Kyoto - Destined To Fail - Schechter

Alex Schechter
International Relations
Prof. Shirk





                                      

This semester in International Relations, we have learned about many interesting topics, but the one that has stood out to me the most is the topic of the Kyoto and Montreal Protocols, which we recently discussed. The Montreal Protocol was signed in 1987 by all western countries and aimed to improve the Ozone Layer, which it has. The Kyoto Protocol was an agreement reached in 1998, and aimed to reduce the effects of Climate Change. What stands out to me is the fact that the United States did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol. This is why I have chosen this political cartoon, which also just so happens to be appropriate based on the time of year it is. Santa is amused by the fact that it is snowing. Rather, the reindeer mentions that these white particles are not snow, but rather shreds of the Kyoto Protocol, which ended up to be a failure.

Before delving into the two protocols, it is important to first mention International Regimes. An International Regime is, “A system of principles, norms, rules, operating procedures and institutions that actors create or accept to regulate and coordinate action in a particular issue area of international relations.” (Prof. Shirk, Lecture 22) A regime can be Climate, Ozone, Forest, etc...Since 1987, the Montreal Protocol has worked to reduce chlorofluorocarbons around the world, thus protecting the Earth from the sun’s rays. Unlike the Kyoto Protocol, the United States signed the Montreal Protocol. This is important to notice. A report by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency came out this year and estimates that the Montreal Protocol will prevent 280 million cases of skin cancer and 1.5 million skin cancer related deaths. That is a big number, and if the United States did not take part in this protocol, our Ozone Layer could still be deteriorating.

On the other hand, the Kyoto Protocol, which was not signed by the United States, was a complete failure, as mentioned by the reindeer in the cartoon above. One of the main factors that lead to the United States not signing the treaty was that many countries in the developing world did not sign this treaty as well. For example, China, India, and Brazil are expected to pass the United States fossil fuel emissions in the near future, but did not have to sign the Kyoto Protocol as well. With the way the treaty works, 14 out of the top 20 top emitting countries did not have to sign it. This is why the United States felt like it was unfair for them to have to sign. Do they have a point? Yes. Is it selfish though? Of course it is. I personally believe that our world should be taken care of in any way possible. I believe that global warming is a terrifying problem, and governments need to step up and start to fix the problem. There is another problem with the Kyoto Protocol that stands out to me as well. Unlike the Montreal Protocol, Kyoto leaves it up to the states how they will reduce emissions. With varied targets, and the lack of the inclusion of relevant states proves that the Kyoto Protocol was destined to fail. Unfortunately, Santa will have to keep dreaming for a white Christmas.

The Others

Amara Rojo

December 9^th, 2015                                                     

International Relations 170

           

            In the Todorov reading, the passage highlights the imposition of Western culture on the unknown. Although this is in the context of 400 years ago and through the lens of Christopher Columbus, this is still prevalent today with how the modern “Westernized world” views what many would call archaic cultures.

            With the declaration of the “war on terror” after September 11^th, the world changed dramatically with how it viewed non-western cultures and religions, specifically Islam. The average American usually did not have any contact with Islam, their first association being that of a radicalized group that committed terror on their own. Thus, the violent stereotype emerged giving what everyone needed at that moment: a scapegoat. Phenotypical differences were drawn and every mannerism imaginable was given an immense distinction. This is no different to what Columbus did centuries ago, commenting on appearances and mannerism comparing them to Western ideals. Once again, the “othering” occurred. This is understandable though. In times of tragedy and the encountering of the unknown—with September 11^th, this happened simultaneously—there is a tendency to want to separate yourself from the enemy or unknown as much as possible.

With ethnocentrism running high, many Americans (and Westerners in general) cannot help but impose the beliefs that democracy is the best form of government to run a country and that religion is less important in daily life than it was in years past. Westerners are biased. We cannot be objective in our morals, nor can we possibly understand that just because we perceive things to be a certain way that it may not always work for other cultures. Columbus could not understand the traditions and lifestyle of the natives he encountered because he simply was too partial to his European standards. I would say that we aren’t quite as terrible as the first explorers were when trying to understand the unknown; today we can understand that there are some people who do not think what the West stands for is the best—not that many Westerners would accept that. We are solely coming to the consensus as a Western culture that maybe democracy is not what is best for every nation. Not that we have had much of a choice in the matter. With war after war, failed democracies conceived by Western states, and several terrorist attacks, there can only be one conclusion from this: by forcing democracy and Western morals on other countries, this not only belittles our views on other countries, but also creates animosity and backlash to the nation states in power.

Jon Stenger

December 9, 2015

International Relations

Was Hiroshima Just?

            During class we discussed the idea of the Just War Theory. We talked about what it meant for a war to be just, and if the actions taken by states are justifiable. Or what is considered justifiable in terms of preemptive strikes or preventative strikes. As we discussed this idea throughout history, we came across WWII and the actions committed throughout that period. As we analyzed the end of the war, we contemplated if the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagisaki. Looking at the Just War Theory, I believe that the bombings that ended the war in Japan was a justifiable move.

            It is arguable that the bombings were not justifiable, given the immense civilian casualties and the devastating damage caused to the two cities. The United States could have elected to fight out the war and invade the mainland of Japan. This move would have been incredibly costly in both coin and lives on both sides. By attacking an unprepared population at Pearl Harbor, the Japanese opened up a door that left little room for caution in the US’s response. Therefore, once they were on the brink of the Japanese mainland, it was a possibility to try and end the war with a massive attack on a both military and civil population. Although tragic, it was effective at putting an end to the Japanese resistance in the war. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor opened up the possibility for such a devastating attack.

