Climate Change Calls for a Long-Range Vision

Queen Elizabeth II in her message to COP26 UN Climate Change Conference in Glasgow made a moral appeal to the world leaders: “…none of us will live forever. But we are doing this not for ourselves but for our children and our children’s children, and those who will follow in their footsteps.” This message perfectly fits to the argument that the ‘long shadow of future’ is falling on all of us, and if we do not work together now the future generations will suffer. That approach chimes well with what Mary Robinson, former President of Ireland and former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights wrote, “We want to build forward with equality and justice and sustainability, sustainability with nature and with our need to have a livable world for our children and grandchildren.”

The Queen in her speech made a very relevant distinction between politician and statesman. Politicians work for their states and think in narrow terms of relative gains, maximization of national interest and power, but they do not take long range perspectives. They do not foresee what will happen in the future. In the Queen’s words, “It has sometimes been observed that what leaders do for their people today is government and politics. But what they do for the people of tomorrow — that is statesmanship. I, for one, hope that this conference will be one of those rare occasions where everyone will have the chance to rise above the politics of the moment, and achieve true statesmanship.” One rarely comes across such statesmanship from the leaders of the world today. President Harry Truman’s address in San Francisco at the closing session of the United Nations Conference in San Francisco in 1945 reflected such a long-range vision, which prioritized humanity over narrow concerns of a particular state. Truman said, “If we had had this Charter a few years ago-and above all, the will to use it – millions now dead would be alive. If we should falter in the future in our will to use it, millions now living will surely die.”

Though Truman used these words in the context of international peace, they could be applicable in the context of climate change which has in recent decades assumed a devastating proportion, which provoked organizations like Extinction Rebellion to make a radical appeal, “Life on Earth is in crisis. Our climate is changing faster than scientists predicted and the stakes are high. Biodiversity loss. Crop failure. Social and ecological collapse. Mass extinction. We are running out of time, and our governments have failed to act…We have a moral duty to take action — whatever our politics.” But as the deliberations at the climate change summit and the final agreement after the conference revealed, the world leaders lacked the courage and vision to emerge as statesmen as they prioritized their national goals over global concerns for a sustainable climate. This lackadaisical approach on part of the world leaders prompted climate change activist Greta Thunberg calling the deliberations, “blah, blah, blah.”

A report titled, “Welcome to Miami, Massachusetts” argued that if the greenhouse gas emission continues at the current rate, “… by 2100 Boston’s average summer-high temperatures will likely be more than 10 degrees Fahrenheit hotter than they are now, ‘making it feel as steamy as North Miami Beach is today’.” According to another report, “global warming has pushed temperatures up to 5 degrees higher in the region since the 1950s and could increase up to 7 degrees more by the end of the century, putting more stress on the ice.” Tony de Brum, the former Marshall Islands Foreign Minister, nominated for Nobel Peace Prize for his role in Paris Climate agreement, witnessed the ‘Bravo shot,’ the thermonuclear test at Bikini Atoll when he was 9 years old. He became a champion of nuclear disarmament and environment protection. Brum, whose island home went under waters due to rising ocean, argued, “The thought of evacuation is repulsive to us…We think that the more reasonable thing to do is to seek to end this madness, this climate madness, where people think that smaller, vulnerable countries are expendable and therefore they can continue to do business as usual.”

Like the Queen, Mahatma Gandhi in the 20th century made a moral argument for climate change. His famous exhortation “Nature has enough for everyone’s need but not for everyone’s greed” provides a powerful message in this context. Gandhi’s famous talisman is also useful in this context: “I will give you a talisman. Whenever you are in doubt, or when the self becomes too much with you, apply the following test. Recall the face of the poorest and the weakest man whom you may have seen, and ask yourself, if the step you contemplate is going to be of any use to him.”

The leaders in the Climate Change conference despite days of deliberations failed to develop a consensus on many contentious issues, leading to a very weak agreement. One of the contentious issues was the use of fossil fuel. Fast growing countries like China and India, who still depend on fossil fuel, insisted on changing the words ‘phase out’ and replace them with ‘phase down’ in the final agreement. The developed countries displayed reluctance to share the burden of climate change with developing countries and provide funding to support the efforts to curb carbon emission. The global concerns such as climate change transcend state borders. Isolation as a foreign policy strategy might have worked in the past, but in the contemporary world isolation implies invitation to more problems. A small happening in one corner of the globe can shape international developments. When we have blatantly messed up with Nature, how would we ensure the survival of human race in the decades and centuries to come? The Queen’s message is certainly instructive in this context as it makes an appeal, or rather a moral call, to the world leaders to rise above petty nationalistic thinking and adopt a long-range vision on climate change.

(This article was published in Infinite Discoveries: https://infinitediscoveries.org/climate-change-calls-for-a-long-range-vision/)

How far can the Multilateral Forums like BRIC Go?

