our own well being into account first. This idea is of Realpolitik, only do what is in the national interest, with the idea that fellow countrymen and women are more important than others. Why risk the lives of Americans by sending them over to West Africa where they could potentially contract the Ebola virus?

            Actions taken by the US in regards to the Ebola crisis seem to contradict our liberal ideology of cooperation, rationality, and the idea that the individual is paramount. Where has this idea of mutual assistance been for the past ten months? Why haven’t we done more to help when we are the ones who for years have preached the protection of the individual and the betterment of society as a whole? We the US are the hegemon in the world today; we have the resources and money to respond to such an epidemic that these countries in West Africa do not. And until the US responds in a way that successfully makes an impact on the fight against Ebola, we can’t say that we are a country who has strong morals, and believes that every human being on this earth is of equal importance.

Works Cited:

 http://www.latimes.com/world/africa/la-fg-africa-ebola-un-20140925-story.html

http://en.starafrica.com/news/sierra-leonean-leader-appeals-for-intl-cooperation-to-fight-ebola.html

Russian Agrresion and the US Response

                When Russia annexed the Crimean Peninsula in Ukraine earlier this year it exhibited hard military power. Now the state is rumored to be sending pro-Russian rebels into Ukraine proper which would qualify as exhibiting soft power. Both actions send a strong message to the rest of the world, specifically the United State and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) that they are in fact a great international power and they are not to be trifled with. From an American point of view Russia is acting as an aggressor in the international community and testing the limits of their former cold war enemies. By using their immense military strength to aggress and assert power over Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula they force Ukraine to be submissive as they have more military strength. Additionally, the Russian aggressors found even more hard power in the Ukrainian citizens of the Crimean Peninsula who identify with Russian culture more than Ukrainian culture.  This territorial gain and power assertion threatens the balance of power regionally in Europe as well as in the entire International community. Said international community has condemned any violation of sovereign Ukrainian territory and watches carefully as to see if the Russian state dares to cross the border of the annexed Peninsula into the Ukrainian state. The United /states and NATO have vehemently expressed their objections to further aggression and annexations in the region despite the Ukraine not being a member of NATO.          

                Despite Russia’s recent actions that are most definitely not in the interest of the United States, some might say the U.S. is being a passive member in this situation .The United States has a considerable amount of military power too, even more than Russia itself yet no military presence in the Ukrainian region has been established. Also to the advantage of the United States, the state has the soft power of persuasion over their NATO allies. If hard military engagement was deemed necessary and appropriate by the United States their NATO allies would be expected to contribute to the cause increasing their relative power. Unfortunately, The United States has not asserted any power over Russia effectively, failing to convince them of the superior power status of the United States (and its allies) and therefore failing to truly or definitely divert the Russian state from aggressing further into sovereign Ukrainian territory. A disruption in the balance of power, both relative and absolute in Europe would negatively affect U.S. allies and therefore negatively affect the U.S.   The deceptive nature of the probable presence of placed pro-Russian rebels within Ukrainian borders increases the need for a powerful state such as the United States to intervene in order to protect a legitimate democracy as it points to an increasing threat.