 |
Add to My Group
America's State Department Turns 220
By Reynard Loki (about the author) Page 1 of 2 page(s)
For OpEdNews: Reynard Loki - Writer
On May 19, 1789, then Representative James Madison
of New York introduced a bill to Congress to create an executive
Department of Foreign Affairs headed by a Secretary of Foreign Affairs.
It was signed into law on July 27 by President George Washington, who appointed Thomas Jefferson
as the department's first secretary. In September, its name was changed
to the Department of State. Jefferson would later become America's
third president. Madison would become the fourth. It was truly a
collaborative effort on the part of the Founding Fathers.
But since the birth of the United States Department of State, something happened that dramatically changed the world and how countries interact: the Industrial Revolution.
Reconfiguring the modern world on steam, coal, combustion engines and
electrical power generation, this period of explosive technological
growth during the late 18th and early 19th centuries saw the
development of textile manufacturing, metallurgy, glass production,
railways, mining and machine tools. Things would never be the same.
And
as an unplanned and unforeseen consequence of all this activity, the
world is now dramatically warmer. To be sure, it is the first time in
Earth's history that human activity has affected the planet's entire
environment. And the effects are interrelated. Climate change,
desertification, dwindling food supplies and species extinction are,
for example, not only connected to each other but also to the
development of new, large-growth and heavy-polluting economies like
China and India, and to the poor world as well.
Perhaps this
presents a new opportunity for nations to work together and build
consensus around shared goals -- like accessible water and stable food
production. No longer just for settling national borders and
maintaining military security, treaties -- like the Kyoto Protocol --
now must consider larger security issues that go beyond state lines,
such as water security, food security, air security and ecosystem
security. In some cases, territorial disputes -- especially bloody ones
-- should at least be put on hold until the environment is made secure
for future generations.
A forward-looking, 21st-century American
foreign policy, championed by the internationally respected Secretary
of State Hillary Clinton, must look for innovative solutions to the
world's thorniest transnational issues. One possible avenue might be to
spend some political capital on some non-political aims.
An
obvious flashpoint could be tackling anthropogenic climate change.
After all, it is something that most scientists agree will likely have
globally devastating consequences -- and it is the root of so many
other problems. One response is to mitigate its effects. Another is to
accept the projected temperature increases and start making contingency
plans to help people live on a significantly hotter planet. Either way,
it won't matter much how many ballistic missiles a nation has if its
people cannot eat.
But though some of the more profound effects
of global warming have already been seen on a large scale -- the rapid
melting of the Arctic ice, ocean acidification and rising sea levels,
for example -- the increase in temperature has a distinct and immediate
impact on many local levels. Coastal residents in the South Pacific
watch their beachfronts disappear underwater while farmers in China are
forced to relocate for greener pastures as farmland turns into desert.
In
embattled Kashmir, for example, where more than 47,000 people have been
killed in a two-decade-old territorial battle between India, Pakistan
and China, something on a deeper level has been happening, and it cares
not for human disputes over imaginary map lines. It is the melting of
Kolahoi, a critical glacier in the Kashmir Valley that is the region's
only source of year-round fresh water.
One thing that Secretary Clinton could pursue is a Kolahoi Accord, which was proposed by 13.7 Billion Years last year.
Such an agreement might create a bi- or trilateral research and
development committee with members from local governments, green
businesses, trade unions and environmental organizations such as The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) in Delhi and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) in Pakistan to come up with a sustainable solution to save Kolahoi.
The
plan could include trade incentives on goods that depend on a healthy
glacier, the development of ecotourism and other market-driven
initiatives to improve the livelihood of millions of Kashmiris.
The Center for Global Development,
a Washington, D.C.-based non-profit think tank has proposed the
creation of a Department of Global Development. This is a good way of
thinking. But if the State Department would take on such a mandate, it
would put global environmental issues at the forefront of foreign
policy, which is exactly where they belong. The Secretary of State is
the first Cabinet position in the line of presidential succession.
Global warming should be high on this person's agenda.
Which cabinet-level department is best suited to address the issues concerning, for example, Atlantis,
BP's massive oil and gas platform in the Gulf of Mexico? The non-profit
consumer advocacy group Food & Water Watch says that more than
6,000 documents concerning the design of the 58-million-metric-ton
monster are lacking the required engineer approval.
BP is a
multinational company based in London. A spill caused by Atlantis could
affect the waters of both the United States and Mexico and have
ramifications on the health of several other nations' waters and
wildlife. Which of President Obama's cabinet members is best suited to
the job of looking after the safety of such a potentially hazardous
transnational adventure? The Secretary of Energy? The Secretary of
Commerce? The Secretary of State? A new Secretary of Global Development?
According to a July 20 Washington Post story
covering Secretary Clinton's recent trip to India, Indian Environment
Minister Jairam Ramesh said, "India's position, let me be clear, is
that we are simply not in the position to take legally binding
emissions targets."
1 | 2
http://www.13point7billion.org
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
by Charles-Philippe David
$66.50
Lowest New Price $34.00
Number of pages: 198
Publisher: University Press of America
by Ray S. Cline
$37.50
Lowest New Price $30.00
Number of pages: 256
Publisher: University Press of America
by Earl C Ravenal
$2.50
Number of pages: 153
Publisher: Temple University Press
by Gordon Martel
$75.00
Lowest New Price $48.02
Number of pages: 307
Publisher: Mcgill Queens Univ Pr
| No comments |
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0) Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
