For at least twelve years, I served as the U.S. focal point for all G-7 (and then subsequently G-8) environmental matters at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. I worked within the agency and with the U.S. Department of State, the White House, and other agencies representing the breadth of the U.S. government. It was exhilarating, stressful, exciting and fulfilling because it tested the capacity of our government to work with the “community” of leading nations, and advance U.S. foreign policy objectives.
I retired from Federal service in 2009, when Russia was still a part of the group. I write this piece as I watch the disintegration of yet another norm in our country. We used to work with others (“Trump, after skipping climate meeting at G-7 summit, says U.S. not going to lose its wealth ‘on dreams, on windmills,’” Aug. 27).
The G-7 process for the environment meetings was a sometimes raucous journey to seek consensus on issues such as climate change, production and consumption patterns, pollution effects, and one year we even sought to condemn the Taliban for its destruction of historical heritage monuments. We also extended our G-7 reach to the European Commission, South Africa, India and other countries on occasion — even admitting Russia as a member until 2014. The idea was always to seek consensus and foster better relationships between and among developed and developing nations. The enduring aspect of this multilateral process carried me through the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations, working with Carol Browner, Stephen Johnson, Christine Todd Whitman and briefly, with Lisa Jackson. G-7 meetings are held on selected subjects, such as environment, finance, labor, futures/forecasting and the culminating ministerial level meeting, at which a president or prime minister is the head of delegation and signals the end of a country’s term as a host for the G-7 deliberations. The next host country begins its preparations and planning processes almost immediately thereafter.
The host country determines the themes and agenda and works with its counterparts to develop issue papers, coordinate logistical arrangements and handle outreach to other stakeholders. It is not “transactional” in the sense that these meetings are “one-off” affairs. I always knew that after Italy would be Canada, then France, then the United States and so forth. Years of informal tradition determined the order of succession. The United States, as host country for next year, will undoubtedly begin its planning and organizing very soon, especially since it has been announced that, in 2020, the meeting will occur in Miami.
As the U.S. focal point on the environment, preparations for these meetings have had me on countless airplanes, conference calls and all night negotiations. For example, in Germany we had eel soup at 4 a.m. to calm us down after negotiations broke down. In the G-7 environment meeting for Japan, it was suggested that we go take a communal bath to clear our minds to forge an agreement on children’s environmental health. In a France-hosted meeting, the United States and Italy worked jointly as a subcommittee to help resolve contentious issues among the rest of the participants, who were seeking concessions that the United States found difficult to accept. In every instance, the G-7 process has resulted in a statement of commitments to do better. Until this year. It reflected informal dialogue between countries, but resulted in progress. Until this year. The “communique” designed to immortalize common understandings of the nature of environmental problems was a path forward. Until this year. communiques were standard fare for every type of G-7 meeting, and it was customary for the ministerial level and heads of government meetings, such as the one that just concluded this past weekend. Such customs were junked this year.
It is now clear that the communique process has come to a clumsy and inauspicious end. As we now labor under the administration of a man baby president, the system of multilateralism has collapsed. Cooperation is no longer required, and the United States scoffs at the notion of working with others. We have broken the network that helped to advance mutual goals, sacrificing it at the altar of boorishness, hubris, naivete, unilateralism and outright lies.
The United States is now the Humpty Dumpty of the world. The damage is incalculable.
James C. Morant , Baltimore
Add your voice: Respond to this piece or other Sun content by submitting your own letter.