December 14, 2021
By RFE/RL
Russian Ambassador to the UN Vasily Nebenzya (file photo)
Russia has vetoed a United Nations Security Council resolution that sought to formally link climate change and global security.
The resolution, drafted by Niger and Ireland, called for "information on the security implications of climate change" to be addressed by the Security Council.
The measure also asked UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres to make climate-related security risks "a central component" of conflict-prevention and peacekeeping strategies.
The text won support from 12 of the council's 15 members on December 13. India voted no and China abstained.
Veto-wielding Russia voted no to block the resolution.
"Only the [Security Council] can ensure the security impacts of climate change are integrated into the critical work of conflict prevention and mitigation, peacekeeping, and humanitarian response," the U.S. ambassador to the UN, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, wrote on Twitter.
"Russia let the world down by vetoing a resolution backed by a majority of UN member states," she said.
The resolution was long overdue and only a "modest first step," Irish Ambassador Geraldine Byrne Nason said.
Her counterpart from Niger, Abdou Abarry, called opposition to the draft "short-sighted."
Following the vote, Niger and Ireland denounced the veto power given to permanent Security Council members the United States, Britain, France, Russia, and China, calling the rule created during the UN's post-World War II founding "an anachronism."
"This council will never live up to its mandate for international peace and security if it does not adapt. It must reflect the moment we are now living in, the threats to international peace and security which we now face," they said.
Opponents of the resolution said the UN already had bodies devoted to addressing climate change and it doesn’t belong on the agenda of the Security Council, where the issue could become politicized.
The Russian mission to the UN said in a statement that the resolution was aimed at "coercing" the council to examine conflicts and threats to international peace and security through a one-dimensional "climate lens."
"It was a generic proposal to establish this automatic link while neglecting all other aspects of situations in countries in conflict or countries lagging behind in their socioeconomic development," the statement added.
The resolution would have been used "to gain leverage in the council to impose a particular vision with regard to fulfillment of climate commitments and ultimately to initiate putting any country on the council's agenda under the climate pretext since climate-related issues are felt all over the world," it said.
Russia has vetoed a United Nations Security Council resolution that sought to formally link climate change and global security.
The resolution, drafted by Niger and Ireland, called for "information on the security implications of climate change" to be addressed by the Security Council.
The measure also asked UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres to make climate-related security risks "a central component" of conflict-prevention and peacekeeping strategies.
The text won support from 12 of the council's 15 members on December 13. India voted no and China abstained.
Veto-wielding Russia voted no to block the resolution.
"Only the [Security Council] can ensure the security impacts of climate change are integrated into the critical work of conflict prevention and mitigation, peacekeeping, and humanitarian response," the U.S. ambassador to the UN, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, wrote on Twitter.
"Russia let the world down by vetoing a resolution backed by a majority of UN member states," she said.
The resolution was long overdue and only a "modest first step," Irish Ambassador Geraldine Byrne Nason said.
Her counterpart from Niger, Abdou Abarry, called opposition to the draft "short-sighted."
Following the vote, Niger and Ireland denounced the veto power given to permanent Security Council members the United States, Britain, France, Russia, and China, calling the rule created during the UN's post-World War II founding "an anachronism."
"This council will never live up to its mandate for international peace and security if it does not adapt. It must reflect the moment we are now living in, the threats to international peace and security which we now face," they said.
Opponents of the resolution said the UN already had bodies devoted to addressing climate change and it doesn’t belong on the agenda of the Security Council, where the issue could become politicized.
The Russian mission to the UN said in a statement that the resolution was aimed at "coercing" the council to examine conflicts and threats to international peace and security through a one-dimensional "climate lens."
"It was a generic proposal to establish this automatic link while neglecting all other aspects of situations in countries in conflict or countries lagging behind in their socioeconomic development," the statement added.
The resolution would have been used "to gain leverage in the council to impose a particular vision with regard to fulfillment of climate commitments and ultimately to initiate putting any country on the council's agenda under the climate pretext since climate-related issues are felt all over the world," it said.
With reporting by AP, Reuters, and TASS.
Russia blocks UN resolution on climate change fearing unwarranted western intervention
On Monday, India voted ‘no’ as well, while China abstained from voting
By Avantika Goswami
Published: Tuesday 14 December 2021
Russia vetoes the United Nations from resolving to define climate change as a threat to global peace and security. The resolution attempted to “securitise” climate action, an ominous term whose implications are unclear.
The draft resolution was first proposed by Germany in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) in 2020.
