(First published in WorldNetDaily, October 27, 1999)
By Henry Lamb
BONN -- The hottest topic at the global warming talks has nothing to do with global warming; it has to do with the date of the next meeting -- and power politics. In the normal flow of things, the next meeting (COP 6) is scheduled to convene in the Hague during the last week of our Presidential campaign in 2000. The U.S. delegation requested that the meeting be rescheduled for sometime in 2001, after the new President and Congress are in place. Most of the rest of the world is offended that the U.S. would even think of delaying the meeting.
Most of the time, the U.S. gets its way because the rest of the nations realize that if the U.S. picks up its marbles and goes home, the game is over. Period.
But not always. Last year in Rome, after pushing hard for the creation of the International Criminal Court, the U.S. delegates tried to block a provision that would allow the court to supercede national sovereignty -- and failed. The U.S. was one of only seven nations that voted against the final document.
The battle taking shape now in Bonn has much of the same flavor. Rarely do the rest of the nations get a chance to snub their noses at American wishes; this is one of them. Many nations genuinely feel that national elections are nothing more than a local amusement, and have virtually no relevance to the important work of the U.N. A spokesman for the World Wildlife Fund said rather sarcastically, "It's unprecedented for the U.N. to alter its schedule to accommodate a single nation."
We don't know yet what the outcome will be, but there are a couple of interesting scenarios. It is entirely possible that the U.S. does not really want the meeting dates changed, but made the request for the public relations value at home. The request does appear to respect the possibility that a new philosophy may capture Washington after the next election.
The notion that such a thought by this administration might be genuine, is hard to swallow. Much more likely is that the request was made with a wink, and the meeting will go on as scheduled.
COP 6 is the meeting where final agreement is to be reached on the rules for implementing the Kyoto Protocol. It is hard to imagine that this administration would be willing to risk letting others make the final decisions, after working so hard to get this treaty implemented. Therefore, if the meeting is held on schedule, this administration could insure that agreements are reached. On the other hand, should anyone but Al occupy the White House next year, all the work on the treaty since 1995 could be in jeopardy. By publicly requesting that the meeting be postponed, this administration can avoid the appearance of preempting a new President's policies, while doing just that.
Such twisted political maneuvering should be unthinkable about any U.S. administration. But in 1995, this administration quietly agreed to the Berlin Mandate which committed the United States to accept the results of the Kyoto Protocol before it was known what the Protocol would require. The agreement also exempted all but 34 developed nations from the Protocol. Then in 1997, this administration publicly announced that it would not accept a Protocol that excluded the developing nations, but privately accepted the Protocol with the developing nations excluded.
There are good reasons to expect shenanigans from this administration. Al Gore announced as early as 1992, that he wanted a globally coordinated plan to eliminate the internal combustion engine by 2017. The Kyoto Protocol is a globally coordinated plan that gives the U.N. the power to regulate, if not eliminate, the fuels which power internal combustion engines -- only in developed countries. Gore also expected a seamless transition between Clinton's administration and his. He even insured that the Protocol could not be enforced in the United States until at least 2008, after he is safely out of office.
The hot topic in Bonn this week is mostly rhetoric. It provides the delegates an opportunity to beat-up on the United States, which is always a feel-good exercise at U.N. meetings, and it provides cover for the administration. The real meat in this meeting is being chewed behind closed doors. As usual, any benefits that may come from this diplomatic feast, will accrue to the United Nations, not to American taxpayers.
Henry Lamb is the executive vice president of the Environmental Conservation Organization (ECO), and chairman of Sovereignty International.