Memorandum on U.S. Policy on Climate Change

 TO: Scott Pruitt, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency

FROM: Nicole Levesque, American Foreign Policy Student

DATE: April 24, 2018

SUBJECT: U.S. Policy in on Climate Change

SUMMARY

Scientific evidence has overwhelmingly supported the validity of global climate change, as the global temperature has continued to rise in the past century.  The Paris Climate Agreement was created to develop a collaborative effort in fighting climate change and in keeping the global temperature low by involving as many countries as possible in one collective effort with set international standards.  President Obama took on a leadership role in fighting climate change, and now President Trump has chosen to reverse that decision, citing economic and international trade-related concerns.  President Trump has decided to withdraw the United States from the Agreement, which will damage the set the international community back in their efforts to combat climate change in recent years.  The United States should remain in the Paris Climate Agreement in order to maintain a global and public concern for climate change.

CONTEXT

In 2015, 195 countries signed on to the Paris Climate Agreement, committing to reduce carbon emissions as soon as possible.  Although this agreement is not legally binding and does not set clear timelines for countries to follow, it represents a widespread international effort to recognize climate change as a global issue and the need to fight it.  The Agreement requires countries to track their progress and sets up a transparent and accountable system for monitoring clean energy initiatives.  It requires member states to reconvene every five years to determine new and ambitious targets, thus establishing a structure of international climate diplomacy.  The Agreement offers funding for developing states involved, as more developed countries—such as the United States under the Obama administration—have committed to contribute money to assist developing countries make strides toward cleaner energy.  President Trump has been vocal about disliking the Agreement since his campaign, arguing that it threatens state sovereignty and the United States’ economy.  Claiming that it would cost the US 2.7 million jobs by 2025 and would create competition with overseas companies, President Trump has decided to have the United States leave the Agreement on November 4^th, 2020. 

EVIDENCE

As global climate change is a global issue, a collective international response involving as many states as possible was implemented to raise concern for the issue and to coordinate a response.  Although the United States took a leadership role in this process under the Obama administration, the recent shift in stance under President Trump has complicated international collaborative efforts and changed the global view of the importance of climate change.  Although many countries are vowing to stand by the Paris Climate Agreement, the loss of the powerful international leader on fossil fuel divestment and a continuation of funding for such initiatives changes the international perspective on climate change.  The United States is currently one of the top contributors to CO₂ emissions and thus plays a significant role in global climate change and the rising of the Earth’s temperature.  The purpose of such a large collective effort to accomplish a truly global goal was to demonstrate an effort to reduce the emission of fossil fuels and to create an international system in which states are publicly held accountable by each other.  Without a public commitment from such a powerful country that is so involved in this issue, the prospects for lowering and maintaining a low global temperature are unlikely.

TASK AND IMPLEMENTATION

While the United States is still currently part of the Paris Climate Agreement and has already contributed much of the committed three billion dollars, President Trump has begun the process of withdrawing, which will take almost the full duration of his current four-year term.  As the Agreement is not legally binding, there is little that the United States is required to do, but still President Trump insists on removing the state from the agreement in an effort to inspire international trade and reduce competition that might otherwise be affected by tightening environmental standards.  In a case such as this when the entire international community is affected, losing the United States as a leader and role model for combatting climate change may cause other countries to follow suit, especially other powerful CO₂ emitting states with which the United States competes in the area of trade.  In order to maintain a global and public concern for climate change, the United States should remain in the Paris Climate Agreement, and President Trump should stop the withdrawal process.  The targets for reducing carbon emissions are developed individually by country, and there is no required amount of money that countries must contribute to the collective effort, so the United States could alter the targeted goals or reduce their future monetary commitments if the concern is competition in international trade.  President Trump should not withdraw the United States from the Paris Climate Agreement in order to support the global effort at combating an issue as global as climate change.

CLOSING STATEMENT

The 194 other countries on board with the Paris Climate Agreement have shown that reducing CO₂ emissions is truly an issue worth fighting.  If the United States wants to maintain its position as a global diplomatic leader, it should continue supporting international climate change diplomacy.  Although President Trump is in the process of withdrawing the United States from the Agreement, there is still time to make any alterations necessary to appease opposing political forces and still show its support for this initiative.  By remaining in the Paris Climate Agreement, the United States would contribute to the lowering of the Earth’s temperature, a reduction of carbon emissions, and would inspire other countries to combat this global issue as well.

What are US Interests in Trade?

Hedvig Blanco

4/16/18

American Foreign Policy

U.S. Interests in Trade

What are the US interests in trade?  Is it to create a freer, more prosperous world, to satisfy local interests by 'winning' trade, to serve interest groups, or to build a US led world order?  Or is it some combination of the above?

U.S. foreign trade and global economic policies have been constantly changing for much of our countries history. In the earlier days, the U.S. government sought to develop the domestic economy independently from what was going on abroad. After the Great Depression and World War II, however, there was a shift and the U.S. sought to reduce trade barriers and to engage with other countries. These U.S. interests in trade can be said to be motivated to satisfy local interests by ‘winning trade’. Trade pacts most often than not tend to fortify U.S. political and strategic interests beyond the obvious economic gains. In the past, trade has helped to spread the value of freedom, reinforce the law, and foster economic development in other nations, however, if we consider various cases in history it seems that the U.S. has another hidden agenda beyond spreading democracy and extending trade agreements.

