“I hope this e-mail finds you well.”
How many of your e-mails start that way? Probably not many, unless, like me, you work with colleagues across the globe, in which case, quite a few. It’s the e-mail equivalent of a cultural imperative that all interactions, and, in particular, business dealings, must start with extended inquiries into the health and well-being of each party and their families. And it’s just one of a number of ways in which our American culture differs from many others, differences that get lost in the emphasis on the notion of multiculturalism — that is, the idea that we are a nation of many cultures makes us blind to the fact that there is, deeper down, an American culture.
And it seems to me that the reason why the United States has rejected the Paris Accord on climate change is a cultural one. Oh, sure, you might say that the rejection is because Trump is evil and wants to destroy the planet in the name of short-term profits for American businesses, but, when Obama signed the agreement in 2016, he did not submit it to the Senate for ratification. To be sure, the Senate was GOP-controlled so doing so wouldn’t have had any practical effect, but neither did Obama make any push for a binding agreement during the years when the Democrats controlled House, Senate, and the presidency.
Beyond which, it’s my understanding that the agreement itself is fundamentally a declaration of “good intentions.” As described by The American Interest and Commentary magazine, the targets for reductions are set by countries themselves, and can be changed at any time, without any sort of external enforcement mechanism. Secondly, the Green Climate Fund does not have (so far as I can tell) any power to compel any country or other entity to had over the cash that’s supposed to go to poor countries (who, buy the way, have nothing to lose in signing the agreement, since they are intended to be recipients of the funds, not contributors).
And, indeed, the United States is nearly alone, in the company only of Syria and Nicaragua, in not signing the agreement.
But that’s not the only such case.
The United Sates is the only country to have not ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which Clinton signed in 1995.
The Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (SEDAW)? Only the Holy See, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Tonga have not signed it; the U.S. and Palau are the only ones who have signed but not ratified it (the U.S. under Carter, in July of 1980; see Wikipedia).
The Convention on Rights of Persons With Disabilities? Here’s that list: US, Libya, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Chad, Cameroon, Botswana, Solomon Islands, Fiji have signed but not ratified, South Sudan, Eritrea, Somalia, and Equatorial Guinea have not signed. (Per the UN site.)
Why has the U.S. not ratified these agreements?
It’s easy to find individual explanations: the Convention on the Rights of the Child takes away parental rights, might prohibit homeschooling, etc. CEDAW could prohibit even the moderate abortion restrictions we have in the U.S., eliminate single-sex schools, would require quotas on the hiring of women, and so on.
But consider that Saudi Arabia, despite its notorious “guardian” system, has ratified CEDAW. North Korea, which imprisons whole families, has ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child. And if I weren’t already running out of time to start my workday, I’d find a really good example of a country which does really dastardly things to the disabled.
And beyond these specific examples, every other country that has signed it has taken the view that, to whatever extent they disagree with any aspect of the application of the Convention, they’ll go their own way, and it’s no big deal. (With respect to the Paris Accord, I would guess that the other signatories had a similar view: we’ll make the decisions that we think are best for our people, and try to get as much benefit out of the deal as possible.) What, then, is the point of signing these conventions? To some degree, it’s a matter of taking an action to further their resolve to Do the Right Thing; in other cases, it’s purely about asserting on the world stage that you’re just as good and righteous as everyone else, no matter the truth at home. To some degree, there is also the hope that any given nation that signs/ratifies will then have greater moral standing and a specific platform from which they can effect change in nations that are deficient in their treatment of children, women, the disabled.
Why didn’t the U.S. ratify them? In the same way as we don’t ask whether every member of your family is doing well before getting down to business. We focus on the practical, the concrete, and don’t see the same value in the aspirational and symbolic (or, as critics would say, the farcical claims of success) — we ask, how, concretely, will this ratification affect the people at home? Consider, too, the fact that in certain cultures (I’ve read this of various Asian countries), Americans have trouble doing business because, culturally, their counterparts just will not say “no”, leading the Americans to think they’ve made the deal, when, in reality, our American culture of a straightforward “yes” and “no” is not a part of how they do business. We want an Agreement, a Treaty, to have a clear path, a practical impact, and enforceable consequences, when much of the rest of the world just doesn’t care.
(It reminds me a bit of two views of marriage: the U.S. says the equivalent of “marriage is a serious binding commitment”; the ROW says, “marriage is a piece of paper that’ll show everyone else how much we love each other, make everyone like us more, and maybe get us some benefits.”)
And I’m not saying American culture is right or wrong on this point. But it’s different. And this has nothing to do with climate change.
Image: https://pixabay.com/en/pollution-global-warming-environment-2049211/
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In