Friedman on Finding the Basis for a New Post-Cold War Western Alliance

Friedman makes the argument in the article linked below that we need to find the right basis for a post-Cold War western alliance, and that terrorism isn't the glue -- environmentalism is. While I don't totally agree with him that the clash of Islamist and Western cultures can't be a glue that binds us (ask the French in another several years), at least with the right person in the White House, I agree that environmentalist leadership can be a very important tool for American leadership of the West to get a "new start" in 2009, or earlier if we can start doing so by creating a groundswell of environmental initiatives and leadership away from our hopeless Executive Branch. As I have said before in this blog (e.g., see "Our National Security Requires a Solution to Our Total Energy Dependence Upon Hydrocarbons") , there is no doubt that environmentalism (particularly as it relates to hydrocarbon usage and global warming) and energy/national security go hand in hand. Quick, name a responsible and trustworthy country other than the US and Canada, with any semblance of Western democratic values, that controls any significant energy resources? Real progress on both the fronts of environmentalism and energy security is too important to the future of this planet.

In this regard, Perhaps President Bush's biggest mistake, fresh in office, was his loud, politically-inspired opposition to the Kyoto Protocols and the idea of multilateral action on the global warming front. He came across as a US oil-country, SUV-driving, gluttonous, insensitive Texas cowboy (and hence reinforcing a stereotype ofthe US in general), and it pretty much set the stage for all impresssions afterwards of him in Europe, where Kyoto was a very important litmus test of who the US is. Kyoto was certainly flawed in certain significant ways, most importantly to the degree that it let the developing countries (particularly China) TOTALLY off the hook with regard to future energy responsibility at the expense of the West, particularly the US (which is an energy glutton after all). To some extent, the reality has to be faced by Americans that a treaty that forces developing countries to turn back the energy clock while they are in the midst of explosive growth will never work, and therefore we in the US should bear a disproportionate amount of the cost of turning back the hydrocarbon clock (especially since we are by far the greatest disproportionate users of energy). The bright lining of this is the amount of capital investment and economic activity that would be developed in the US by becoming crusaders and retooling our economy for a more energy efficient future (which we can then export through globalization), the same way our technology revolution of the 90's improved corporate productivity and US living standards across the board, and fueled the success of not only the US but the global economy. This is not a Democrat-Republican issue but an American economic and global environmental issue (e.g., Arnold in California and, a bit less voraciously Pataki in NY, both Republicans, have grasped on this issue big-time).

While disproportionate leadership and sacrifice by the US on environmentalism is therefore not only morally correct but also potentially economically advantageous, on the other hand many reasonable people on both sides of the aisle feel that Kyoto went too far in the other direction of putting too much onus on us, and giving the developing world (read, most importantly, China) a total free pass. So President Bush basically walked away from the whole thing in what was portrayed as a unilateralist's huff, rather than showing clear support and leadership of it and perhaps trying to shape the treaty in a way that would be a bit more friendly and evenhanded to US interests (though still weighed to permit emerging country growth rates which are significantly higher than our own). This happy result would have reinforced our place as a non-coercive Western leader while also both setting a process for improving our energy security and depriving our Islamist enemies of petrodollars in the long term (where are we 6 years later in this latter regard?). Nothing drives our Western allies crazier than what appears to be US unilateralist behavior (particularly of the "go-it-alone, give the finger to the world" variety), and I believe that Bush's approach to Kyoto informed our relationship with them going forward.

I am not arguing for submitting to the whims of multilateralists in Brussels or at the NY Times -- but as the biggest part of the energy problem in the world by any measure, we have a unique responsibility -- and the inside track -- to responsibly lead a multilateral alliance of Western countries at attacking these issues, thereby burnishing our political goodwill and capital with these allies for use with respect to our other core interests of ours. Didn't we use the threat of the Soviets and our role as a bulwark against them, through our leadership of NATO, as a basis for leading such a multilateral alliance on other issues during the Cold War? Has our "end of history" post-Cold War triumphalism helped us forget history?

Allies Dressed in Green - New York Times