Politics in the USA, Sixth Edition

The making of American foreign policy 279

Senate for ratification. The objections to the agreement centred on the cost
of implementing it and the possible consequences to the economy because of
the need to adopt restrictions on industry which would affect its competitive
position, a view shared by Democrats and Republicans alike. George W. Bush
made it clear soon after his election that he did not intend to submit the
treaty to the Senate. He stated:

Kyoto is, in many ways, unrealistic. Many countries cannot meet their

Kyoto targets. The targets themselves were arbitrary and not based

upon science. For America, complying with those mandates would have

a negative economic impact, with layoffs of workers and price increases

for consumers. And when you evaluate all these flaws, most reasonable

people will understand that it’s not sound public policy.

Bush did not deny the reality of global warming, but he questioned the ways
of achieving the stabilisation of greenhouse gases: ‘I’ve asked my advisors
to consider approaches to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including those
that tap the power of markets, help realize the promise of technology and
ensure the widest-possible global participation.’ However, his administration
was criticised for throwing doubt on the extent to which carbon emissions
are responsible for global warming, and was even accused of doctoring sci-
entific reports on the subject. Although the Bush administration has come
closer to acknowledging the need for action to limit global warming there
is little likelihood that its position on Kyoto will change significantly, and
even less that the Senate would ratify the treaty if asked to do so. However,
a number of the states have declared that they will adopt Kyoto-like policies
to limit carbon emissions. In 2003 California passed legislation requiring the
state Air Resources Board to ‘develop and adopt regulations that achieve the
maximum feasible and cost-effective reduction of greenhouse gas emissions
from motor vehicles.’
The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty was concluded in 1972 between the Unit-
ed States and the Soviet Union. It was intended to limit the systems used by
the defences of both countries against nuclear attack. It remained in force
for thirty years, until in 2002, after giving the appropriate notice, the United
States withdrew from the treaty. The reason for taking this unusual step was,
in the words of President Bush:

Today, our security environment is profoundly different. The Cold War

is over. The Soviet Union no longer exists. Russia is not an enemy, but in

fact is increasingly allied with us on a growing number of critically im-

portant issues... Today, the United States and Russia face new threats

to their security. Principal among these threats are weapons of mass

destruction and their delivery means wielded by terrorists and rogue

states. A number of such states are acquiring increasingly longer-range

ballistic missiles as instruments of blackmail and coercion against the