Sistema Ideal

Two topics surface from the data relating to the power politics theme. The issue of the alliance between Australia and the USA is observed, as is the previously discussed subject of the Howard Government delegation’s negotiating style at the Kyoto Protocol negotiations.

5.7.1 Australia and the USA

Robert Hill revealed his government’s preference for consultation with the USA:

If the United States has determined that the Protocol is unacceptable ... then we will want to explore with the United States its views on the international architecture that can deliver an optimal global response (Robert Hill, 21).

John Howard insisted that Australian climate policy was not influenced by the USA:

The Americans will follow the policy they want to follow and we'll follow ours. Our policy on the environment is not driven by the United States (John Howard, 6).

whatever decision we take will not be based on following one country or another. It would be based upon what we regard as being the best interest of Australia (John Howard, 14).

And our refusal to sign the protocol is based on our own independent assessment of our national interest (John Howard, 26).

The Daily Telegraph instead implied that Australia obeys the powerful USA:

Acting as a deputy of the US is not a role most Australians would feel comfortable with (Daily Telegraph, 4).

The Age suggested the American alliance had an impact on Howard Government policy:

In policy terms, it also seems Howard is determined to go all the way with Bush. Australia followed the US in deciding against ratifying the Kyoto Protocol (The Age, 3).

The Sydney Morning Herald commentary alluded to the Australian reliance on America’s power to shape the world in its favour:

In the government there is a misguided faith in American power and hegemony as a core factor in creating a world order that will suit Australia (The Sydney Morning Herald, 4).

The Courier Mail discussed the power relations surrounding the USA:

While second-order powers such as China and Germany might want to restrict US power, smaller nations such as Spain and Australia might prefer to see the US strengthened. John Howard's support for the US reflects such a view (The Courier Mail, 8).

The telling nature of Australia’s alliance is highlighted in this passage from The Sydney Morning Herald:

Australia, the world's biggest per capita polluter, backs Washington, not the 120 nations ... which have ratified (The Sydney Morning Herald, 24).

There were also suggestions in the media that the Australian-American alliance was not in Australia’s national interest:

After all, it's one thing to behave like a rogue elephant on the international scene when you're actually an elephant like the US but it's another to posture like a rogue elephant when, in global terms, you scarcely carry the size and muscle of a wombat. Perhaps Howard is now wavering on Kyoto because he finally recognises this fact (The Australian, 25).

While Mr. Howard may see strategic advantages in aligning Australia with US foreign policy, there is little honour or sense in following Washington's environmental lead (The Sydney Morning Herald, 8).

It's one thing for the only remaining superpower to tell the world to get stuffed; it's madness for a small player like Australia to try that one on (The Australian Financial Review, 4).

5.7.2 Negotiating style

There were suggestions from the media that the negotiations over the Kyoto Protocol represented power politics, by noting the tone of Australia’s negotiations:

in the end brinkmanship and the chaotic negotiations in the ancient

Japanese capital delivered the Howard Government an unexpected victory - a target so generous it stunned even the government's own negotiators (The Australian Financial Review, 1).

Comments in the media reinforced the confrontational nature of the Australian delegation’s negotiating style:

Australians were repeatedly warned that the Howard Government's negotiating position was internationally unacceptable. We were told the Europeans ... would simply reject Australia's "immoral" stance (The Australian, 6).

With the major powers polarised, Japan, Australia and Canada are emerging out of the diplomatic chaos as the pivotal countries which will determine the future and character of international action on climate change (The Sydney Morning Herald, 1).

The combative nature of Australia’s negotiating style created the potential for a backlash. Commenting on the discussions of a Senate environmental committee, an article in The Australian stated:

it was a ‘reasonable assumption’ other countries could implement trade sanctions if Australia did not agree to greater greenhouse emissions reduction (The Australian, 7).

5.8 Conclusion

The data is broken up into six themes common in both the data and realist theory. There is not a great deal of data on the realist suggestion that the international system is anarchic. What data there is comes from media sources. These data show that the Howard Government was not deeply concerned about international

institutions and rules, that there was a fear of losing national sovereignty by signing Kyoto, and that the media believed the Howard Government had a moral duty to act on climate change.

There was a lot of evidence in favour of the realist proposition that countries act as if there are relative, not absolute gains to be made in the international arena,

especially from the political data. The data highlighted the concerns the Howard Government had about losing market share and foreign investment if it ratified the Kyoto Protocol. The data also suggested the Howard Government might not have been acting rationally in its decision not to ratify.

Whether cooperation is sustained or meaningful internationally is not something the data contained much evidence on. The Howard Government, while stating that participation needed to be global for the Kyoto Protocol to be effective, used the low level of participation in the Protocol as one of its reasons to reject it. The Howard Government also felt that uncertainty surrounding the issue hampered the possibility of cooperation.

There was ample evidence concerning the realist idea that international actors are primarily concerned with their national interest. The data hinted that the Howard Government had a self-interested negotiating style; that it believed it had unique circumstances that warranted special consideration; and that it believed low participation in, and uncertainty over the Protocol would mean ratification would have negative consequences for Australia’s national interest. There is evidence in the data both for and against the question as to whether ratifying the Protocol would

have been in Australia’s national interest. There is also evidence that the Howard Government favoured economic over environmental considerations when making its decision not to ratify.

Data from media sources suggested that there were power politics on display to some extent during the Howard Government’s rejection on the Kyoto Protocol. Both the US / Australian alliance and the Howard Government’s negotiating style could provide evidence for this.

Both data sets contain evidence against the realist suggestion that states are the primary actor in international affairs. Public opinion and domestic political influence do not appear as likely candidates to shake this belief, according to the data. The data does suggest, however, that the domestic and international business interests did have influence on the international stage.