Australia Burning – The Bush Fires and the Politics of Climate Change in Australia

Posted on by
Reply

‘Australia Burning’ is a podcast with my colleague Steven Slaughter from Deakin University in Melbourne Australia.

The recent horrific Australian bush fires appear be largely out – at least for the moment. These bush fires reflect both a sad tale of land burned, and enormous loss of unique wildlife. It also appears to reveal a federal government policy of the current Australian government resistant to dramatic change and a willingness to combat the growing threat of climate change.

As quoted in Damien Cave’s recent piece in the NYTimes (February 15, 2020), Lynette Wallworth, an Australian filmmaker, told a crowd of international executives and politicians in Davos, Switzerland, last month. “What was feared and what was warned is no longer in our future, a topic for debate — it is here.” And Cave added: “Politics have been a focal point — one of frustration for most Australians. The conservative government is still playing down the role of climate change, despite polls showing public anger hitting feverish levels. And yet what’s emerging alongside public protest may prove more potent.”

In the face of these tragic bush fires I sat down with my podcast guest, Steven Slaughter to discuss the fires but more the politics of climate change in Australia. Steven is an associate professor of international relations at Deakin University in Melbourne Australia. He has broad research interests that go beyond international relations to include: international political theory, political and democratic theory and global political economy. He is currently actively working on projects relating to the application of republican thought to contemporary global governance, and the role that the G20 plays with respect to questions of authority, legitimacy and accountability in global governance.

This podcast is Episode 18 of the ‘Now’ series, ‘Australia Burning‘. Come join us as we discuss the politics of climate change in Australia.

The Evolving Role of Japan in the Liberal Order

Posted on by
Reply

 

My podcast guest, Phillip Lipscy and were fortunate enough recently to attend a major conference on Japan’s leadership in the Liberal Order.  This conference was organized by my good friend and colleague, Professor Yves Tiberghien of the University of British Columbia and its Centre for Japanese Research Worksop. Many Japanese colleagues joined experts from North America to discuss the role of Japan in the Liberal Order, especially under the current Abe Government. It is clear that Japanese foreign policy has changed. But how much. One need only look at Japan’s major role in picking up the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) after President Trump withdrew the United States from it.  The vigorous Japanese leadership efforts resulted in the conclusion of the TPP 11with all members other that the United States agreeing to the revised TPP. And Japan has hosted the G20. Nevertheless, the question remains why and how far has Japanese foreign policy changed. There seems to me to be a rather mixed Japanese leadership role but let’s join Phillip in getting his views of Japanese leadership in the Liberal Order. 

Phillip has recently joined the University of Toronto from Stanford University as an Associate Professor of Political Science at the UoT and is the new Chair in Japanese politics and global affairs and Director of the Centre for the Study of Global Japan at the Munk School of Global Affairs & Public Policy here at the the University of Toronto. Phillip has published extensively on Japanese politics and foreign policy.

So come join us as we discuss the role of Japan in the current Liberal Orde. This is Episode 17 of the Summit Dialogue Series at Global Summitry at iTunes or at SoundCloud. . 

 

Struggling through COP25 Madrid; Girding for COP26 Glasgow

Posted on by
Reply

The ‘Environmental Story’ doesn’t seem at the  moment to have a happy middle or end. But it is hard not to be drawn to the drama that is the global effort to reduce CO2 emissions.

Both Jennifer Allan and Matthew Hoffmann my guests for Summit Dialogue Episode 16 attended COP 25 in Madrid. So, I wanted to get a first-hand reflection on the meeting and the results achieved. I also wanted to get from them their own assessment of the state of efforts to reduce CO2 emissions. And last but certainly not least I wanted to discuss with Jennifer and Matt what is needed for the upcoming COP26 that is meeting in Glasgow five years after the successful conclusion of the Paris Climate Change Agreement. If the member states are not on track to lower CO2 emissions, as it appears to be, what can be done at COP26?

Jennifer Allan is a writer/editor at ‘Earth Negotiations Bulletin’ and a lecturer at Cardiff University. Matthew Hoffmann is a colleague at the University of Toronto and a Co-Director of the Environmental Governance Lab at the Munk School of Global Affairs & Public Policy, University of Toronto.

Come join us for the is podcast: ‘Summit Dialogue’, Episode 16: An Interview with Jennifer Allan and Matthew Hoffmann on the results of COP25 in Madrid and what is needed at COP26 in Glasgow in November 2020.