            The main reasoning behind the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the reasoning for its justification, lies in the fact that it was much less costly to make this attack than it would have been to invade the mainland. The American government decided that the cost of American soldier deaths in an invasion would be too high, that it outweighed the negatives of bombing a civilian population. With the potential to end the war immediately, it made sense to make the attack instead of invading Japan. Also, the Japanese had a code of honor that required them to fight until death and never surrender. With this belief, it would prolong the war and increase the death toll to both Americans and Japanese. By bombing these two cities, many American lives were saved, and the war was immediately ended. Therefore, the attack is justifiable, even though it had devastating effects on Japan.

            The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justifiable because it ended the war immediately, and saved many American lives, who were fighting a reactionary war against an enemy who had carried out a covert attack on our military base of Pearl Harbor. Although the attack was devastating and tragic, it was reasonable given the costs of the alternative. According to the Just War Theory and my personal opinions, the bombings in Japan were just.

Kyoto Protocol vs. Montreal Protocol

            During the last couple weeks, our International Relations class has learned about a wide variety of topics like international justice, the environment, and terrorism. The lecture that has stood out the most for me is the environment lecture. For years, the Kyoto Protocol has not been effective in reducing the amount of global carbon emissions, and I never understood why that was the case. However, after learning about how effective the Montreal Protocol was at fixing the ozone layer, I realized that there are key differences in the two plans that aren’t allowing the Kyoto Protocol to be as effective as it could be. If the differences were addressed, the negative effects of global climate change could be lessened and the environment would safer overall.

            One of the key differences between the Montreal Protocol and the Kyoto Protocol is that the Montreal Protocol was actually legitimized by the United States. In other words, the United States realized that ozone depletion was an important issue, and they realized that they had to do something to fix the problem. The United States hasn’t really legitimized the Kyoto Protocol which is problematic because the US is a developed nation with one of the highest levels of carbon emissions. Since the US doesn’t legitimize the severity of the amount of carbon emissions, they’re not taking the adequate measures to lower them. Another difference is that with the Montreal Protocol, the negative externalities of the depleting ozone were being felt globally. It was a problem that was causing increases in skin cancer around the world. However, one of the problems with the Kyoto Protocol is that global climate change is not an immediate threat to the human population in the short term. There aren’t any obvious health concerns that can be blamed solely on global climate change. For this reason, many countries don’t take the Kyoto Protocol as seriously as they should because the imminent threat of global climate change isn’t overtly present yet.

One solution to this problem is to create rules so that every country has to reduce their carbon emissions by the same number. While this may not be realistic, ideally this would take away any uncertainty between states, and give every state a common goal. Another solution is to make renewable energy resources more readily available. If new technologies were used in place of carbon fossil fuels, then lowering carbon emissions wouldn’t be such a daunting task. I truly believe that states can come together to make an agreement that will actually stop global climate change, especially as more species become extinct and more problems arise from pollution.

Columbus vs. Today

Caroline Snyder

International Relations

Professor Shirk

9 December 2015

Blog Post 5

            The Todorov reading, while it discusses only Christopher Columbus’ thoughts and experiences when he first arrived in America, it reflects what is happening in today’s society. Columbus’ coming to America and interacting with Native Americans was one of the first acts of globalization. The culture of the East and West were being introduced to one another. Just as Columbus was confused and looked down upon the traditions of the Native Americans, so do some people of today look down upon races, religions, and groups of people that they are not a part of or understand. There has always been the constant struggle between which culture is “better” or “more civilized”.

            One difference between the natives and Columbus that he thought about often was religion. Since Columbus did not understand the Native American’s ways of worship, he discredited them. This continues to happen today with terrorist groups, but also with normal people being ignorant of other religions. Some people are not willing to learn about another religion and just condemn it for being “bad” or “wrong”. Also with religion comes the constant battle of what is the “correct” name of certain things. The name of God has been in debate between religions since two religions first interacted with each other. Columbus renamed some of the islands he discovered to give them “right names” even though they had already been given names by the natives. He believed that he had the right to give the islands the “correct” names. This is just as powerful as claiming land for a country. As Todorov said, “nomination is equivalent to taking possession”. This reflects today and how religious groups fight over the names of different aspects of religion.

            Columbus also discredited the natives when he was unwilling to learn their language. He learned the basics so that he could understand the nature of what they were saying, but “showed very little interest in the rest of the vocabulary”. Since I attend Dickinson which promotes a global education, I find it very sad when I see people who are equally as unwilling as Columbus to attempt to learn a new language or about a culture. People who travel to other countries that expect all of the citizens to know English and be willing to speak it aggravate me. You do not necessarily have to learn a whole new language in order to go to another country, but at least respect the fact that not all humans know English. These are the same people that brush off the foreigners who come to the United States to travel. In my opinion, all people should be open minded enough to want to help others who do not understand the language or culture. I know that if this dream were to come true, I would be living in a utopian society. However, I do believe that the world is becoming a more globalized place that is increasingly becoming more accepting and promoting of other cultures. This is especially true since Columbus’ time. Columbus was not willing to learn a new language and today, being bilingual is a coveted skill that is beneficial in the work place.

            We are getting there. Thanks to Columbus, globalization is a driving force that is constantly changing our world.