Japan the villain?

Since I arrived in Cancun I have heard a fair amount of media ruckus from all over the world aimed at ‘crucifying’ Japan and its attitude towards the Kyoto Protocol. For those who haven’t been following the Mexican soap opera that is this conference, on the first day of the COP 16 conference, Japan informed the international community that it wouldn't be a part of the next commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol. This position has been reiterated throughout the discussion and every time that it is mentioned, it raises controversy. It is as if Japan’s position was the sole responsible for effectively ‘killing’ the negotiation. I believe this to be a huge overreaction.

Since Copenhagen’s conference in December 2009, we have seen the Kyoto Protocol (KP) lose considerable steam. The lack of commitment of some developed nations and the refusal of the United States to join the process have created, since the start, an uncomfortable environment for discussing the Protocol. Flexibility mechanisms that do not work as expected, like the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and the lack of commitment from the polluting developing nations, were and still are the main arguments against the KP.

But let us look more closely at the situation in Japan. Japan is one of the few nations that has mustered up its resources in trying to reach their Kyoto targets. It has tightened its belt and ‘trimmed the fat’ in many of its industrial sectors and with that, naturally, has lost some competitive edge in the international sector. The country has invested in new and less emitting technology, worked on energy efficiency and, in many ways, has ‘paid the cost of carbon’. It can be expected that a ‘pragmatic’ nation such as Japan would reach the conclusion that for a post-2012 world, if other nations (i.e. United States and China mostly) do not board the Kyoto ship and if new and more efficient ‘tools’ aren’t made available for reaching targets, this trip isn’t worth taking. Unilaterally Japan has done plenty and has simply grown tired of waiting for the international community’s ‘good will’.

Japan’s position surprised me with its frankness. While other nations hide behind convoluted positions and mire their arguments with vague and ambiguous diplomatic language, Japan was most honest. The Protocol hasn’t worked for them, and if it keeps going on the same track, won’t work for anyone. Japan’s position hits a sore spot and it truly points out the main flaws of the protocol: it’s faulty mechanisms and the lack of cooperation of country’s such as the United States. The way I see it, what truly amazes me is that other nations haven’t taken a similar position more openly and sooner.

Japan  is far from being the villain of this negotiation. For this role we have quite a few contestants that are certainly more appropriate. First we have the United States, with its obsolete position and a complete refusal to properly directing its domestic legislation. Then we have Canada, which hides in America’s shadow and continues with its tradition of ‘backwards innovation’, with a national policy that is more fickle than the one of its southern neighbors. There’s Bolivia, which mistakes its megalomaniac Bolivarian nationalism for a sense of global ethics.

Japan’s position is mature even on a symbolic level, since it stands against the continuity of a Protocol that not only carries a heavy weight in the multilateral debate, but also the name of one of its most prominent cities. I don’t judge Japan’s stance, discussing the merits and shortcomings of the Protocol is the matter of another discussion. What Japan brings to the table isn’t an absurd position, but an honest reality: these shoes are too old, and in order to keep on going, we need a better pair of boots.