THE BAD GUYS

[ Intro] [Updates] [Take Action] [Briefing] [Photo Gallery] [Links]

The Obstructive Role of the US and supporting Countries

During the negotiations of the POPs treaty, a most unfortunate dynamic exists, a dynamic that is not too different than that found in other environmental negotiations. Rather than the subject matter, i.e., POPs being the most pressing problem in need of solutions, a few regressive, obstructionist countries have become the most pressing problem. The JUSCANZ Group of countries (Japan, US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand) in particular have made themselves the most pressing immediate problem due to their weak and regressive positions, and role in obstructing international solutions expected and necessary for inclusion in an adequate POPs treaty. The impact of these countries on the negotiations represents a significant opportunity cost to the environment and human health, as well as a significant cost to their position in the international community. Indeed their behaviour is a foreign affairs liability, while simultaneously threatening humanity's ability to achieve sustainable development.

CONTEXT:

The author has been working within Greenpeace International's Political Unit, which is responsible for Greenpeace objectives vis-à-vis international environmental policy and treaty negotiations for the past twelve years. His specific responsibilities cover the field of toxic chemicals/hazardous waste. The comments and conclusions made are restricted to first hand experience in this field only. But, on other critically important environmental issues, the role and reputation of these countries is similar, as has been documented by others. The various environmental forums in which the author has been involved include negotiations at the regional and global level. Some of these involve the JUSCANZ countries, while others (many regional agreements) do not. As a general statement, there is a marked difference when these countries are present, as compared to negotiations not involving them. Given that context, now on to the subject matter - the JUSCANZ countries' role in international environmental policy and treaty negotiations in this particular field.

OVERVIEW:

The following three points are addressed in this paper:

1. The JUSCANZ countries' role and reputation summarised; basic conclusions.
2. Three case studies, covering the past decade of environmental negotiations (the Precautionary Principle; the Basel Convention covering hazardous waste generation and transboundary movements; and the on-going Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) draft treaty negotiations).
3. Returning to the JUSCANZ role; what progressive governments can do.

I. THE JUSCANZ COUNTRIES' ROLE AND REPUTATION SUMMARISED:

It is obvious that these countries, individually and collectively, have tremendous potential to fulfill the role of global leadership on environmental issues - with great capacity, resources and international position to bring the world along the correct road to real sustainable development. But, they fail to assume this potential. So, is it a case of wasted potential? No, unfortunately it is far worse. These countries are actually a barrier or obstacle to progressive and necessary measures to protect the environment and human health. They have become (a significant) part of the problem, not the solution.

Essentially the US, Canada and Australia (and a handful of other countries, e.g., Japan, S. Korea, New Zealand) have made themselves the biggest obstacle to progress where the future health of the planet is at stake. By acting as a major obstacle to the adoption of needed international environmental solutions, these countries have unnecessarily made themselves and their negotiation positions the most pressing problem, rather than the toxic pollution. This represents an enormous opportunity cost to sustainable development. And it is a serious foreign affairs liability for the country itself.

The reputation is very clear. These countries carry a low- or no-ambition mandate to: "Weaken the text, weaken the text, weaken the text, and then don't accept it or respect it in the end when adopted".

In the case of the US, although obvious from the US positions and interventions at international meetings, contacts within the US administration have stated that the US will not accept measures in environmental treaty negotiations which go beyond their own domestic legislation. In other words, the US position is "We will agree to anything as long as we don't have to change legislation or policy back home".

For more on the obstructive role of the US and its ally countries in Pops negotiations and other global treaties see:

THE OBSTRUCTIVE ROLE OF THE US, CANADA, AND AUSTRALIA IN NEGOTIATING INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY AND LAW MAKING by Kevin Stairs, Greenpeace International. Feb. 2000
This report is also available in:
French