 

‘Shaking the Global Order’ – A Podcast with Thomas Wright from Brookings on the Crisis in US-Iran Relations

Posted on by
Reply

wrightt_portraitSo to restart our Global Summitry podcast series for the new roaring ’20s  – the ‘Now’, the ‘Summit Dialogue’ and the ‘Shaking the Global Order’ series,  I had connected with my good colleague Tom Wright from Brookings. Tom is the director of the Center on the United States and Europe and a senior fellow in the Project on International Order and Strategy at the Brookings Institution. Tom has followed closely the ‘never ending tale’ of Brexit both from the perspective of the UK but also Ireland and the EU. And with the withdrawal legislation to be put before House of Commons by a newly elected and robust Conservative government of Boris Johnson, I though it would be good to review the relationship and where we could expect UK-EU relations to go.

But I had not calculated that the U.S. would take the action of killing Quds leader General Qasem Solemani. Tom has followed closely Trump foreign policy and he has been particularly acute in examining the sources that have motivated Trump in his foreign policy decisions.

I could not pass up, therefore, an opportunity to explore Trump’s motivations in taking such a major step – the killing of what is seen as the number 2 in Iran.  So please join Tom and I for this podcast – Episode 27 of ‘Shaking the Global Order: American Foreign policy in the Age of Trump.

And once you have absorbed all that Tom has to say on the Iran-U.S. crisis, then join Tom and I for Episode 17 in the ‘Now’ series  for an examination of Brexit in the aftermath of the UK election.

 

 

COP25: A Video Conversation with Matthew Hoffmann Continued: Examining the ‘Bottom Up’ Approach of the Paris Climate Change Agreement

Posted on by
Reply

We were fortunate enough spend some additional time with Matthew Hoffmann, the Co-Director Environmental Governance Lab at the Munk School of Global Affairs & Public Policy, University of Toronto. Matt was on his way to COP25 in  Madrid. As he pointed out in this video conversation this year’s COP is really a lead in to hopefully enhanced commitments by states by COP26 which will be held in Glasgow in November 2020.

This additional conversation allowed me to ask Matt if he was still a strong proponent of “bottom up” approach of the Paris Climate Change Agreement in the face of the Emissions Gap Report that suggests that countries are failing to meet their emissions reduction targets.

 

Come watch!

Image Credit: en.wikipedia.or

COP25: A Video Conversation with Matthew Hoffmann on How Countries are Doing in Reaching Their Emission Goals

Posted on by
Reply

COP25 in Madrid is upon us. To get a better understanding of where key emitters – the United States, China  and others are I sat down with Matthew Hoffmann at the Munk School of Global Affairs & Public Policy, University of Toronto recently to talk about the climate change ‘state of play’.

Matt is a Professor of Political Science and he is also Co-Director of the Environmental Governance Lab with Professors Steven Bernstein and Teresa Kramarz. Matt will be attending COP25 but before his departure for Madrid I wanted to get his overview of the national efforts to meet their Nationally Determined Commitments (NDCs) and to hold the temperature to 2C or significantly below. The first of two video sessions is now up at the GSP Project YouTube GSP Channel. Catch him there.

 

 

 

A Podcast Interview – Ep 15 Global Summitry’s ‘Now’ Series with Sheri Berman

Posted on by
Reply

We entered the virtual studio with Seri Berman to examine the crisis of democracy in Europe.  Sheri is a political scientist from Barnard College, Columbia University. She recently published with Oxford University Press, Democracy and Dictatorship: From the Ancien Regime to the Present Day. 

We were fortunate to have Sheri join us at recent roundtable at the APSA in Washington “The Strange Death – and Possible Rebirth – of the Liberal Order. There, Sheri added a great perspective on the rise of nationalism and populism in Europe, especially.

With that in mind I asked Sheri to join me in the Global Summitry’s ‘ virtual studio for a podcast – ‘Now’ Series, Ep. 15: An Interview with Sheri Berman on the Crisis of Democracy in Europe.  The podcast can be found at the Global Summitry site and can also be downloaded at iTunes and SoundCloud.

Come join us!

Between Chaos and Leadership – The Instance of the G7 Gathering in Biarritz, France

Posted on by
2

As leaders now exit from the G7 meeting in Biarritz France, it is worth reflecting on the state of the Liberal Order. Or, maybe more appropriately, and at least for the moment, its state of ‘Disorder’.

