Disagreeable truth about KRudd's coming Copenhagen charade
Dr. Sir John Howard, AC, WSCMoF
We are about to see an advanced case of ''agreementism'' between world leaders
at the Copenhagen climate change meeting. It is a painful and embarrassing
disorder with familiar results.
Every case begins the same way. Leaders gather in summits. They confer. They
reach earnest consensus that they need to solve a common problem. They
commission studies and agree to meet again. Next time, they tell reporters, they
will make real decisions.
This looks terrifically statesmanlike and carries lots of photo opportunities.
But then they realise it will be unpopular and difficult to implement necessary
reforms. Troubled, the weaker among the leaders gaze into their quivering souls
and choose self-preservation over problem-solving. At this instant, the fire of
activism departs.
But their huffing and puffing self-promotion has built a peak of expectation.
They can't just walk away and admit failure. The conditions are now ripe - the
next time the leaders gather, agreementism sets in.
In a mild case, leaders simply draw up high-sounding communiques. In numbered
paragraphs, they give a strong impression of firm agreement and resolute action,
but without actually binding themselves to any.
But in an advanced case, leaders know that this simple ruse is unconvincing. The
problem is too big, and the leaders have talked too much, to hope that they can
get away this easily. They need more than a mere communique. In this stage of
the disease, the symptoms deteriorate markedly. Leaders display a disturbing
symptom known as ''concerted unilateralism''.
This is a sophisticated way of saying that countries can do whatever the hell
they like, but they will write something pompous about it first. And they will
all do it together. This is precisely the symptom that world leaders are now
displaying ahead of the Copenhagen climate change summit - the so-called COP15 -
in two weeks.
This was supposed to be the meeting that sealed a legally binding treaty on all
191 nations of the world. Successor to the Kyoto Protocol of 1997, it would be
the pact to save the planet from the devastating effects of global warming.
But you could pick the acute onset of advanced agreementism the moment the
meeting's chairman, Lars Rasmussen, the Danish Prime Minister, uttered the
following words at a breakfast meeting of Asia-Pacific leaders in Singapore on
November 15: ''The Copenhagen Agreement should be global, comprehensive and
substantial, yet flexible enough to accommodate countries with very different
national circumstances.''
Allow me to interpret: ''To frightened leaders everywhere, do not panic! Each of
you will write down on a piece of paper what you want to do about global
warming. There is nothing compulsory. Make it sound impressive. We are supposed
to be saving the entire planet, remember? Whatever.
''Next, we will collect your papers. We will staple them together. We will call
it the Copenhagen Agreement. We will declare victory. We will all have our
pictures taken. And we will tell reporters that, next time, we will make real
decisions. You know the drill.''
How can we be so certain of this outcome? We have two ways to be sure. First,
Rasmussen went on to spell it out in unmistakeable terms.
''Will it be binding? Yes, it will be binding. Even if we may not hammer out the
last dots of a legally binding instrument, I do believe a political binding
agreement with specific commitment to mitigation and finance provides a strong
basis for immediate action in the years to come.''
Take special note of the all-important distinction between a ''legally binding
instrument'' and a ''political binding agreement''. A politician's binding
agreement? That's in the same category as a campaign promise.
And celebrate the wonderful non-sequitur of ''immediate action in the years to
come''.
In a masterstroke, Rasmussen called the format ''one agreement - two purposes''.
The first purpose, he says, is to state political intent, and the second is to
keep talking about a legal treaty for later. The media shorthand for this has
become a ''two-step'' agreement.
Second, we know how this will end because we've seen it twice before in recent
history. We've seen precisely the same format of ''concerted unilateralism'' on
different continents and in different fields, and each time with the same result.
One was the Asia Pacific Economic Co-operation forum's ''Bogor Declaration'' of
1994. In that much-ballyhooed agreement, the APEC leaders at their summit in
Indonesia said ''we announce our commitment to complete the achievement of our
goal of free and open trade and investment in the Asia-Pacific''.
For developed countries this would be ''no later than the year 2010 and
developing economies no later than the year 2020''. But there was no binding
agreement. It was a political deal which allowed each country to do what it pleased.
What happened?' ''The Bogor commitments have been all but ignored,'' summarised
the Lowy Institute's Allan Gyngell and Malcolm Cook in a 2005 paper. Some APEC
leaders still fantasise about a free-trade zone.
The other was the European Union's ''Lisbon Strategy'' of 2000. This was
supposed to make Europe the world's most dynamic economy by 2010. But individual
governments ignored the deal and continued to pander to unions and bureaucracies.
The director of the International Centre for Money and Banking Studies in
Geneva, Charles Wyplosz, wrote: ''The strategy rests on peer pressure - the
naming and shaming of governments that fail to make progress. In practice,
however, peer pressure has become peer collusion.''
The result, in the words of the director of the European Policy Centre, Antonio
Missiroli, was ''shameful''. The European economy remains sclerotic.
Bogor and Lisbon are clear precedents for Copenhagen's ''concerted
unilateralism''. Nothing in any such agreement carries any real force. Only the
countries that already wanted to act will act, and the rest will just sit around
and watch. But there will certainly be agreement.
--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ipvdBnU8F8
- KRudd at his finest.
"The Labour Party is corrupt beyond redemption!"
- Labour hasbeen Mark Latham in a moment of honest clarity.
"This is the recession we had to have!"
- Paul Keating explaining why he gave Australia another Labour recession.
"Silly old bugger!"
- Well known ACTU pisspot and sometime Labour prime minister Bob Hawke
responding to a pensioner who dared ask for more.
"By 1990, no child will live in poverty"
- Bob Hawke again, desperate to win another election.
"A billion trees ..."
- Borke, pissed as a newt again.
"Well may we say 'God save the Queen' because nothing will save the governor
general!"
- Egotistical shithead and pompous fuckwit E.G. Whitlam whining about his
appointee for Governor General John Kerr.
"SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU DUMB CUNT!"
- FlangesBum on learning the truth about Labour's economic capabilities.
"I don't care what you fuckers think!"
- KRudd the KRude at his finest again.
"We'll just change it all when we get in."
- Garrett the carrott