Everyone is constantly “disappointed” these days; it is an increasingly well-used term that seems to sum up the climate of our times.
Politicians voice their disappointment when inflation fails to fall or unemployment climbs higher. Enormously well-rewarded CEOs of utilities or hospitals are disappointed when the lights go out, or sewage leaks, or waiting lists fail to decline. A profit warning is a source of disappointment, even though the shareholders are boiling with rage, as they jolly well should be.
There was a lot of disappointment being voiced around the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) earlier this month with the postponement for a year of the “net zero framework” at the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC), after a crucial vote.
In this context, “disappointment” is diplomatic code for a good deal of anger right across the spectrum, from pragmatic industry organisations to hardline green activists. All must now cope with further uncertainties over the details of implementation of the arrangements, the provision of scalable quantities of cleaner fuels, the motivation for research and innovation, and the vexed question of the financials.
There is also anger at the way in which the IMO position as shipping’s global regulator has been diminished by hard-line political interference, with what can only be described as unashamed bullying and threats by the Trump administration.
Threats to sanction member states that failed to give the US all it wanted at MEPC (basically the cancelling of the whole proposed framework) represented a new low in behaviour that is without precedent in the existence of the maritime safety organisation.
It might have been criticised for its ponderous pace, moving at that of the slowest ship in the convoy, but it worked quite well.
Such an intervention from an administration that clearly likes to throw its considerable weight around may not come as a surprise, but it is the latest manifestation of political interference in the deliberations of the IMO.
The organisation, for most of its 75-year life, built a reputation as an excellent technical forum, which has been mostly free from the political nonsense that disfigures most other UN bodies – the worst being evident at the parent in New York.
National rivalries, even at the height of the Cold War, were set aside as technical experts collaborated to devise technical solutions to make international shipping safer and to reduce marine pollution.
It might have been criticised for its ponderous pace, moving at that of the slowest ship in the convoy, and largely being at the mercy of its member states, but it worked quite well.
Enormous efforts were dedicated to achieving pragmatic compromises, which is why the coffee was so good, and consensus was the ultimate objective of any regulatory changes. By and large, the IMO secretariat has been extraordinarily good at this.
Some have suggested that this system started to go wrong with the emergence of regional blocs that began once the European Commission, which was denied the opportunity of representing all its member states behind a single card, cut up rough.
Politics, hitherto largely absent from this organisation, has increasingly intruded, to no great advantage.
Assuming the role of a spur to what it regarded as inadequate pace in IMO deliberations, it took to ensuring that all its members spoke to a single pre-agreed agenda, effectively neutering independent thought among some of the most technically advanced member states.
There was understandable resentment about this and “regionalism” rapidly spread, with the South American and Asian members also developing their own blocs. Politics, hitherto largely absent from this organisation, has increasingly intruded, it has been suggested, to no great advantage.
Politics has also increasingly been a player in environmental debates, where polarised views may be found not far below the surface, and exacerbated by the arrival of a plethora of environmental NGOs and rather more public scrutiny. Thus, it is probably completely predictable that President Donald Trump, the great disrupter with his pronounced views on climate change and net zero aims, intervened in such a muscular fashion.
Also notable, in view of his record in dealing with the policies of nations he disagrees with, was the number of delegations at MEPC, which were unwilling to brook his displeasure and found it politic to abstain or vote for the ultimate postponement of the framework.
But the IMO has clearly been wounded by the actions of the US. The inclination to regional rulemaking and the patchwork of regulation it has been IMO’s mission to avoid have been sadly given a boost.