Is Russia going to isolate US re: Kyoto?

[salin]

Salin: I found an interesting item my local paper this morning... wonder what it all means (alfie)

Polluters lead move for environmental reform
Los Angeles Times
September 7, 2003

MOSCOW

It came as a surprise to no one when Greenpeace held a protest in Moscow in June over Russia's failure to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, an international treaty that aims to combat global warming by requiring countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.

In the last few months, though, an unexpected set of advocates has taken up the fight in Russia: polluters.

----------snip
Whether the protocol takes effect at all rests on Moscow's decision. A certain number of major polluters must participate, and with the United States having opted out, the only chance the treaty has is if Russia — the world's third-largest polluter — opts in.

http://www.heraldtimesonline.com/stories/2003/09/07/nationworld.0907-SH-A5_DEH29864.sto

----------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------
Salin: Just yesterday I was wondering about some odd items re: China (that thread is now in the meeting room), then I saw this item. Had to dig a little more (good old google) and found another article. (below)

----------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------

05 Sep 2003 12:45:52 GMT
All set for Russia to ratify Kyoto pact - minister

By Oliver Bullough

MOSCOW, Sept 5 (Reuters) - Russia has finalised the documentation needed to ratify the Kyoto protocol, a move that would bring the landmark environmental treaty into force and end years of speculation, a Russian deputy minister said on Friday.

The pact aims to reduce climate change by cutting emissions of greenhouse gases, blamed for global warming. Since the United States withdrew from the treaty in 2001, the world has waited for Russia's ratification to bring it into force.

------------------------snip

Most observers say final approval will come only if President Vladimir Putin, whose loyalists dominate the Duma, allows it. In June, he said it was a step in the right direction but would not solve the problem of climate change.

Russian emission levels were assessed before the collapse of the Soviet Union decimated the country's industrial base, so it has substantial spare capacity, which it could trade with over-polluting nations.

more: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L05554741.htm

----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
Salin: So what does it mean - if Kyoto moves forward - without the US. What does it mean that Russia is central to its moving forward and the US sits out?

Folks on numerous fronts there are some very interesting international moves going on - and the unilateralist seeds sown of by this administration my just be growing. But NO ONE is paying attention. I, for one, think we -as a community - should start paying attention.

Link to the thread - re: china that I refer to earlier http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=111&topic_id=5907&mesg_id=5907

[salin]

1. Further discussion of why this seems important...

or why it makes me think of the old line, "What's it all about, Alfie?"

While I am not sure about the economic or diplomatic reprecussions of Kyoto moving forward - without the US (please add on if you have thoughts about this) - it does seem to be part of an emerging pattern of geopolitical realignments that do not seem to bode well for the US. And this is NOT a good thing.

Last summer ('02) I fretted over the aggressive noises being made by the GOP/Admin about Iraq, and the likelihood that these policies forcing a geopolitical realignment due to our aggressive, unilateral actions.

For more than a decade, the US has been the lone 'Super Power', and it seemed to be internationally accepted as being so - without being such a fret that there was a drive to create a counterbalance to that power. This seems to be due to the international perception that the US was not perceived as overly aggressive and dangerous - and thus not threatening other countries' national security or interests. It could also be that the economic dominance of the US (re: its strong economy) made it in the better interest of countries that might not agree with US policy to 'go along' with the US in hopes of rewards or avoiding economic repercussions.

There was some coverage (brief) during the leadup to the Iraq war of growing alliances among countries trying to thwart a yea vote from the UN Security Council re: an invasion (under the auspices of the UN) of Iraq. France, Germany were working (or so the media coverage suggested) with Russia and China. To some extent these efforts could be seen as "successful" as in the end the Neocons in the US (and the UK) determined that they would not be successful in the Security Council so they chose not to go back - and unilaterally went to war with a small "coalition of the willing bought.

Todays media coverage does from time to time focus on this theme (efforts to counter US influence/power) but mostly focus on Rummy's conceptualization of "Old vs New Europe" (that is - the focus is on Germany and France), and occaisionally on the EU. However, very little coverage (and NO discussion) focuses on the growing diplomatic (and economic) influence of China and Russia, nor the implications of these growing powers, especially if/when they were to work in concert with European countries (especially "Old Europe" - or on economic matters the EU).