It has been a chaotic preceding week, even by Donald Trump standards, I think. Trump sharply raised his attack on various allies –  most particularly last week, Denmark. Attacks on allies have become rather routine, though exceedingly troubling. But this particular episode was to see the least – startling. In this case Trump suggested that the United Sates might want to purchase Greenland. When President Trump was met by a strong statement of rejection by Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, that called the President’s suggestion, “absurd”, the President called her statement ‘nasty’ and then turned around and postponed a state visit to one of America’s closest and most faithful allies. It led my colleague Thomas Wright of Brookings to conclude in an article in The Atlantic :

The cancellation of Trump’s visit to Denmark is part of a disturbing pattern. Trump regularly beats up on and abuses America’s closest democratic allies while being sycophantic to autocrats.

Then there was the continuing trade war with China. Just before Trump was to leave for Europe and the G7, China announced that it was prepared to  raise tariffs on $US75 billion worth of American-made goods, including crude oil, cars and farm products, if Mr. Trump was to carry through with plans to tax an additional $300 billion worth of imports from China. In an angry tweet  in response, President Trump declared: “Our great American companies are hereby ordered to immediately start looking for an alternative to China, including bringing our companies HOME and making your products in the USA.” Ordered! Yikes! After that Trump was ‘all over the map’ defending past statements such as ordering American companies to leave, then regretting the ratcheting up of tariffs only to have his officials suggest that he only wished he could raise the tariffs even higher. It could make one’s head spin.

Continue reading →

United States and its Course of Action With China – A Coming Podcast with Susan Thornton

Posted on by
Reply

Errors have been made. And inconsistencies have occurred. But the current Trump policy toward China and its apparent encouragement  of a renewal of ‘the Cold War’ – in this instance with China – is simply stupefying. And very likely dangerous. As the Editorial Board of the Washington Post (WP) put it on August 6th:

Still, the risks are real, and Mr. Trump’s approach inspires no confidence that he has some strategic objective in mind, as opposed to the continuation of conflict with China for its own sake. We don’t expect the president to announce his negotiating goals in advance. He should, however, base policy on objective economics, not a general anti-China animus.

A low-level policy debate has  been encouraged in the WP pages and more broadly in the academic and policy publications.  Hopefully, the politicians – especially all those folk running for the Democratic nomination for President – have, or will pay attention to these debates and will respond in a thinking way to the destructive Trump policy.  There are a variety of views expressed in the WP – all worth considering.

The spark to this debate began with an open letter that was published in the WP Opinion section.  The ‘Scholars’ Statement ‘was published on July 3rd: “China is not the enemy”  M. Taylor Fravel, J. Stapleton Roy,  Michael D. Swaine , Susan A. Thornton and Ezra Vogel were the five principals that organized this statement on U.S.-China relations.  All  the principals are well known China hands, either academics or policy folk. After completing the Statement the principals then opened the opinion piece for signature and scholars and policy folk signed on. There were many signatories including an historian from Georgetown, James Millward . I mention him specifically because he critiqued the  Statement. And In his critique he identified a response to the Statement published on July 18th in The Journal Political Risk, titled “Stay the Course on China: An Open Letter to President Trump”. This Letter was penned by James Fanell, Captain USN (Retired), and former director of Intelligence & Information Operations U.S. Pacific Fleet.  This Letter too was opened to signature. As the title implied the Letter supported President Trump and the China actions his Administration has implemented: 

Continue reading →

Did the Osaka G20 Bring Global Governance Progress – Part Two

Posted on by
Reply

So, the Vision 20 principals, Colin Bradford, Brookings, Yves Tiberghien, University of British Columbia and myself, at the Munk School of Global Affairs & Public Policy thought it would be valuable to take a second gaze at the G20 Osaka Summit. This look, of course, occurring following the conclusion of the Summit.

There is little question that the G20 was dominated by the Donald Trump’s ‘reality TV show’ – the meeting and joking with Putin, the dramatic meeting over tariffs with Xi Jinping. And, finally, but certainly not least, the dramatic ‘handshake summit’ with North Korea’s Kim Jong-un at the DMZ. In the end, there was little bandwidth left for any coverage of the collective meetings of the G20, or examination of the Leaders’ Declaration. The Oska G20 reflects the shape – read that as the fragmenting – of the Global Order. But the V20 principals thought to try and draw some conclusions where we could on the state of the order in this chaotic ‘Age of Trump’.

Continue reading →