The Kyoto
Protocol – Battlefield of Hegemonic Struggles in World Politics
By Hermann E. Ott
 It
seems that the European Union (EU) has lost the fight with George W. Bush. No, I am not
referring to the Transatlantic struggle over the legitimacy of the war in Iraq and over UN
supremacy in rebuilding the devastated country. I am talking about the battle over the
right answer to the climate crisis. Now that Russian President Putin has missed the
opportunity of the Moscow World Climate Change Conference to forward the ratification bill
to the Russian Parliament, prospects for the Kyoto Protocol to enter into force have
worsened considerably.
This is a victory for President Bush and shows that the
US still knows to play the power game of international politics much better than the
fledgling Union. Good intentions are all very well, but when it comes to
make-it-or-break-it decisions at the highest political level, it is hard currency that
counts (not only, but also financially). Apparently the prospect of increasing energy
exports to the United States (US) has a much greater appeal for the Russian government
than the few million Euros the EU was willing to provide to support Russian implementation
of the Protocol.
So what are the prospects for the Kyoto Protocol and what
should be done?
First, the Protocol is in a critical condition but not
yet dead. There is still time for a concerted effort by the EU, Canada and Japan to
provide guarantees to Russia for the purchase of emission certificates, as demanded by
Russia’s deputy economics minister Mukhamed Tsikanov in July 2003. Leading Russian
circles are not expecting that after the retreat of the US the demand for certificates
will generate the several billion Euros estimated by some experts. This is on the one hand
a rather refreshing signal: apparently Russia is taking the Union’s efforts seriously
- and came to the conclusion that Europe will reach its target and thus need not buy
emission certificates abroad. However, this very success might paradoxically sound the
death knell for the Kyoto Protocol.
Second, the Ninth Conference of the Parties (CoP-9) to
the UNFCCC in Milan must provide a clear signal that those countries having ratified the
Protocol (and others that intend to do so) will act as if it had already entered into
force. Only a strongly worded declaration will do, confirming the commitment to implement
the Kyoto targets domestically and to work towards its entry into force.
Third, some serious thoughts will have to be devoted to
"Plan B", should the Protocol not enter into force. On the political side, the
"friends of the Kyoto Protocol" must begin to discuss in Milan and eventually
agree in 2004 on a strategy to rescue a process that has taken more than ten years of
intense negotiations. Alternatives to the Protocol cannot be a taboo anymore. This is a
very tricky issue, however, since opening up the negotiations might be like opening
Pandora’s box and release all kinds of plagues and dangers.
On the legal side, options for the modification of the
Kyoto Protocol to enable its entry into force should be explored. International law
provides means for changing a treaty among interested Parties, as long as the rights of
other Parties are not affected. This avenue would have the distinct advantage of
preserving the essence of the Protocol and avoid gruesome diplomatic battles over the
contents of the new treaty. This will furthermore send a clear signal to Russia not to
overstretch its grip on international climate policy.
Fourth, the friends of the Kyoto Protocol must seek
support and build a strong alliance to protect the climate system. On the part of the EU,
this would involve a conscious move towards developing countries in order to remedy the
alienation that lasts from CoP-8 in New Delhi last year. Adaptation will be the most
crucial issue for many developing countries and the Union, Japan and Canada should realise
that they have a duty to support vulnerable countries in their efforts to grapple with the
impacts of climate change – besides of supporting mitigation activities in the more
advanced developing countries.
The US will be prepared to drive as many wedges as
necessary between the EU and developing countries. The latter should realise that it is in
their vital interest to revive the "Green Group" that has led to the Berlin
Mandate and later saved the Kyoto Protocol from the failure in The Hague. Acting against
the hegemon is necessarily an uphill battle, but without an alternative if the US refuses
to lead on an issue of life and death for many million people. The world order of the 21st
century is being shaped right now and climate policy is one of its battlefields.
Hermann E. Ott is with the Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy
|
