The article explores the departure of U.S. foreign policy from the founding principles of avoiding permanent alliances, emphasizing the implications of international climate agreements. It highlights the lack of Senate approval for binding climate treaties, which could radically alter American governance and society without public consent or legislative action.
The tenets established in George Washington’s “Farewell Address” concerning foreign alliances have significantly influenced U.S. foreign policy, emphasizing the need for minimal political connections with other nations. Washington cautioned against forming permanent alliances, a sentiment echoed by President Thomas Jefferson, who advocated for “peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.” Over the years, the United States has strayed far from these principles, entering into numerous international agreements that impose legal obligations on American citizens—obligations that would unlikely receive Congressional approval. The framers of the Constitution were wary of foreign entanglements and mandated a two-thirds Senate majority for treaty ratification. However, the vagueness in defining a treaty has led to extensive executive discretion in making international agreements since the era of John Adams. One notable example is the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, agreed upon in 1992 and ratified by the Senate. Initially perceived as benign, this agreement established a framework for nations to collaborate on reducing greenhouse gas emissions voluntarily. However, subsequent annual meetings have resulted in increasingly stringent emission targets, none of which have been submitted to the Senate for ratification or received majority support from the American public. The Kyoto Protocol of 1997, which required a significant reduction in U.S. emissions, was explicitly rejected by the Senate prior to its signing. This trend continued with agreements made in numerous international conferences, including Bonn, Doha, Paris, and Glasgow, with various U.S. Presidents committing the nation to binding agreements without Senate involvement. For instance, the Paris Agreement, entered into by President Obama through executive action rather than as a treaty, illustrates how these international requirements can supersede domestic law without necessary congressional oversight. The distinction between treaties and executive agreements is crucial, as certain executive agreements may necessitate Senate ratification if they entail substantial commitments or legislative requirements affecting national policy. The climate accords under discussion certainly fit these criteria, posing significant transformations for the American economy and society, dictated not by domestic consensus but through foreign directives and international committees.
The principle of avoiding entangling alliances was pivotal for the founding fathers of the United States, with George Washington’s warnings in his farewell address serving as a keystone of American foreign policy. This aversion to permanent alliances persists, yet since World War II, the U.S. has increasingly engaged in international treaties and agreements, often bypassing the constitutional necessity for Senate approval. The climate protocols exemplified in this discourse highlight the tension between constitutional mandates and contemporary international agreements, which some argue undermine U.S. sovereignty and democratic processes while creating binding obligations without legislative consent.
The examination of U.S. involvement in climate agreements illustrates a troubling divergence from founding principles regarding foreign alliances. While the framers envisioned a system of checks and balances, contemporary practices often disregard these safeguards, allowing international commitments that threaten to impact American laws and the economy without proper legislative oversight. This situation raises critical questions regarding the legal framework surrounding treaties and executive agreements, as well as the intrinsic risks associated with the U.S. engaging in international alliances that challenge domestic sovereignty.
Original Source: heartland.org