Imagine - allied efforts between the long time adversarial enemies of Russia and China. (Good ole W - the uniter not a divider).

Below I will list a few items/moves of recent times (one goes back further than a year, but fits in the category) which suggest a growing international role of either or both Russia and China - at the exclusion of the US.

Take them as a whole. Look for additional news items - and start discussing them (because to date, the media isn't). And start pushing the question.... "What's it all about, Alfie" - or better yet in the words of the late, great Marvin Gaye "What's Going on?"

We need to start asking - internationally (diplomatically and economically) WHAT does this mean for the U.S.? Because our ideologically driven and blinded administration seems to preoccupied to ask that very question.

[salin]

2. Pakistan and India... near nuclear showdown.

summer 2002

(don't know much about the following site - but it breaks down news items over time that show the escalation)

http://www.acronym.org.uk/sasia/

specific to the point of escalation http://www.acronym.org.uk/dd/dd65/65nr01.htm

Disarmament Diplomacy
Issue No. 65, July - August 2002

News Review
India and Pakistan Camped on Brink of War over Kashmir
Selected Comment
Summary
The period under review saw a state of constant military and political tension between India and Pakistan, raising the spectre of war between the two nuclear-armed neighbours over the contested region of Kashmir. India insists that, due to the wilful and persistent negligence of the Pakistani authorities, it must stand prepared to militarily root out the problem of terrorist incursions across the Line of Control separating Indian- and Pakistan-controlled Kashmir. Pakistan insists it has acted decisively and with significant success to stamp out the problem, and that India is seeking a pretext for aggression, backed by massive conventional superiority. The international community expresses itself in general sympathy with India's impatience, while expressing overall support for Pakistan's anti-terrorist efforts and stressing the need for a political as well as security approach to securing peace in Kashmir.

Although the prospect of imminent conflict seemed to have abated somewhat by early June, the huge mobilisation of forces on both sides of the Line of Control showed few signs of being reversed, while serious political dialogue, bilateral or otherwise, appeared depressingly remote.

The spark for the biggest war scare since the storming of the Indian Parliament last December (see Disarmament Diplomacy No. 62, January/February 2002) came on May 14 when gunmen killed 32 people, including many civilians, on a bus in Indian-controlled Jammu & Kashmir. On May 18, following four days of heavy shelling across the Line of Control, India expelled Pakistan's Ambassador to India, Ashraf Jehangir Qazi. By May 22, a speech by Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee to troops on the Himalayan border with Pakistan confirmed the impression that events were hurtling out of control: "Be ready for sacrifice. Your goal should be victory. It's time to fight a decisive battle." On May 23, Vajpayee declared: "India has accepted the challenge thrown down by our neighbour and we are preparing ourselves for decisive victory against the enemy. We will not let Pakistan carry on its proxy war against India any longer." The same day, a reporter asked the Prime Minister about gathering "war clouds". He answered: "The sky is clear. But sometimes lightning strikes, even in clear skies."

more


Salin: The US who often has tried to broker diplomatic solutions in such situations - was in a spot. It had relied on Pakistan, and continued to do so as a staging ground for raids on border villages (Afghanistan/Pakistan) where suspected al queada members were thought to be hiding. It has long diplomatic ties to India - and just one year earlier had engaged in top level arm twisting on behalf of Enron and a controversial power plant (was it Powell or Condi who did diplomatic arm twisting on behalf of a corporate doner?). Further more the US was going to need both countries to support its efforts to get international support (at which the admin later failed) for its plans in Iraq. As a result much of the high profile "power brokering" was left to Vladmir Putin. In the end the US was at the table but playing, at least publically, a lower key role in discussions that finally led to a deescalation of the nuclear threat.
-----------------------------------------------------------------


India Flip-Flops On Nuke Stance

by Pratap Chakravarty
New Delhi (AFP) June 3, 2002
The Indian military Monday distanced itself from comments of its civilian boss on the use of nuclear weapons in war but the country's chief security advisor said New Delhi would retaliate in kind if attacked by atom bombs.
The flip-flop approach of New Delhi's stand on the use of nuclear weapons came as Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee in Kazakhstan prepared for Tuesday's regional security summit in Almaty, also attended by Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf.

