Why
Copenhagen Failed: American Billionaire-owned
Mega-enterprises Kill Multi-lateralism
19 December 2009By Shamus Cooke
To anybody interested in the future of the earth’s
climate, the conclusion of the Copenhagen conference
represents either colossal disappointment or profound
rage. The financial pledges— if honored— that rich
nations made to poor nations will do nothing to combat
global warming. The few climate related agreements
that were made were of zero substance, especially when
compared to what the situation demanded.
The sorrowful outcome, however, could have been
predicted in the conference’s first week, based on two
seemingly unrelated events: The conference showcased
the largest police action in Denmark ’s history
(including mass arrests of “troublemakers”); while
also producing the largest ever boom in limousine
rentals. Both happenings helped reveal the true nature
of the conference, spelling doom for climate progress.
Contrary to the hopes of billions of people, the talks
were a purely elite affair. Many of the thousands of
delegates sent to the conference were not looking to
save the planet, as advertised, but were looking out
for the national interest of their native governments.
Most of these countries are dominated by the “special
interests” of giant corporations.
Big business in the rich nations used the conference
as a cynical maneuver to maintain their economic
dominance over the “emerging business” in the
developing countries. This fact was at first obscured
by technical language, until the now-famous “Danish
Text” was leaked to the press in the first week of the
conference.
This document was a conference proposal written by the
U.S. and England, though submitted by Denmark. The
Danish Text proposes that developed nations — the
U.S., Europe, Japan, etc. — be allowed to pollute
twice the amount of developing countries — China,
India, Russia, Brazil, etc. — for the next fifty
years.
If enacted, the corporations of the developing nations
would be forced to function under an incredible
economic handicap. Their governments would have, of
course, rejected such nonsense, giving the U.S.
delegates the needed excuse to blame China for the
failed talks (the U.S. media has done this with
absolute disregard for facts).
The Danish Text also proposed to move future climate
talks out of the realm of the too-democratic UN into
the U.S./Europe dominated World Bank. Obama has thus
surpassed his predecessor in the realm of global
arrogance.
However, the U.S. torpedoed the talks long before they
ever began, forcing the international media to
campaign in favor of “lower expectations.” The New
York Times explains:
“… when Mr. Obama and other world leaders met last
month, they were forced to abandon the goal of
reaching a binding accord at Copenhagen because the
American political system is not ready to agree to a
treaty that would force the United States, over time,
to accept profound changes in its energy, transport
and manufacturing [corporate] sectors.” (December 13,
2009).
Instead of building upon the foundation of the
already-insufficient Kyoto Protocol, the Obama
administration demanded a whole new structure,
something that would take years to achieve. The Kyoto
framework was abandoned because it included legally
binding agreements, and was based on multi-lateral,
agreed-upon reductions of greenhouse gasses (however
insufficient). Instead, Obama proposed that “…each
country set its own rules and to decide unilaterally
how to meet its target.” (The Guardian, September 15,
2009).
This way, there is zero accountability, zero
oversight, and therefore, zero climate progress. Any
country may make any number of symbolic “pledges” to
combat global warming, while actually doing very
little to follow through — much like billions of
dollars rich countries pledged to Africa that have yet
to leave western bank accounts.
Obama’s maneuvering to ruin Copenhagen was correctly
assessed by Canadian writer Naomi Klein, who said that
Obama, like Bush, is “using multi-lateralism to
destroy multi-lateralism.” This means that Obama is
participating in international organizations like the
UN Copenhagen conference, with no intention of
reaching agreements. Once the U.S. blames its overseas
rivals for the failure to “cooperate,” a more
independent path can be struck.
This is reminiscent of Bush’s path to invading Iraq:
he used the UN Security Council to pass resolutions
against Iraq, which helped him weaken Iraq while
strengthening U.S. public opinion. But when the
Security Council wouldn’t agree to an invasion, Bush
assembled a pathetic “coalition of the willing” to
attack, completely abandoning the UN (Obama appears to
be following an identical approach with Iran). U.S.
corporations wanted to dominate Iraq’s huge oil
reserves and other treasures, to the detriment of the
corporations within Europe, Russia, and China.
Another example of Obama’s fake multi-lateralism is
the World Trade Organization (WTO). The U.S. is again
being blamed for blocking a multi-lateral agreement in
this corporate-controlled organization — some U.S.
corporations want market protection from rival
corporations of other countries.
The international WTO continues to be unofficially
abandoned in favor of regional (unilateral) trade
blocs like NAFTA, CAFTA, the EU, etc., increasing
international tensions, which, if one looks below the
surface, are conflicts between giant corporations
based in rival nations, battling for control of
international markets, raw materials, and cheap labor.
The failure of the WTO, the UN, and now Copenhagen are
all examples of an increasingly conflict-ridden world,
based on the emerging economies challenging the rule
of the old powers. This dynamic clearly resembles the
situation prior to WWI, when the big powers — England
and the U.S. — felt threatened by the rise of Germany
and Japan, and used a strategy of “containment” to
stunt their growth. The end result was war.
This time, however, China, India, Brazil, and Russia
are the emerging threats, and the issue of climate
change is being used as yet another tactic to
“contain” their growth.
With such a dynamic unfolding, there can be no future
multi-lateral agreements expected, minus the
“symbolic” type that Copenhagen produced. The
unbridgeable national conflicts are not the result of
bad policy from naïve leaders, but an inherent future
of a market economy [capitalism].
Giant corporations in different countries are
constantly growing and competing with each other for a
very limited global marketplace, always attempting to
monopolize markets, raw-materials, and labor by any
means necessary. This vicious competition pushes all
other social issues into the background — human needs
are subordinate to blindly chasing profits.
Such an irrationally competitive system cannot be
smoothed over with good intentions and on-paper
cooperation. Deeper, conflicting corporate interests
between nations are the motor force pushing countries
further apart the more cooperation is needed.
But soon the fake cooperation Obama stresses will be
too much for the U.S. corporate-elite to bear. Many of
them are bored with the international community,
especially when the U.S. is the sole military
super-power in the world. Soon Obama’s “failed
attempts” to cooperate internationally will evolve
into a more independent, Bush-like approach.
The largely ignored UN is likely to be further pushed
aside so that brute force can continue to dictate US
international policy, an agenda already begun by the
U.S. invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq, Obama’s expanding
war in Pakistan, and the “looming threat” that
supposedly Iran is.
As long as governmental policy is dictated by the
corporations — represented in the U.S. by the two
party system — multi-lateralism and cooperation are
doomed. Thus, the battle to save the environment and
end war must include a fight against these
corporations, who wield a political/economic vise grip
over society. Only by publicly controlling these
billionaire-owned mega-enterprises can the peaceful
and cooperative impulses of the earth’s people find
their full expression.
Shamus Cooke is a social service worker, trade
unionist, and writer for Workers Action (www.workerscompass.org).
He can be reached at shamuscook@yahoo.com
©
EsinIslam.Com
Add Comments