Canada as a Rogue State: Its Shameful Performance on Climate Change

Abstract

ANYONE WHO USES A DELIBERATELY INFLAMMATORY TITLE must offer a justification for it. Canada has, after all, a solid international reputation, and to call a middle-sized, eager-to-please state a rogue seems to border on the sacrilegious. Certainly many Canadians assume that Canada's performance at international environmental conferences will be progressive and undertaken in a spirit of international co-operation.The concept of rogue states has been used since the end of the cold war, usually by Americans seeking to justify enormous military expenditure in the absence of a pronounced or obvious threat to their national security. Although never official, the term was commonly used to describe states that seemed determined to pose a threat to their neighbours and that are either outside international norms and treaties or in them but presumed to be cheating. In the final months of President Bill Clinton's administration, the State Department tried to move away from the term (in part because of the slipperiness of the definition and in part because of improved relations with one of the main 'rogues,' North Korea) and declared its preference for the more muted (but similarly vague) 'state of concern.' The administration of President George Bush, Jr, re-introduced rogue state as a valuable concept. In my view, the sentiment behind this politically charged term can serve us well in considering the actions of a small group of states that has in recent years undermined international efforts to give substance to the Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC).To apply the word 'rogue' with credibility in this context, which is far removed from the use to which the Bush administration would like to see it put, it is crucial that the idea of an international community be placed uppermost in the discussion. At a time of profound environmental deterioration as a result of actions that cannot be contained within borders, the notion of community takes on increased importance. Although it is clear that an international community does not exist in any manner akin to the domestic community overseen by state legislation, nonetheless the actions of those states that undermine (and in some cases dismantle) international efforts to deal with the shared consequences of industrial pollution become a threat to their neighbours. Any state that, for the purposes of gaining competitive advantage, actively blocks, stalls, or otherwise subverts an international process designed in the interests of all becomes a threat to others by virtue of the destructive environmental consequences that are a result of such intransigence.The concept of rogue state is, therefore, used here to demonstrate how the language of multilateral bargaining can be used not only to mask threats to the international community, but also to turn the tables on those who would paint a picture of 'good guys' and 'bad guys' solely in terms of ideological or territorial struggle. Fear of tanks rolling across the border has, for many countries, been replaced by new threats of pollution and disaster drifting across all borders.The issue under discussion here is Canada's membership in a coalition of states, the actions of which have been successful in watering down an international convention designed to deal with the causes and consequences of climate change. The coalition was led by the United States, assisted throughout by Japan, Australia, and, at times, New Zealand. Although Canada has, in the past, been celebrated for its action on international atmospheric policies, notably for its prominent role in the diplomatic arrangements for stratospheric ozone depletion, recently it has demonstrated a diversion from a responsible international path. The coalition to which Canada belonged in the climate change negotiations was greeted with disrespect and even dismay by the broader international community. And while many Canadians are increasingly aware of Canada's diminishing international reputation,(1) the government's effort to present itself as a measured and reasonable bridge between the European and American positions continues to garner media attention and public credibility - possibly because it accords so soundly with the widespread assumptions Canadians hold about the importance of international action. …