The Indian defence ministry in New Delhi appeared to contradict the explosive comments of Defence Secretary Yogendra Narain, the military's seniormost civilian boss.

"The government makes it clear that India does not believe in the use of nuclear weapons. Neither does it visualise that it will be used by any other country," the ministry said.

"As a responsible nation India feels it will be imprudent to use such weapons," it added.

The ministry statement appeared to be a damage control exercise following Narain's comments that India would retaliate with nuclear weapons if Pakistan used its nuclear arsenal, and that both countries must be prepared for "mutual destruction."

--------------snip

Putin Hopes To Broker A Deal
Against this backdrop, Russian President Vladimir Putin arrived in Kazakhstan Monday to help mediate between India and Pakistan in their dispute over Kashmir on the sidelines of a regional summit due to start Tuesday, his press office said.

(more)

[salin]

3. China's role in brokering a solution to nuclear North Korea

China is taking an increasingly bigger role in the talks with North Korea and the US. Indeed a key neocon bush player from the state department, John Bolten, has helped to diminish the US position. First his inflamatory remarks towards North Korea (suggesting that the best solution, in short, was for North Korea to no longer exist), led to the key US diplomat in the negotiations to publically distance himself and the US from Bolten's rhetoric. Next thing you know - another bushjr era diplomatic resignation - reportedly not one by choice but one forced by Bolten and his supporters in retaliation for contradicting Bolten's public rhetoric. Before you can blink - Bolten continues to try to prevent a diplomatic resolution by his inflamatory remarks - and North Korea balks - says it will not participate in any talks in which Bolten is in attendance.

A result of the side drama, courtesy of neocon Bolten, is an increasingly important role of China at the table. If/when the crisis is resolved (if non militarily) - who will be seen internationally as having brought about that resolution? The US or China? Does that matter?

Think about this - just what was Bolten trying to accomplish with his flaming rhetoric? Some suspect that he was trying to instigate some kind of military move on the part of the North Koreans, so that the US troops who are on high alert in the area would be justified to take some kind of action - without having to go before the international community to get 'permission' and/or to gain allies in the efforts. Be this true or not, it is the perception of the current US admin diplomatic Modus Operandi. Taken together with the perceived role of China as working to iron the heat out and work towards a solution - who ends up with increased and who ends up with diminished international gravitas/influence in the region? and in the world?

[salin]

4. Finally - the question from yesterday... Bush turning to China for help

on our economy via strengthening the valuation of the juan. See the link on the first post of this thread for that discussion.

So again I ask - what's going on?

And again - looking at the Kyoto story - which from what I can see is being ignored by the press - what is the signficance?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

5. Considering a big prt of the Kyoto deal is the trade of pollution credits

this could be significant. Remember they are creating an ENRON style trade of pollution credits?

[salin]

6. The first article indicated

that it was Russian energy industries that are pushing for Russia to sign as they see the opportunity through the trading of credits to get some money to invest on infrastructure.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

7. Saw that

[sangha]

8. As one of the biggest polluters

wouldn't Russia have a lot to gain (pollution credits to trade) from reducing pollution? They could get investments to upgrade the energy sector, and at the same time, gain some credits they could sell to pay off the investors.

[salin]

9. I really need a bit of a 'briefing' course

on some of the ins and outs of Kyoto. From the political reading it appears that Russia was balking (why?), but there has been a turn around on the behalf of industries (the reasons you suggest make sense) that is pushing Putin towards signing.

It was my understanding when we balked in the Spring of 2002, that (at least as it was reported) the belief was that without our involvement, enough other countries were skeptical that it would never go into effect. With these items today - it appears that the real problem was that the countries involved didn't represent the big polluters so that efforts would have little impact and/or perhaps didn't have enough polluters to do trades (the mechanism to encourage lowering pollution output). But that with Russia - one of the large polluters - on board, that Kyoto would be able to move forward.

Does it mean anything at all that it moves foward without US involvement. Is the isolation of the US in this a good thing (our companies don't accrue the costs?), a bad thing (beyond just the PR), or a neutral thing?

In the bigger picture is this an additional example of other countries stepping up to the plate to become international power brokers (could make this happen or not happen)?