ESPM 169: Power Politics I - States and National InterestsOctober 3, 20021. 2 dimensions of power politics:a. How states interact with each other: material power (military and economic) and other sources of bargaining leverageb. How governments and national interests at home (in the domestic sphere) interact - and how domestic interests compete: formulating the national interest Why the US has not ratified the CBD (and why Afghanistan did, on 9/19/2002)Research questions: - why strong states don't always get what they want; - why strong governments can't get domestic support for a Convention they've signed orwant to sign - why objectively similar states (eg US and UK) respond differently Captured in Two-Level Games model - other countries at the table, domestic interests at home.2. Why Hasn't the US Ratified the CBD? answer lies in domestic politics, though it's also true that the CBD ultimately did not resemble the umbrella conservation convention the US wanted - too "political" - genetic resources, technology transfer something of a puzzle, cf. climate change: a lot of basic society interests lined up in favor; not hugely costly to the US, as already has conservation policies, so no new policy needed; science pretty much consensual Feb 2002: Dept. of State informed the senate that the administration would review the possibility of ratifying the CBD; US still participates in decision-making forums as observer (and working with allies); gives money to GEF1a. The importance of the US in international environmental politics: - biggest economy, user of resources – e.g. has 18.5% of world’s annual consumption of forest products (1996 figures); 1995 – world average per capita materials consumption 1.66 tons – 10.84 tons in US in 1995; difference has remained constant since 1970; emits 22% of world’s CO2 and has 4.6% of world’s population - role as benevolent hegemon in post WW2 era - considered very important to success of any treaty; though does not have to actually initiate diplomatic activity - however, role has been decidedly mixed: has certainly not been a leader (with exception of Montreal protocol), and has been a laggard in many instancesb. The US Foreign Environmental Policy Making Processhttp://www.state.gov/g/oes/ - Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs - office of Ecology and Terrestrial Conservation deals with BD issues - other agencies, e.g. EPA, also involved in implementation, negotiation - Administration - Senate and House of Representatives: treaties basically have to pass the senate with a 2/3 majorityc. Domestic Interests who are the groups outside of government who have an interest in the CBD?The environmental movement (pre-globalism)Scientific Community (supported, but became disenchanted)Labor movement2Biotechnology industry: favored because internationalist outlook; interest in maintaining access to genetic resources how vested are those interests? Seems that CBD not AS important, given strength of domestic measuresd. Government/Institutional StructuresPaarlberg: ratification hasn't happened; Pres. GHW Bush refused to sign in 1992; Clinton signed in 1993From 1995 CRS Brief (http://www.cnie.org/nle/crsreports/biodiversity/biodv-2.cfm):"However, on June 4, 1993, President Clinton, after working with industry and environmental groups to resolve problems with some treaty language, changed course andsigned the treaty, and transmitted it to the Senate for advice and consent, along with an interpretive statement to clarify how the United States understands the provisions that have caused concern. After being considered by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, the treaty was reported to the Senate with a favorable recommendation for ratification in mid-1993; however, the treaty was not taken up for a vote before the end of the 103rd Congress; it is now pending in the 104th Congress."Proximate reasons: Republican presence in Senate (though Dems had majority pre 1994); less of a threat to human health; already have CITES (protects cute species) and Endangered Species Act. - p. 252: “most of the additional species the CBD would be protecting [cf. CITES] would be plants or insects living in settings for the most part distant from and unfamiliar to US voters”Fundamental Reasons: isolationist tendencies; anti-regulation some extremist elements: giving nature priority ("anti-Christian, pantheistic beliefs" dominating the UN - up to every Christian to challenge this, etc.)Prospects under current administration?3- issues with ESA and environmental protection  federal system - much environmental policy made at the state level (California and climate change)3. How does this apply to other countries? why would Afghanistan ratify the CBD now? After all, it's likely the government has a few more pressing priorities right now.Exercise:Countries: China, India, Costa Rica, Russia - each group to pretend they are negotiating team. - step 1: national interest - what constituencies do you need to keep happy? What do you want out of the CBD? - step 2: bargaining leverage - how are you going to get what you want? - step 3: allies and adversaries - step 4: what might they want out of the process that has nothing to do with BD?NB: exercise in hypothesis buildingCategories of factors: type of government, level of economic development, powerful interests domestically - environmental movement, industry, élites, political, scientific, other etc.