The “pro-America” trade policy that seeks to boost the U.S. economy and promote job creation, underhandedly uses trade as a diplomatic and development tool. This new form of policy and “era of winning” is more so about exerting global reach and power. If we consider the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), an agreement that allows goods to flow freely between the three nations: U.S., Mexico and Canada that has been around since 1994 we see an obvious change in objectives of economic policy. NAFTA sought to protect intellectual property, establish dispute resolution mechanisms and implement labor and environmental safeguards.  NAFTA fundamentally reshaped North American economic relations and encouraged economic growth amongst the three countries. However, under the “pro-America” view NAFTA has been a source of debate over free trade. NAFTA has been argued to be the source of losses in jobs specifically in the manufacturing sector. However, manufacturing is a sector that has been under pressure even before the trade agreement. According to the economic theory of comparative advantage a nation would carry out the given economic activity for which they can produce more efficiently than another, in this case the manufacturing of a product. This means that each country would be specializing in what they can do best and most efficiently.

While this agreement would truly be putting forth economic efficiency and the promotion of free trade, our underlying agenda would like to put forth other objectives. The U.S. seems to support agreements such as the NAFTA agreement when they are in its best interest. In this new ‘winning trade’ mentality these economic policies are presented in a way to make the U.S. appear like it is losing out on something rather than gaining from them. As is evident with the NAFTA agreement turning our backs on these types of agreements draws a lot of negative attention from the international community and jeopardizes our diplomatic relations with these nations.

US Interest in Trade

Adeline Tavarez
April 16, 2018
American Foreign Policy

What are the US interests in trade?  Is it to create a freer, more prosperous world, to satisfy local interests by 'winning' trade, to serve interest groups, or to build a US-led world order?  Or is it some combination of the above?

Over the years the US interests in trade have changed. They have changed to further the US's economic and political goals. The US began with a multilateral approach in trade to strengthen the free world through international cooperation, but since has shifted to a more bilateral approach aimed to strengthen domestic economic interest and political objectives. 

The current administration has been very against a multilateral approach in trade. Donald Trump is focusing more on local interests and 'winning' trade, despite the fact that our interests abroad are being jeopardized. He believes that a bilateral approach will allow better terms for the American people. Yet, the US has treaties with more than 30 countries that help bring stability to different regions in the United States. The European Union alone generates $699 billion through trade with the US. Keeping Europe unified and a priority in US foreign relations is really important. In defending NATO states, the US gets military and political protection, but also its allies cover $2.5 billion annually in cost for the US. A multilateral approach allows the US to get bases in other nations like South Korea and Japan, which overall generate over $309 billion in trade for the US, while also providing allies against China and North Korea.

Trump proved his dislike to a multilateral approach by pulling out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which was introduced by President Obama. TPP was a deal that would have allowed nations like Canada, Chile, Australia and Japan to follow the same trade rules, and it would go against China. One main reason that Trump pulled out of the TPP was to put "America First." He wanted to make sure that jobs would return to America, along with companies. He made it known that throughout his administration he would only be signing deals with individual allies. Along with pulling out of TPP, Trump has taken an initiative to renegotiate US's role in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Another way to pull away from a multilateral approach and put "America First."

Through these different decisions, Trump is fostering a "winning" trade deal mentality. He wants to focus on being the sole savior of what he believes is harming the US's domestic economy. This is proven by Trump's latest decision to impose tariffs on steel and aluminum. In doing so Trump argues that imposing these tariffs are a matter of US security, one that is not just a choice for him. However, many warn that a trade war could occur due to this decision. Retaliation is on the table for countries like China, who vow to impose their own tariffs if Trump goes through in signing this deal.

What are the US interests in trade?

Nicole Levesque

April 15, 2018

American Foreign Policy

What are the US interests in trade?  Is it to create a freer, more prosperous world, to satisfy local interests by 'winning' trade, to serve interest groups, or to build a US led world order?  Or is it some combination of the above?

Although this may be cynical, it is possible to view US interests in trade as focused on satisfying local interests by ‘winning trade’.  In cases such as the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan, it appears as though the United States was interested in primarily creating a freer and more democratic world, but one could also interpret these events as efforts to establish a US-led world order in which American values are universal.  The Truman Doctrine encouraged countries at risk of authoritarian rule to shift toward democracy, while the Marshall Plan provided economic incentives for countries to avoid communism.  These policies also encouraged development and arguably led to a freer and more prosperous world, but the main objective for implementing such policies may have been to establish a world in which the United States is a powerful hegemon.  Implementing economic and trade policies aimed at establishing a world order in which the United States is at the top allows the country to satisfy their interests.

The United States’ relations with Latin America—or their geographic sphere of influence—speaks to their self-interest being a priority.  The Monroe Doctrine of 1823 was established to keep powerful European nations like Germany and Great Britain out of the region, while the United States took a leadership role in the creation of the Organization of American States (OAS) to manage development efforts and position themselves as the chair of the region in terms of institutions and norms.  JFK’s Alliance for Progress falls along similar lines, as it provides economic rewards for countries that follow the United States’ policy suggestions, including inflation controls and agrarian reform, both of which relate directly to trade with the regional hegemon.

NATO (the North American Trade Organization), although named a trade organization, is and has been focused on international security since its creation in 1949, especially in the context of the Cold War.  NATO holds a series of requirements for its member states so that they can develop economically and strengthen international trade relationships among like-minded countries, especially in times with significant threats of authoritarianism and/or communism worldwide.  The United States also took on a leadership role in many negotiations in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which preceded the World Trade Organization (WTO) as an international regulatory body focused on promoting international trade by reducing barriers and negotiating and creating multilateral international trade agreements.

Currently, the United States’ unwavering desire to control international trade norms and to ‘win’ is evident in President Trump’s decision to introduce tariffs on numerous imported goods, notably from China.  This potential trade war between the United States and highlights the competitive nature of the United States’ trade relationships with other powerful economies.  Now, in a world where the United States is no longer clearly the global economic hegemon, the desire to win and remain at the top has shaped foreign policy.