Why is it that the United States continuously decides to neither sign nor ratify world treaties that so many deem beneficial? Why does it refuse to sign on to the International Criminal Court? Why does it refuse to accept the Kyoto Protocol? And why, when compared to these refusals, did the US so adamantly support the signing of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty?
Each of these questions, and the patterns that arise within them, can be approached using a realist standpoint. Realists, as Thomas Mowie states, “…generally suggests that interstate cooperation is severely limited by each state’s need to guarantee its own security in a global condition of anarchy…(Mowie)” So looking at this bizarre pattern of US actions regarding international treaties and protocol, it’s necessary to maintain the security of the US as the highest value.
Regarding the United States’ stance on the International Criminal Court, it’s necessary to understand that not only has the US refused to become a member, but it has even considered domestic legislation that would prevent future ties or affiliation with the ICC. The American Service-Members Protection Act was introduced to Congress in 2002. While the legislation did not pass, it stipulated that the US not sign or participate in the International Criminal Court on the basis that the ICC could try US service-members without the US Government’s consent, even if they US had not ratified membership to the ICC (DOS.) Looking at this stance through the eyes of a realist, it’s possible to say that the US refused to participate in the ICC simply because the ICC would provide it with no benefits. If one were to think of this relationship in terms of a vertical spectrum, the US may be at the top of the spectrum, the ICC in the middle, and countries facing humanitarian disasters (that may fall under the jurisdiction and eye of the ICC) at the bottom. While the countries at the bottom of the spectrum may have much to gain from a relationship with the ICC, the United States could only be brought down to the level of the ICC if it were to offer its participation.
In the second scenario, the US refuses to participate in the Kyoto Protocol, which seeks to form a world attempt to stall and possibly even reverse the harmful environmental effects of global warming. Many were shocked when the world’s largest polluter left the discussions taking place in Kyoto, Japan. The US simply stated that the protocol was “flawed”. Only two years after leaving the discussions in Kyoto, President Bush announced the Clear Skies and Global Climate Change Initiatives, which seek to pursue many of the same goals that the Kyoto Protocol had set out to achieve (Embassy). Indeed, many of the US’s goals could be seen as even more ambitious than Kyoto’s, including the goal to “cut emissions of the three worst air pollutants by seventy percent.” In the US Policy on the Kyoto Protocol that the US Embassy in Vienna released, the statement “Achieves goals comparable to the Kyoto Protocol using market-based approaches,” confused many because the reason for the US leaving the discussions became more ambiguous (Embassy). Again, realism may offer a way to view this issue in terms of the US acting to only benefit its own interests. Because the US is so much more influential and powerful than the rest of the world, it doesn’t need to conform to the expectations of the rest of the world. In the case of the Kyoto Protocol, if the US would have signed on, it would have agreed to the standards of the international community…not its own. Therefore, it’s possible to say that the US left the discussions in Kyoto and formed its own plan for the sake of not allowing anyone else dictate the context in which it operates. Again, on the vertical spectrum, signing the Kyoto Protocol would have brought the US down to the level of the international community, something the US strives to insure does not happen.
Lastly, if the US was so firm in refusing to participate in both the International Criminal Court and the Kyoto Protocol, why did it so fiercely support the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty? In the Department of State document UNITED STATES INFORMATION PERTAINING TO THE TREATY ON THE NON-PROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS, the US uses positive language to reinforce its support for the treat, completely opposite of the language it used when it was discussing the ICC or the Kyoto Protocol. Statements like “undertake negotiations in good faith” and “a sound basis for international cooperation” make it obvious that the US supports the treaty (DoS2.) However, it may seem that the US would not benefit from this arrangement. If the possession of large stockpiles of nuclear weapons has translated into displays of power by the US, why would it agree to begin disarming that source of power? For this situation, the logic is slightly reversed. The US is not worried about being brought down to the level of other countries on the vertical spectrum of power. Instead, its goal is to keep other countries from rising on the spectrum by access to nuclear weaponry. Although the approach is reversed, the goal remains the same: to insure that no country acquires enough power to challenge the dominance of the US.
It’s interesting to see how realism explains the actions of a dominant power like the United States. While none of these situations involved outright military use by the US, they all involved the exchange and manipulation of power through different forms. The International Criminal Court is not favored by the US because it could place unwanted authority on the US military, the Kyoto Protocol wasn’t adopted by the US because it was set in the terms of the non-dominant states, and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was supported by the US because it stabilized the position of the US.
Sources Cited
"American Service-Members' Protection Act." U.S. Department of State. 30 July 2003. Web. 21 Sept. 2011.
Mowie, Thomas S. "Worldviews in Foreign Policy: Realism, Liberalism, and External Conflict." Political Psychology 24 (2003): 561-92. JSTOR. Web. 20 Sept. 2011.
"United States Policy on the Kyoto Protocol." US Embassy of Vienna, Austria. Public Affairs Section. Web. 21 Sept. 2011.
"UNITED STATES INFORMATION PERTAINING TO THE TREATY ON THE NON-PROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS." U.S. Department of State. U.S. Department of State. Web. 21 Sept. 2011.
This is a very interesting topic that ties nicely into the ideals of Realism and I agree with your statements about the US lacking in involvement with anything that will reduce or restrict it's power. I am curious though, if any other countries, that are to be considered republic or democracies, could or would ever try something like this. And why don't other states challenge the US to sign the protocol? Is the balance of power against the US great enough for other countries not to get involved?
ReplyDelete