International Cooperation Takes a Break During the Trump Era

By JASON SIBERT

The sense of law and order on the international stage is breaking down at a time when we can’t afford for it to break down.

The most recent example is the Trump Administration’s talks of leaving the Open Skies Treaty. The 1992 treaty, negotiated during the administration of George H.W. Bush, allows 34 countries, including the United States and Russia, the opportunity to fly unarmed surveillance flights over each other’s counties to monitor weapons possessed by each country.

Arms control expert Alexandra Bell, who worked on the Open Skies Treaty and served as an advisor in the Office of Undersecretary of State for Arms Control, says it’s not clear whether President Trump understands the importance of the treaty. Some are skeptical of the treaty due to Russian violations, a relevant point. However, the whole idea of the treaty is to create an avenue for discussion if violations occur.

The Open Skies Treaty is just one example of the Trump Administration’s approach to world order. In this administration, the US also left the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty and the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, an agreement with Iran, the US and four other members of the UN Security Council, Germany and the European Union to provide relief from sanctions in return for Iran stopping development of nuclear weapons.

The result of this policy is that the nation-states of the world will engage in a power-balancing game and our treasury, and other countries’ treasuries, will be drained via money spent on arms.

The whole idea of arms control requires bond between nations-states. States will cooperate to insure they can enjoy security through fewer arms. The non-militaristic avenue of weapons inspections will be used. Protecting the environment requires a similar mentality. The nation-states of the world all share the same environment and must pull together to protect it.

Like the US leaving treaties, the conflict at a recent G7 meeting also highlights on how the currents of international politics undercut real security. However, the actions of citizens of various nation-states are a positive development. Before the meeting, tensions were high between French President Emmanuel Macron and Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, a right-wing populist like Trump.

Macron addressed the burning of the Amazon rain forest under the leadership of Bolsonaro. Macron called the burning of the fires an “international crisis” and also said “our house is burning.”

The Amazon is important to Brazil and the world, as Carlos Nobre – a researcher at the Institute for Advanced Studies at the University of San Paulo – said that the deforestation in Brazil are taking the forest beyond a tipping point where paths of the forest will become dry savannah. In the week of the controversy, there were 7,746 fires in the country, according to Brazil’s National Institute for Space Research. The forests supply 25% of the world’s oxygen and serve as a carbon sink, as it stores massive amounts of carbon and fights the greenhouse effect. Some have called the Amazon “the lungs of the planet.” It reminds one of what former President Franklin D. Roosevelt said about forests being “the lungs of our land.”

Bolsonaro weakened his country’s environmental protection agency and expressed support for miners, loggers and farmers who wanted to clear the forest. Nobre said his decision has made illegal deforestation more common by giving those who want to burn it moral support.

Before the controversy, President Bolsanaro said the Amazon “is ours,” meaning that the country had been kept from developing its resources. In doing this, he mirrors other right-wing populists in promoting the idea that there are sinister forces at work undermining the integrity of their nation-state.

Soon after the controversy surrounding the G7 meeting, demonstrations broke out in Paris, London, Paris, Zurich and Madrid due to Bolsanaro’s stance on the rainforest. The international opposition to the rainforest destruction does much to raise consciousness on the true dimensions of the issue, something ignored in much of the mainstream press. While Bolsanaro framed the issue in national terms, those who opposed his actions really understand the international ramifications of what’s being done. The rainforests aren’t the property of the Brazilian nation-state or anyone else. The ecological systems that the world’s population depends on for life are connected to the rainforests, and those who want to destroy them are having an impact on the lives of those beyond the borders of Brazil.

The rainforests are a part of what an economist would call the commons, a portion of our economy which cannot or should not be private property because society in generally benefits from them being common property. Roads, educational systems, broadcasting networks, public parks, libraries, fire protection and our ecology are all a part of the commons. Ecology and economy both come from the same Greek word meaning home. No individual property owner should be able to control the commons for the detriment of others’ property, as polluters destroy the property of others.

Arms control can also be considered a part of the commons because when we refuse to reduce weapons we act as if security through fewer weapons in a matter of private property. However, a world littered with weapons impacts more than the citizens of a single nation-state.

The demonstrations in the world’s cities are standing for the values of a democratic-republic – life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They also are a sign of the need to keep the idea of international cooperation alive in a time of destructive nationalism. The Defense Department said the greenhouse effect is one of the top security concerns and has war making potential. Will we choose the defense of the commons or war?

Jason Sibert is the executive director of the Peace Economy Project.

From The Progressive Populist, December 1, 2019

Populist.com