Beginning of the end to Western domination?

by Patali CHAMPIKA RANAWAKA

Recently, I happened to read an interesting weekly column in Newsweek International magazine which clearly reflects the non-conservative modern mindset of the US polity. The column writer is Fareed Zakaria with Asian roots who is well informed on current global affairs. Also, offering some insightful observation on modern reality of international affairs, he has written a new book titled, “The Post American World and the Rise of the Rest.” In his book he argues “... look around.

The tallest building in the world is now in Taipei and it will soon be overtaken by one being built in Dubai. The world’s richest man is a Mexican and the largest public traded corporation is Chinese. The world biggest plane is built in Russia and Ukraine, the leading refinery is under construction in India and the largest factories are all in China. By many measures, London is becoming the leading financial centre and the UAE is home to the most richly endowed investment fund. Once quintessentially American icons have been appropriated by foreigners. The world largest ferris wheel is in Singapore.

The number one casino in the world is not in Las Vegas, but in Macao, which has also overtaken Vegas in annual gambling revenues. The biggest movie industry in terms of both the number of movies made and tickets sold is in Bollywood and not in Hollywood. Even in shopping America’s greatest sporting activity has gone global. Of the top ten malls in the world only one is in the United States, the biggest is in Beijing. Such lists are arbitrary but it is striking that only 10 years ago America was at the top in many if not, most of these categories..” Through his book Zakaria has been able to show much about the “Rise of the Rest”.

Burj Dubai in Dubai

In his writing he has put America and United States synonymously, showing sub consciously that he too believes, America is United States. Although, he argues about the rise of Brazil and Mexico in Latin America and about China and India in the Asian hemisphere, he tries to show the world, that the western claim of being able to solve all the problems in the world is no longer tenable. The Russian invasion of Georgia, India’s confrontation in Doha meeting of WTO, China holding the Olympic games at a cost of 40 Billion US$ and leading the world sports arena, the world GDP growth in 2009 totally coming from non-Western countries, bailing out of states and institutions including USA by China’s vast foreign reserves (2.2 Trillion US$) etc. are clear evidence that the West is presently not controlling the global economy, security or political issues single handedly as they had done decades earlier.

Emergence of these new powers and its political might was clearly evident last September when the UN General Session was being conducted.

Addressing the US General Assembly, President Barak Obama requested all the countries in the world to share the responsibilities in solving global problems, since US alone could not do it. When the US President was making these observation I was there in the assembly with our Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs. I could not help myself greeting his statement with some degree of skepticism. Was he trying to surrender their super power status or was he trying to share, with the rest of the world, the responsibility for the prevailing chaotic situation in the world that they themselves had created? When Copenhagen climate summit sessions were on, a similar idea was floated.

It was that, even if the west simply came together, it would not be able to resolve global scale problems anymore. They needed a global partnership, specially with emerging markets like China, India, Brazil and Russia. Their criticism of the Kyoto Protocol, the legal instrument to combat climate change, was that it was marked by its adherence to the old west centric world view - that is, if the West came together and settled on a plan, that the rest would adopt the new framework and as a result the problem would be solved.

What happened in Copenhagen was that in the pretext of shared responsibility, there was a concerted attempt by the western powers to undermine the Kyoto protocol which envisaged legally bound emission cuts on western countries. And also, they had tried to divide the unity among the G77 Group (132 countries including China, India, Brazil, etc.) by adopting a new agreement.

According to the Kyoto protocol, the western countries are obliged to cut their aggregate emission levels by 5.2%, relative to 1990 level and from 1997 to 2007 observe as the voluntary period and from 2008 to 2012 to be the compulsory period. The world’s biggest polluters the USA and Canada, have not signed this protocol although they always preach others to adhere to human rights. However, the biggest human rights violation today is the excessive emission of carbon dioxide generated by burning of fossil fuel by these western countries. They have achieved their so called developed states by the over use of the atmosphere which belongs to everyone including the future generation.

Now they are talking about these emerging countries and are asking them to cut their emission levels. The Western countries are trying to preserve their privileged status and at the same time are trying to block the right of the other countries to develop. This is why China, Brazil and India together have come forward and have tabled another proposal challenging the Danish proposal which had been sponsored by the western countries.

The general idea of the western countries is to deny the historical responsibilities and share the environmental calamity created by them.

And they are not willing to accept the fact that their past emissions have caused the present climate change. In the meantime they have tried to postpone the crisis saying that by 2050, they would cut 85% of the present emission. They have not been honouring the international pledge they had undertaken for 17 years since 1992. The meaning of their trying to honour it by 2050, is that they expect their grandchildren to honour it and not the present generation. But the scientists have clearly identified and verified that if the world is not able to solve this problem as early as possible (at least 50% emission cut by 2020), irreversible and irreparable damage would take place.

The western countries proposed that there should be a common carbon tax (at least 25US$ per carbon Ton) and using this tax money a green fund could be formed. They are willing to exempt “under developed” small island nations which are very much vulnerable to a point of extinction, but others including Sri Lanka which is a very low emitting country has to contribute to that fund. On par with the contribution, stakeholder-ship of the governing body or fund managing power could be determined. That means those who emit more could be able to govern the fund and its disbursement. The other argument is that although some developing countries are obliged to contribute, they too could be benefited (as adoption takes place in the form of technological transfer and financing) and the net inflow would be positive. That means they could take more money than they contribute.

Suppose the world body is able to impose this levy, they could simply collect over 75 Billion USD annually. The amount is far shorter than what is expected to spend in adoption (it has been estimated that 250 -300 billion USD are needed to implement adoption strategies all over the globe) but in the present context it would be a good start as far as the global climate fund is concerned. But there are fundamental flaws to this concept. Firstly, you are not able to cut the emission level by imposing a tax. But already rich people and countries tend to pollute more by paying more. That way, it would not be a solution.

Secondly, the fund management would be solemnly handled by the worst polluter, due to their being the largest contributors to the fund.

That way the poor, environmental friendly economies and countries will be sidelined and marginalized, but not rewarded. Thirdly, there is no objective criteria for exemption. Small island concept or least developed concept should not be the criteria.

In fund disbursement it should be the vulnerability which should be based on two parameters.

One is per capita emission level based on carbon budget envisaged by IPCC the scientific body of UNCCC and the other parameter is carbon intensity or how much carbon is embedded in one US$ GDP. If these two parameters are being used it could well preserve the environmental justice principle. Fourthly, this fund could be used as a political tool where IMF and WB are used to be.

We should remember one thing. Time is running out and we are endangering our common future. Fossil fuel based civilization is coming to its turning point and going to crash. As Fareed Zakaria pointed out every golden age comes to a close. The more glittering the era the more fiery the end.

(The writer is the Minister of Environment and Natural Resources)