Bill Clinton's absence from the Copenhagen summit on social development underscores the post-Cold War parochialism that has gripped the American world-vision
I the only one who remembers the Rio Summit? Am I the
Only one who remembers all the noise that American NGOSI
environmentalists and internationalists were making about
George Bush dillydallying on whether or not to attend the
b Sageek (though, in the end he did)? Am I the only one
ogamiged that those same American friends, who had
campaigned so hard to get Bush to Rio, were so totally silent about
Clinton playing hookey at the Copenhagen Summit on Social
development?
In fact I am not. An editorial
In the Earth Times termed it a
Real pity that Bill Clinton "isn't
Going to Copenhagen" (March 5,
1995).I argue, however, that it is
ditsene than just a "pity"that
Was absented himself from
end
the sole remaining
sadegel hegemon has decid-
mum dw rest of the world; of
how slogans of globalism are
increasingly being drowned by the
practice of parochasism.
The escuse my us friends,
Lost of them Democrats, give for
Clinton's absence in Copenhagen
That domestic US politics did
sliest him to. That is, his m
pwing opponents might I
his absence from home
as bim. Friends try to convince me that Clinton
was interested in the Copenhagen summit, unlike other
orders like John Major of Great Britain, who also
skipped off.
For Clinton, my friends argue, the domestic risk of atten-
Dance outweighed the international gains of being there. So
How's Clinton different from Bush in terms of political calcu
of To put it bluntly, for Clinton, as for Bush, the short
cdcalus of the next trial at the hustings was more impor
bee the larger calculus of the earth's survival. Frankly, I
wdiingsurprising with this. After all, they are politicians!
I do find surprising is the way most of the same people
loned Bush's attitude so appalling are excusing Clinton.
is dangerously implicit in this line of reasoning is the
aption the international politics willi 1)e affected more by
lioppens in us's domestic amphitheatre than what transpires at a gathering of leaders from over 100 countries. Which
is to say that Newt Gingrich's Contract with America is more
important for the future of global unemployment, social integration and poverty than whatever happened at Copenhagen.
Such things are obviously never stated aloud. The fact is
that the us internationalists are scared of Newt and want the
world to follow them. Frankly, the world does not care - it
has bigger problems to worry about. I do not for a single
moment underestimate either the importance or the threat of
the Newt phenomenon. For USA, I am sure, this new trend is
critically important. All I am saying is that when we talk of global
initiatives like the World Summit
on Social Development, we are
dealing with something bigger
than Newt, and (much as some of
you may be offended) something
bigger than the us. We are dealing
with a planet of 5.5 billion people
which is fighting for its survival:
we are confronted with billions of
individuals who are losing their
battles for survival every day.
Reducing this to the shortterm calculus of domestic electioneering - in USA or anywhere
else - may well be the realpolitik
way of doing things, but it is
despicable all the same!
Moreover, Clinton's lame excuse
also implies that those who did
attend the Summit, did not have
equally urgent concerns at home.
The Newt phenomenon is, after all, far less drastic a crisis
than the separatist problems in India, the ethnic imbroglio in
Pakistan, the currency crunch in Mexico, the war in Bosnia, or
Russia being torn apart. Yet, the heads of states from all
these countries showed up. They considered it important to make a
statement by their presence: that Copenhagen was more
important. Indeed, whether Bill Clinton was at Copenhagen
or not would not have made life any easier for the millions of
deprived, marginalised and oppressed souls in whose name
the Summit was invoked.
Yet, in politics, symbolism counts. All that Clinton's
being there would have said was that "USA cares." What
his absence says to the rest of the world is, "We couldn't
care less."
Pessimists and cynics in the South might rejoin, "We
always knew that." But it hurts, nonetheless.
We are a voice to you; you have been a support to us. Together we build journalism that is independent, credible and fearless. You can further help us by making a donation. This will mean a lot for our ability to bring you news, perspectives and analysis from the ground so that we can make change together.
Comments are moderated and will be published only after the site moderator’s approval. Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name. Selected comments may also be used in the ‘Letters’ section of the Down To Earth print edition.