By Najib Saab,Issue 34,January 2001

"Oppressive Superpower is a term that became popular in the 20th century to describe nations that utilize military superiority to impose their political will over weaker peoples. Arabs have been familiar with this terminology ever since the United States' blind support for Israel has had a tragic effect on Palestinian national rights. Throughout history, numerous peoples were crushed by legions of oppressors, whose intoxication by power led them to audacity, aggression and disregard of the basic human rights of others.

We fear that, at the beginning of a new century, we may be facing a pattern of oppressive practices by superpowers, taking advantage of their military and economic might to evade adequate environmental measures, and avoid abiding by global environmental rules. What happened during the Sixth Climate Change Convention in The Hague a few weeks ago, clearly indicated that the United States has little regard for urgent international environmental issues. In fact, the Americans sabotaged any chance of reaching an agreement, by leading a group of countries including Canada, Japan and Australia to find loopholes to avoid commitment to decrease emissions of greenhouse gases, responsible for global warming.

The meeting ended without an agreement, and representatives of 180 nations returned to their countries in disappointment after the US stalled all attempts to successfully conclude the convention. As the United States presented arguments that attempted to reverse its previous commitment to the reduction levels of greenhouse gases from its industry, one American environmental organization cynically remarked that Washington's alternative plan to decrease carbon dioxide emissions would be to ask people to stop breathing.

Later in December, the US tried to obstruct another potential agreement in a meeting in Johannesburg that would limit the use of Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs). Its representatives insisted that loopholes which allowed American producers to continue exporting highly toxic chemicals to the developing world should be kept. A compromise treaty was eventually reached, banning, totally or partially, 12 chemicals.

Of all pollutants released into the environment by human activity, POPs are among the most dangerous. They are highly toxic, causing an array of adverse effects, including birth defects, cancer, allergies and disruption of the immune system. These highly stable compounds can last for decades before breaking down. Now that the United States has agreed to the compromise treaty, we have to see to what extent it will support a mechanism which will help developing countries meet their obligations to minimize and eliminate POPs, and move to alternatives of higher cost. This transformation process will require massive funding and technical assistance.

In The Hague meeting, where actual measures to combat climate change were expected and were not merely declarations of intent, the American role was pronounced. The dispute was not over new measures, but simply on how to execute what had been agreed upon in the Kyoto protocol three years ago.

Whereas the Kyoto agreement cannot be executed until it is ratified by 55 percent of the countries, which constitute the majority of polluting parties, the last meeting was expected not only to endorse the agreement, but also take additional measures that would encompass new scientific facts which have appeared in the last few years. The final report of an international group of scientists consisting of 3,000 members who were assigned to study climate changes warned that the current situation is much more dangerous than had been thought five years ago, when the group started its research. The report showed that the Earth's temperature will rise faster than anticipated, and if the emissions were to continue it is expected that the temperature will rise between 1.6C and 6C by the year 2100. The expectations in 1995 were that the rise will not exceed 1C to 3.5C during the same period.

This will be the greatest and fastest change in temperature since the last Ice Age, which would cause a large-scale extinction of various species of animals and plants that will not be able to adapt to this fast variation. However, even before this change evolves, the continuation of emissions at this current rate will cause millions of deaths as a result of polluted air. The World Health Organization (WHO) says that the lives of 8 million people can be saved during the coming 20 years if appropriate measures are taken to limit the polluting emissions which are causing global warming.

While the United States still refuses to adhere to its commitment to decrease emissions by 5 percent in the coming 10 years, some scientists affirm that, in real terms, emissions have to be decreased by 60-70 percent in order to stabilize the current climate situation and keep the Earth habitable.

French President Jacques Chirac asked the United States in his address at The Hague meeting to "join with the other leading industrialized nations to work together in making a successful transition to an energy-efficient, yet not less thriving economy." The United States remained insistent in its determination to please its giant industries, by supporting fast and cheap economic development, at the rest of the world's expense. Instead of committing to decreasing emissions by a bare minimum, the new American proposals will in effect lead to an increase in American emissions of 7 percent by 2010.

The French Minister of Environment Dominique Voynet described the situation in an extraordinarily blunt statement: "We are seeking ways to meet our commitments, not ways to avoid them and create new escape routes. The US is trying to avoid domestic measures to curb emissions and create a series of loopholes, which in effect unravels the treaty."

Americans currently seem to be banking on the idea that they can use the dollar to buy their country out of trouble. Countries such as Russia and the Ukraine have unwillingly reached their Kyoto reduction targets as a result of their industrial collapse. The US is proposing to buy these saved emissions in the form of so-called "carbon credits" in order to allow them to deduct from their own reduction targets.

The United States, which constitutes 4 percent of the world's population, produces 25 percent of greenhouse gases. This super political and economical power is challenging the whole world, refusing to impose restrictions on its industry and its way of life to aid the world. Is it simply that Americans are trying to keep their affluent lifestyle while the rest of the world struggles just to maintain a basic standard of living?

The United States can afford to wait several more years before making decisions over combating climate change, as rising sea levels will affect it later than other countries. However, why should they have the right to jeopardize island nations and other regions of the world that are under immediate threat of being submerged by encroaching oceans? It is as if the Americans are saying: "Never mind if people die of floods or drought." But the question is, will America itself, despite its current military and economic might, be spared the future fury of Mother Nature?