The third week of April 2010 just aftermath of the international nuclear summit witnessed vigorous activities by the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) members in the Brasilian Itamaraty Palace on 15 April 2010. The leaders as the earlier summit meeting at Russian city Yekaterinburg displayed enthusiasm to raise the multilateral platform to play a crucial in the international affairs by widening the international decision making process with the inclusion of members India and Brazil in the United Nation’s Security Council, by widening the ambit of Bretton Woods Structures with the provision of incorporating the increasing clout of these nations, and also equally importantly by expediting the steps towards an international convention on terrorism and mitigating the effects of climate change. And also importantly, perhaps for the first time, the countries insisted on a time frame to meet these issues.

Some of the international news agencies called the deliberations of the BRIC countries ‘baby steps,’ and they easily pointed out ‘huge differences in national goals and tensions in security and economic policy’ in these countries while pursuing common goals. Furthermore they pointed out that the fixing of time frame by these countries, which comprise about 20 per cent of world GDP with the some of the fastest growing economies within the grouping, is something unexpected as it amounted to tactics of ‘greater pressure.’ These observations might carry some weight, but the international climate has never been as complicated as it is now and undoubtedly these baby steps of the grouping can be starting points towards rapid strides in making world politics fair, multipolar and stable. As to the fixing of the time table, for instance for the remoulding the global financial bodies like World Bank and International Monetary Fund by providing greater say to these countries with more voting rights by the time of G-20 Summit in South Korea in November 2010, and to frame and develop an equitable climate change regime at the forthcoming Cancun Conference in November 2010 following United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Kyoto Protocol and the Bali Roadmap, it might be discomforting for the statusquoist powers but if at all the world needs to accommodate the aspirations of rising powers, then the widening of the international political and economic framework emerges not only as an adjustment but also an imperative. To add, the BRIC leaders also emphasized the role of G-20 as a global economic body which can lay out the future course of actions which the global financial system will need to take. The joint statement of summit declared, “We advocate the need for the G-20 to be proactive and formulate a coherent strategy for the post-crisis (global financial crisis) period.” The grouping also signed a cooperation agreement among the development banks to jointly fund infrastructure works of the members.

Equally crucially for the first time since its inception as an important multilateral body in 2008, the grouping took the issue of Iran as a focal point for deliberation. It believed dialogue and diplomacy bear more value that the sanctions which the US leadership is keen to impose on Iran to bring it to pressure. The grouping will likely emphasize on the role of the international bodies like International Atomic Energy Agency to tackle the nuclear issue in Iran, rather than imposition of sanctions. This emphasis acquires crucial value as it emerged just aftermath of the nuclear summit in the US. As some of the news agencies report the imposition of sanctions will likely be on the government of Iran not on its people, it becomes difficult to comprehend how the imposition on the government will not affect the people. Rather on the contrary, some would suggest, the imposition will have direct bearing on the people and it is the influential people in the government who can face the sanctions without much problem. However, the BRIC countries emphasize that Iran must cooperate with international bodies like the International Atomic Energy Agency, and all steps need to be taken by the methods of dialogue and diplomacy to prevent Iran to develop nuclear weapons. But at the same time the grouping considered it appropriate to build nuclear reactors for civilian purposes like clean energy.

Though the summit was shifted back by one day as the Chinese leader was to leave due to earthquake in Qinghai in China, and the summit had to be held just after another summit that day itself comprising IBSA nations (India, Brazil and South Africa), which also equally urged for a global order free from domination and discrimination, it is considered the BRIC summit was successful in many ways. Indian Prime Minister observed, “We aspire for rapid growth for ourselves and for an external environment that is conducive to our development goals. BRIC countries have an important role to play in shaping the pace, direction and sustainability of global economic growth.” In the context of imposition of sanctions, the Iran issue will likely figure in the forthcoming days in the United Nations’ Security Council. Brazil is currently a member of United Nations’ Security Council non-permanent member, which assumes significance as it opposes any imposition of sanctions on Iran. Two permanent veto wielding members Russia and China are also opposed to sanctions, and are in favour of dialogue and diplomacy. Interestingly, Lebanon, which is unlikely to support sanctions on Iran, will take the chairmanship of the Security Council in May. In this emerging scenario it will be quite significant and decisive as to how Iran issue is figured in the highest international decision making body, which particularly can not develop a single point of agenda on this issue.

BRIC, in spite of its weakness or differences among members, no doubt will play a significant role in international politics. The coming of the countries together is no mean achievement, and on various issues like Iran, United Nations, Bretton Woods structures, climate change, etc. the grouping has already been vociferous. The clout of BRIC as a significant multilateral body is bound to be reckoned with, However, the grouping will have to develop more coherent and consensual agenda for actions in coming days.