It was co-sponsored this year by Ireland and Niger, was blocked by Russia December 13, 2021, when India voted ‘no’ as well and China abstained from voting.
The resolution would have defined climate change as a threat to international peace and security. It was the result of many years of debate to determine whether the UNSC should incorporate climate change as a security risk.
Action taken as part of the resolution can potentially range from sanctions on fossil-rich countries to UN military intervention in domestic conflicts perceived to have been caused by climate change.
It called for “incorporating information on the security implications of climate change" into the UNSC’s strategies for managing conflicts and into peacekeeping operations, and asked that climate-related security risks should be made a “central component” of conflict prevention efforts.
It also asked that the UN Secretary-General provide periodic reports on how risks from climate change can be addressed to prevent conflicts. It would be the first resolution devoted to social risks and conflicts arising from climate impacts and was supported by 113 UN member countries (of a total of 193), which includes 12 of the 15 UNSC members.
The UNSC is often described as the “UN’s most powerful body”. It can impose sanctions and deploy “peacekeeping missions” that can involve military and police forces intervening in conflict zones.
It has five permanent members, all of which are wealthy nations – China, the United States, the United Kingdom, France and Russia. They all have veto power.
Then, there are 10 elected members that serve two-year terms, with fixed numbers of seats allocated to countries from regions like the Asia-Pacific, Africa, among others. Unlike forums like the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) where decisions are made on a collaborative basis, the UNSC can determine if the “use of force” in the form of armed intervention is necessary against a particular state or entity.
Russia opposed the resolution on the grounds that involving UNSC would politicise the issue of climate change and warrant unnecessary intervention by western countries in domestic issues.
A statement by the Russian Mission to the UN read: The penholders of the document were pushing it through without readiness to discuss the root causes of challenges that vulnerable countries face.
The Russian Mission added:
The proposed document was coercing the Council to take a one-dimensional approach to conflicts and threats to international peace and security, i.e., through the climate lens. It was a generic proposal to establish this automatic link while neglecting all other aspects of situations in countries in conflict or countries lagging behind in their socio-economic development.
The statement also called the resolution an attempt to “shift the blame towards the developing countries themselves and to gain leverage in the Council to impose a particular vision with regard to fulfilment of climate commitments”.
India’s vote against the resolution was justified on the grounds that UNFCCC is the appropriate forum to implement climate action, not UNSC. “We will always speak up for the interests of the developing world, including Africa and the Sahel region. And we will do so at the right place — the UNFCCC,” said TS Trimurti, India’s permanent representative to the UN.
On Monday, India voted ‘no’ as well, while China abstained from voting
By Avantika Goswami
Published: Tuesday 14 December 2021
Russia vetoes the United Nations from resolving to define climate change as a threat to global peace and security. The resolution attempted to “securitise” climate action, an ominous term whose implications are unclear.
The draft resolution was first proposed by Germany in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) in 2020.
It was co-sponsored this year by Ireland and Niger, was blocked by Russia December 13, 2021, when India voted ‘no’ as well and China abstained from voting.
The resolution would have defined climate change as a threat to international peace and security. It was the result of many years of debate to determine whether the UNSC should incorporate climate change as a security risk.
Action taken as part of the resolution can potentially range from sanctions on fossil-rich countries to UN military intervention in domestic conflicts perceived to have been caused by climate change.
It called for “incorporating information on the security implications of climate change" into the UNSC’s strategies for managing conflicts and into peacekeeping operations, and asked that climate-related security risks should be made a “central component” of conflict prevention efforts.
It also asked that the UN Secretary-General provide periodic reports on how risks from climate change can be addressed to prevent conflicts. It would be the first resolution devoted to social risks and conflicts arising from climate impacts and was supported by 113 UN member countries (of a total of 193), which includes 12 of the 15 UNSC members.
The UNSC is often described as the “UN’s most powerful body”. It can impose sanctions and deploy “peacekeeping missions” that can involve military and police forces intervening in conflict zones.
It has five permanent members, all of which are wealthy nations – China, the United States, the United Kingdom, France and Russia. They all have veto power.
Then, there are 10 elected members that serve two-year terms, with fixed numbers of seats allocated to countries from regions like the Asia-Pacific, Africa, among others. Unlike forums like the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) where decisions are made on a collaborative basis, the UNSC can determine if the “use of force” in the form of armed intervention is necessary against a particular state or entity.
Russia opposed the resolution on the grounds that involving UNSC would politicise the issue of climate change and warrant unnecessary intervention by western countries in domestic issues.
A statement by the Russian Mission to the UN read: The penholders of the document were pushing it through without readiness to discuss the root causes of challenges that vulnerable countries face.
