President
Donald J. Trump has announced the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement,
"an agreement within the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) dealing with greenhouse gas emissions mitigation,"
signed originally during the presidency of Barack Obama with 194 other
countries. Trump's speech, despite some redundancies, was one of the most
defining moments in U.S. history. He spent considerable time listing the
many ways that Agreement is bad for the U.S. economy, a burden on taxpayers,
and insignificant as far as protecting the U.S. and world environment. He
announced his intention to be environmentally friendly, but not to the point of
shipping U.S. jobs overseas, putting a "lock and key" on American
energy resources, or curtailing our prosperity and quality of life.
What
changed the speech from merely expressing a straightforward policy decision, a
speech that could have been designed by the proverbial policy wonk? What
made Trump's Rose Garden announcement a speech with a unique national vision,
one defining American exceptionalism, a speech restoring us to an understanding
that the USA was destined to be and is unique among the nations of the world?
The
economic facts would have been enough to justify our withdrawal from the
Agreement. Nevertheless, the defining moment was when Trump said (my
italics):
There
are serious legal and constitutional issues as well. Foreign leaders in
Europe, Asia, and across the world, should not have more to say with respect to
the U.S. economy than our own citizens and their elected representatives, thus,
our withdrawal from the agreement represents a reassertion of America's
sovereignty. Our constitution is unique among all nations of the world. And
it is my highest obligation and greatest honor to protect it. And I will[.] ...
It would once have been unthinkable that an international agreement could prevent
the United States from conducting its own domestic economic affairs, but this
is the new reality we face if we do not leave the agreement or if we do not
negotiate a far better deal."
In
saying these words, President Trump announced to the world that we are
departing from the trajectory of the U.S. toward globalization.
"America First" in the good sense, not in a hyper-nationalist or
chauvinist sense, is being affirmed and embraced. The key to a sincere
nationalism, one that represents the highest ideals that were the original
impulse of our republic, is holding fast to our national sovereignty. The
sovereignty of the nation-state is its borders, its operating on the basis of national
interest – what the late senator Daniel Moynihan (D-N.Y.) liked to call
enlightened self-interest – and its control of its own economics, legal system,
and political values and structure. Sovereignty defines every
nation-state as a self-governing entity answerable to its citizens and its
national values and government system.
Sovereignty
has not been discussed in the public square for a long time. Air travel,
Skype, and extensive trade with international labels in our clothing, cars,
appliances, and other merchandise sometimes give the impression that the idea
of "national interest" is out of date, even pre-technological and
backward. If I can not only know my roots and keep some of my customs,
but also literally, in a matter of hours, return to my roots or communicate
"live" with friends, family, business associates, and "pen
pals" in other countries, a sense of the unique nation-state experience,
of the "special something" of living in the USA, may seem diluted.
The
first major attempt to turn away from the nation-state concept toward a
globalist vision was Woodrow Wilson's brainchild, the League of Nations.
The League of Nations was rejected by the U.S. Senate based on objections
raised by Republican senators Henry Cabot Lodge and William Borah. Both repudiated
the treaty because of its inclusion of a League of Nations, which would
jeopardize – you guessed it – U.S. sovereignty. Borah, in a
passionate two-hour
speech, stated, "We have forfeited and surrendered, once and for all,
the great policy of 'no entangling alliances' upon which the strength of this
Republic has been founded for one hundred fifty years." George
Washington had warned the republic against those entangling alliances because
he understood that the U.S. is a unique country, founded on unique republican
principles, rejection of all titles of nobility, and rights for all guaranteed
by a constitution. Further, our rich soil and active commercial life
provided great opportunities for all, unlike the rigid feudalism that still
characterized much of Europe. He did not want us to become compromised by
other peoples who were less free and less prosperous than ourselves.
Lodge and Borah understood the need to carry on that vision of
sovereignty.
Sadly,
the Washington-Lodge-Borah vision of a the U.S. as a unique land of opportunity
and as a sovereign nation unique in many, many positive ways has been fading
from view since the end of WWII. Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston
Churchill returned to a Wilsonian vision during the war as they drafted plans
for a United Nations. After the war, the U.N. (1945) was created.
Then the International Monetary Fund and World Bank were created as
international lending institutions (to which the U.S. was and is the main
contributor) to support the economic advancement of developing nations in the
Third World.
Then
NATO (1947) came into existence to defend Europe against Soviet expansion.
After NATO, the U.S. joined SEATO (1954) to protect southeast Asia.
Step by step, the network of multilateral memberships grew. Economic
global agreements and networks also became the norm. We became signers of
the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), begun in 1947, which by 1994
had 128
signatories and which is now managed through a framework known as the
World Trade Organization (WTO). Under GATT, procedures are in place for
nation-states to negotiate disputes if they believe that the rules of GATT are
not being followed or to challenge other perceived unfair trade
practices. Also, during the years of Pres. Bill Clinton, we became one of
the three members of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which
Trump now wishes to renegotiate in order to get more favorable terms for the
U.S.
This
incredibly extensive military and economic network of treaties and agreements
is the background against which we can see and understand the radical nature of
Trump's repudiation of the Paris Agreement. The fear of entangling
alliances we see as fundamental in an earlier era of American history has
essentially been abandoned since 1945. Not only are we involved with the
"Old World" countries of Europe from which America's ancestors
largely emigrated or fled, but we are now embroiled with countries having even
more radically different values, mores, and customs than the countries
Washington, Lodge, and Borah warned us about.
Trump
is thus speaking against not merely membership in the Paris Agreement. By
speaking of our sovereignty, he is throwing down the gauntlet to our entire
strategy of world relations during the post-WWII period. His reference to
sovereignty suggests to this writer that he is forthrightly bucking an 82-year
trend toward multilateralism, an 82-year trend of diluting American
sovereignty. He is saying no to a furtherance of the many financial and
legal compromises made when entering into to such extensive networks.
With great clarity, he closed his announcement by saying, "In other
words, the Paris framework is just a starting point. As bad as it is.
Not an end point."
Seeing
that our continued membership would be the beginning of a further phase towards
global governance, the president decided boldly to say "no." We
can conclude that his "no" is likewise to be seen as a first step – a
game-changing, powerful, proactive step – toward regaining our precious
sovereignty.
