Probably Kerry's first act as President would be to give an inaugural address. After finishing it, his second act would be to ask the Secret Service to wake up the other people on the dais.
October 01, 2004
Kerry's Curious Kyoto Claim
Christopher Horner
During Thursday's presidential debate, Democratic candidate Senator John Kerry invoked the Kyoto Protocol on “global warming”, one of two instances where he specifically invoked that shibboleth, when responding to a question from moderator Jim Lehrer about a president’s prerogative of preemptive force.
Kerry alluded to an anecdote about (naturally) former French President Charles DeGaulle during the Cuban missile crisis – where France as always played the indispensible role. “’No, no, no, no’”, Kerry cited DeGaulle as saying, “’The word of the president of the United States is good enough for me…How many leaders in the world today would respond to us, as a result of what we've done, in that way? So what is at test here is the credibility of the United States of America and how we lead the world…You don't help yourself with other nations when you turn away from the global warming treaty, for instance.”
That's mighty strong rhetoric, Senator. And rhetoric is all that it is. Kerry employed it previously in his campaign’s inaugural foreign policy and environment speeches in 2003. That he made it in this context shows just how deeply he is dedicated to the Kyoto cause. It also shows how little he knows, or is willing to forget as he campaigns.
It takes little research to discover front pages blaring, margin-to-margin, "Europe-U.S. Rift Widens", bemoaning U.S. unilateralism. "Chirac Remarks Provoke Pessimist U.S. Senators". One inside page juxtaposes "German Scolds U.S." and "Chirac says what others mumble." The complaint? U.S. refusal to accept Kyoto’s terms. The dateline? The Hague, November 2000, during the Clinton administration.
The U.S. refusal to accept the EU suddenly changing key terms came during negotiations coinciding with the 2000 Florida recount. The party that ultimately walked away from the agreed upon deal, after seeking to muscle desperate Gore acolytes into ridiculous concessions was the EU. The lead Member on the U.S. delegation seeking to save this treaty from EU perfidy? Sen. John Kerry.
It's true. Look it up. Particularly enjoy the visibly saddened, saddened Senator John Kerry working the phones to avert the EU tanking a struck deal, prominent in the November 22 Earth Times. The greens, too, blamed the EU (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/ science/nature/1041194.stm). The Brits deflected responsibility to the French (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/ hi/uk_news/politics/1041756.stm). Lead U.S. negotiator Under Secretary of State Frank Loy confirms this turn of events on the November 26 New York Times front page. Things never recovered (thank heaven).
To review, President Clinton agreed to Kyoto on 1 December 1997, yet steadfastly refused over 3-plus years in office to send it to the Senate for ratification. He did not however fail, for instance, to promote the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. He demanded a vote, and campaigned hard. Senate Republicans received a briefing by attorney Douglas Feith (now the Pentagon's highest ranking civilian) warning of the commitments that actually do accompany un-renounced treaty signatures. They called his bluff and a major fight ensued. CTBT lost.
No such vote has still ever occurred on Kyoto. The reason is that President Bush, too, refuses to transmit the treaty to the Senate. He did, however, say mean things about it, which journalists accepted as sufficient. In fact, uttered words have no meaning in this context, and environmentalist groups have already prepared lawsuits that could turn on the fact that the U.S. never actually "unsigned" Kyoto. Like Clinton-Gore, President Bush has told his base what it wants to hear but made no effort to consummate his promise, leaving the matter for his predecessor to conclude as he sees fit.
A simple review of the State Department's website would inform the intrepid journalist - or angry European -- that the requisite step for an Executive to reject a signed-but-not-ratified treaty is glaringly absent (for an example, see www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/ 2002/9968.htm).
Yes, in fact the EU killed Kyoto in 2000 by mendaciously seeking to change critical terms on a vulnerable U.S. For this, we should be ever thankful, despite the sloppy and/or agenda-driven reportage to the contrary.
The U.S. said "no" to the EU's proffered Kyoto terms under Clinton-Gore. Bush has not altered Clinton's stance on Kyoto in any way other than saying he doesn't like it. That is meaningless, as the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (Article 18), customary international law, and even section 312 of The Restatement of the Law of Foreign Relations will tell you. No diplomat does not know both of these facts.
Regardless, full U.S. delegations continue to participate in the Conference of the Parties (COP) negotiations, including under Bush in Bonn, Marrakech, New Delhi, the recent Milan COP-9 and upcoming COP-10 in Buenos Aires. The U.S. in fact sends often the largest delegation of any nation in the world not only to these major meetings but the interim, "subsidiary body" talks.
If “Kyoto” truly is even partial justification for any nation's behavior regarding Iraq, they need to grow up. Either way, we have no need to appease such tantrums over our President merely saying he will not be the one to adopt what at least one EU Commissioner, Margot Wallstrom, has admitted is really intended to level the EU’s economic playing field. Senator Kerry’s invocation in the first debate of Kyoto revealed far more than he intended.
###
Christopher C. Horner serves as Counsel to the Cooler Heads Coalition and a Senior Fellow at CEI. In the former capacity, he oversees petitions and litigation on topics including the National Assessment on Climate Change, Freedom of Information Act, data access and quality laws, plus other projects, agency statutory compliance, and other legal matters involving environment and energy issues, international environmental treaties, and climate policy.
chorner@cei.org
http://www.opinioneditorials.com/contributors/chorner_20041001.html