The Russian Mission added:
The proposed document was coercing the Council to take a one-dimensional approach to conflicts and threats to international peace and security, i.e., through the climate lens. It was a generic proposal to establish this automatic link while neglecting all other aspects of situations in countries in conflict or countries lagging behind in their socio-economic development.
The statement also called the resolution an attempt to “shift the blame towards the developing countries themselves and to gain leverage in the Council to impose a particular vision with regard to fulfilment of climate commitments”.
India’s vote against the resolution was justified on the grounds that UNFCCC is the appropriate forum to implement climate action, not UNSC. “We will always speak up for the interests of the developing world, including Africa and the Sahel region. And we will do so at the right place — the UNFCCC,” said TS Trimurti, India’s permanent representative to the UN.
India votes against western attempt to bring climate change at UNSC, evade climate finance responsibility
The resolution was seen as a western attempt to evade its responsibility on climate finance responsibility.
Reported By:| Edited By: Sidhant Sibal |
The resolution was seen as a western attempt to evade its responsibility on climate finance responsibility.
Reported By:| Edited By: Sidhant Sibal |
Source: DNA webdesk |Updated: Dec 14, 2021,
India on Monday voted against a largely western attempt to rush the climate change issue at the United Nations Security Council, questing the need for the resolution when the issue is already being dealt under the UNFCCC or United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The resolution, which was eventually not adopted was jointly presented by Niger, the president of the body for this month, and Ireland and backed by the United States, the United Kingdom and the European Union.
In the explanation, the Indian envoy to United Nations TS Tirumurti said, "India is second to none when it comes to climate action and climate justice. But the UN Security Council is not the place to discuss either issue. In fact, the attempt to do so appears to be motivated by a desire to evade responsibility in the appropriate forum and divert the world’s attention from an unwillingness to deliver where it counts."
The resolution was seen as a western attempt to evade its responsibility on climate finance responsibility, which has been dominating the climate debate especially at the recently concluded Glasgow climate summit. The Indian envoy highlighted, "Developed countries must provide climate finance of $1 trillion at the earliest. It is necessary that climate finance be tracked with the same diligence as climate mitigation. And the reality, Mr President, is that the developed countries have fallen well short of their promises. This is particularly important to recognise because today’s attempt to link climate with security really seeks to obfuscate lack of progress on critical issues under the UNFCCC process."
At the high table, out of 15 countries, 12 supported it, 2 voted against-- India, Russia and Chinese abstained from it. Russian veto led to the resolution not being adopted. Interestingly, this was the first usage of veto by any permanent member of the council this year. And despite 12 voting in support, all was not picture perfect. Three countries of the council did not co-sponsor it-- France which is a permanent 5 member of the UNSC, Kenya and Vietnam. Essentially three Asian members of the council had no enthusiasm for it--India voted against, China abstained and Vietnam did not co-sponsor.
Pointing to the "manner in which this issue has been brought before the Council", Envoy Tirumurti highlighted, "the honest answer is that there is no real requirement for this resolution, except for the purpose of bringing climate change under the ambit of the Security Council. And the reason for that is now decisions can then be taken without the involvement of most developing countries and without recognizing consensus. And all this can be done in the name of preserving international peace and security."
He pointed, "many of the UNSC members are the main contributors of climate change due to historical emissions. If the Security Council indeed takes over the responsibility on this issue, a few states will then have a free hand in deciding on all climate-related issues. This is clearly neither desirable nor acceptable."
US and China, both permanent members of the UNSC, are the top two emitters globally. UNFCC is a larger platform to discuss the climate issue and has 197 countries as parties to it as compared to 15 at the council.
Before the resolution was taken up, attempts were made to defuse the situation. Russia, India, China suggested a presidential statement on Sahel and climate change. The Sahel is referred to as a large region in northern Africa having a semi-arid climate, and Niger is part of that region. Brazil, which will become a non-permanent member of the UNSC from 1st January had also written a letter.
This is not the first time Russia, India, China and Brazil has taken a similar approach on the issue. A decade ago in 2011 when Germany had raised the issue at the council, BRICS had taken a similar position. All members of the grouping were members of the council that year. This year, despite attempts to find an amicable solution west, seem to be thrusting through, and the intent was seen as a take it or leave it approach.
India on Monday voted against a largely western attempt to rush the climate change issue at the United Nations Security Council, questing the need for the resolution when the issue is already being dealt under the UNFCCC or United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The resolution, which was eventually not adopted was jointly presented by Niger, the president of the body for this month, and Ireland and backed by the United States, the United Kingdom and the European Union.
In the explanation, the Indian envoy to United Nations TS Tirumurti said, "India is second to none when it comes to climate action and climate justice. But the UN Security Council is not the place to discuss either issue. In fact, the attempt to do so appears to be motivated by a desire to evade responsibility in the appropriate forum and divert the world’s attention from an unwillingness to deliver where it counts."
The resolution was seen as a western attempt to evade its responsibility on climate finance responsibility, which has been dominating the climate debate especially at the recently concluded Glasgow climate summit. The Indian envoy highlighted, "Developed countries must provide climate finance of $1 trillion at the earliest. It is necessary that climate finance be tracked with the same diligence as climate mitigation. And the reality, Mr President, is that the developed countries have fallen well short of their promises. This is particularly important to recognise because today’s attempt to link climate with security really seeks to obfuscate lack of progress on critical issues under the UNFCCC process."
At the high table, out of 15 countries, 12 supported it, 2 voted against-- India, Russia and Chinese abstained from it. Russian veto led to the resolution not being adopted. Interestingly, this was the first usage of veto by any permanent member of the council this year. And despite 12 voting in support, all was not picture perfect. Three countries of the council did not co-sponsor it-- France which is a permanent 5 member of the UNSC, Kenya and Vietnam. Essentially three Asian members of the council had no enthusiasm for it--India voted against, China abstained and Vietnam did not co-sponsor.
Pointing to the "manner in which this issue has been brought before the Council", Envoy Tirumurti highlighted, "the honest answer is that there is no real requirement for this resolution, except for the purpose of bringing climate change under the ambit of the Security Council. And the reason for that is now decisions can then be taken without the involvement of most developing countries and without recognizing consensus. And all this can be done in the name of preserving international peace and security."
He pointed, "many of the UNSC members are the main contributors of climate change due to historical emissions. If the Security Council indeed takes over the responsibility on this issue, a few states will then have a free hand in deciding on all climate-related issues. This is clearly neither desirable nor acceptable."
US and China, both permanent members of the UNSC, are the top two emitters globally. UNFCC is a larger platform to discuss the climate issue and has 197 countries as parties to it as compared to 15 at the council.
Before the resolution was taken up, attempts were made to defuse the situation. Russia, India, China suggested a presidential statement on Sahel and climate change. The Sahel is referred to as a large region in northern Africa having a semi-arid climate, and Niger is part of that region. Brazil, which will become a non-permanent member of the UNSC from 1st January had also written a letter.
This is not the first time Russia, India, China and Brazil has taken a similar approach on the issue. A decade ago in 2011 when Germany had raised the issue at the council, BRICS had taken a similar position. All members of the grouping were members of the council that year. This year, despite attempts to find an amicable solution west, seem to be thrusting through, and the intent was seen as a take it or leave it approach.
India on Monday voted against a largely western attempt to rush the climate change issue at the United Nations Security Council, questing the need for the resolution when the issue is already being dealt under the UNFCCC or United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The resolution, which was eventually not adopted was jointly presented by Niger, the president of the body for this month, and Ireland and backed by the United States, the United Kingdom and the European Union.
In the explanation, the Indian envoy to United Nations TS Tirumurti said, "India is second to none when it comes to climate action and climate justice. But the UN Security Council is not the place to discuss either issue. In fact, the attempt to do so appears to be motivated by a desire to evade responsibility in the appropriate forum and divert the world’s attention from an unwillingness to deliver where it counts."
The resolution was seen as a western attempt to evade its responsibility on climate finance responsibility, which has been dominating the climate debate especially at the recently concluded Glasgow climate summit. The Indian envoy highlighted, "Developed countries must provide climate finance of $1 trillion at the earliest. It is necessary that climate finance be tracked with the same diligence as climate mitigation. And the reality, Mr President, is that the developed countries have fallen well short of their promises. This is particularly important to recognise because today’s attempt to link climate with security really seeks to obfuscate lack of progress on critical issues under the UNFCCC process."
At the high table, out of 15 countries, 12 supported it, 2 voted against-- India, Russia and Chinese abstained from it. Russian veto led to the resolution not being adopted. Interestingly, this was the first usage of veto by any permanent member of the council this year. And despite 12 voting in support, all was not picture perfect. Three countries of the council did not co-sponsor it-- France which is a permanent 5 member of the UNSC, Kenya and Vietnam. Essentially three Asian members of the council had no enthusiasm for it--India voted against, China abstained and Vietnam did not co-sponsor.
Pointing to the "manner in which this issue has been brought before the Council", Envoy Tirumurti highlighted, "the honest answer is that there is no real requirement for this resolution, except for the purpose of bringing climate change under the ambit of the Security Council. And the reason for that is now decisions can then be taken without the involvement of most developing countries and without recognizing consensus. And all this can be done in the name of preserving international peace and security."
He pointed, "many of the UNSC members are the main contributors of climate change due to historical emissions. If the Security Council indeed takes over the responsibility on this issue, a few states will then have a free hand in deciding on all climate-related issues. This is clearly neither desirable nor acceptable."
US and China, both permanent members of the UNSC, are the top two emitters globally. UNFCC is a larger platform to discuss the climate issue and has 197 countries as parties to it as compared to 15 at the council.
Before the resolution was taken up, attempts were made to defuse the situation. Russia, India, China suggested a presidential statement on Sahel and climate change. The Sahel is referred to as a large region in northern Africa having a semi-arid climate, and Niger is part of that region. Brazil, which will become a non-permanent member of the UNSC from 1st January had also written a letter.
This is not the first time Russia, India, China and Brazil has taken a similar approach on the issue. A decade ago in 2011 when Germany had raised the issue at the council, BRICS had taken a similar position. All members of the grouping were members of the council that year. This year, despite attempts to find an amicable solution west, seem to be thrusting through, and the intent was seen as a take it or leave it approach.
India on Monday voted against a largely western attempt to rush the climate change issue at the United Nations Security Council, questing the need for the resolution when the issue is already being dealt under the UNFCCC or United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The resolution, which was eventually not adopted was jointly presented by Niger, the president of the body for this month, and Ireland and backed by the United States, the United Kingdom and the European Union.
In the explanation, the Indian envoy to United Nations TS Tirumurti said, "India is second to none when it comes to climate action and climate justice. But the UN Security Council is not the place to discuss either issue. In fact, the attempt to do so appears to be motivated by a desire to evade responsibility in the appropriate forum and divert the world’s attention from an unwillingness to deliver where it counts."
The resolution was seen as a western attempt to evade its responsibility on climate finance responsibility, which has been dominating the climate debate especially at the recently concluded Glasgow climate summit. The Indian envoy highlighted, "Developed countries must provide climate finance of $1 trillion at the earliest. It is necessary that climate finance be tracked with the same diligence as climate mitigation. And the reality, Mr President, is that the developed countries have fallen well short of their promises. This is particularly important to recognise because today’s attempt to link climate with security really seeks to obfuscate lack of progress on critical issues under the UNFCCC process."
At the high table, out of 15 countries, 12 supported it, 2 voted against-- India, Russia and Chinese abstained from it. Russian veto led to the resolution not being adopted. Interestingly, this was the first usage of veto by any permanent member of the council this year. And despite 12 voting in support, all was not picture perfect. Three countries of the council did not co-sponsor it-- France which is a permanent 5 member of the UNSC, Kenya and Vietnam. Essentially three Asian members of the council had no enthusiasm for it--India voted against, China abstained and Vietnam did not co-sponsor.
Pointing to the "manner in which this issue has been brought before the Council", Envoy Tirumurti highlighted, "the honest answer is that there is no real requirement for this resolution, except for the purpose of bringing climate change under the ambit of the Security Council. And the reason for that is now decisions can then be taken without the involvement of most developing countries and without recognizing consensus. And all this can be done in the name of preserving international peace and security."
He pointed, "many of the UNSC members are the main contributors of climate change due to historical emissions. If the Security Council indeed takes over the responsibility on this issue, a few states will then have a free hand in deciding on all climate-related issues. This is clearly neither desirable nor acceptable."
US and China, both permanent members of the UNSC, are the top two emitters globally. UNFCC is a larger platform to discuss the climate issue and has 197 countries as parties to it as compared to 15 at the council.
Before the resolution was taken up, attempts were made to defuse the situation. Russia, India, China suggested a presidential statement on Sahel and climate change. The Sahel is referred to as a large region in northern Africa having a semi-arid climate, and Niger is part of that region. Brazil, which will become a non-permanent member of the UNSC from 1st January had also written a letter.
This is not the first time Russia, India, China and Brazil has taken a similar approach on the issue. A decade ago in 2011 when Germany had raised the issue at the council, BRICS had taken a similar position. All members of the grouping were members of the council that year. This year, despite attempts to find an amicable solution west, seem to be thrusting through, and the intent was seen as a take it or leave it approach.
No comments:
Post a Comment