Facing the Security Challenge of Climate Change

CLICK HERE TO VIEW THIS ON HUFFINGTONPOST.COM

Dr. Peter Wittig

Most people would agree climate change is one of the biggest threats to our world. But opinions differ on the nature of this threat, how it will affect our lives and what we must do to face it.

Politicians, diplomats and security experts across the board -- not only in the Western world -- share the assessment that climate change might have a serious impact on international peace and security. It is not difficult to see why: rising sea levels threaten the very existence of small island states in the Pacific and the loss of coastal shores to the sea leading to population resettlements. The increased scarcity of potable water -- as a consequence of wells becoming brackish due to salty sea water -- adds to rivalry and tension. Overwhelming evidence shows this has already begun to happen: it is not the subject of a scientific discussion in an ivory tower.

Let there be no doubt: we are not talking about a small number of people on a remote island having to give up their stretch of the beach. We are talking about sea level rises that might seriously impact the lives of millions of people who live close to the coast -- and only a little higher than sea level. Densely populated mega-deltas of the Ganges, Nile, Mekong or Mississippi or big coastal cities such as Karachi, New York, Singapore or Tokyo come to mind -- and remember that Fukushima isn't the only (nuclear) power plant built next to the sea.

The implications of climate change will not only be economic or demographic. It will affect "hard security" as well: people will clash over basic resources, they will be forced to resettle or even to migrate across borders.

Poverty and statelessness will add to already destabilized societies. But the threat to peace and security will not be limited to existing poor and needy populations: receding coastlines could well incite disputes among developed nations over maritime territories and economic zones -- think of contested islands in East Asia or the race for the shelf at the North Pole and you can easily imagine how tensions could mount.

The threats are self-evident. But what should we do?

I think it is important to remind ourselves of two basic facts :

First, this threat is of a very different nature than any threat we have had to deal with before: it is global in reach -- and makes no distinction between North and South or East and West. There will be some countries more capable of dealing with the consequences of climate change than others. But none will go unscathed. None will be able to address these challenges on its own. It is therefore mandatory -- and in the interest of all states -- to strive for an internationally coordinated approach.

Second, the one international body that has the legitimacy and responsibility to maintain international peace and security is the United Nations Security Council. It must therefore be at the heart of any multilateral approach to tackle global threats to peace and security.

One has to concede, however, that there are varying expectations on how the Security Council should fulfill this task: some governments would like to see the Security Council only act when two countries are at the brink of war. These countries usually hold the view that only military action that crosses borders justifies Council action and that everything else amounts to outside interference. On the other hand there are governments that -- in allusion to the "blue-helmet" UN peacekeepers -- are already calling for "green-helmets to close down coal-mines." These governments expect the Security Council to act decisively on the perceived root-causes of global warming. They see no viable alternative to address their justified -- and very existential -- fear of vanishing into the sea.

As far-fetched as the idea of "green-helmets" might sound, consider the tasks that the United Nations peacekeepers already perform today -- e.g. emergency aid, development and recovery, state -- and peacebuilding. Repainting blue helmets into green might be a strong signal -- but would dealing with the consequences of climate change -- say in precarious regions -- be really very different from the tasks the blue helmets already perform today?

Trying to answer this question would mean crossing the bridge before coming to it: it is too early to seriously think about Council action on climate change. This is clearly not on the agenda. The Council should, however, fulfill its duty and ready itself: It should not only act after the first tragedies hit the headlines. A good first step would be to acknowledge the realities of climate change and its inherent implications to international peace and security. This should not be seen as an infringement on the competence of other international bodies dealing with the general policies regarding climate change and global warming. On the contrary, it would emphasize that the Council is ready to assume its responsibilities to try to prevent the worst from happening -- acting with the precaution and prudence we expect in regard to international security.

Follow Dr. Peter Wittig on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@germanyUN

Support for Israel Costs Canada Seat on U.N. Security Council

America All But Disappeared in Maneuvering by Portugal, Brazil, and Cuba

By BENNY AVNI, Special to the Sun | October 12, 2010

UNITED NATIONS — Canada’s increasing ties with Israel and its defense of Jerusalem have cost it a seat on the United Nations Security Council, diplomats here are saying after days of maneuvering by Arab countries, Brazil, and Cuba in which the United States had nearly disappeared.

Canada’s failure to capture a seat on next year’s Security Council will break a tradition in which America’s northern neighbor has been elected to the most prestigious United Nations body in every decade since 1948. Diplomats here say Brazil was instrumental in handing defeat to Prime Minister Harper in an international contest that pitted Canada, a traditional U.N. power house, against one of the European Union’s least powerful countries – Portugal.

Canada withdrew its candidacy in today’s election for five available council slots after it realized that Portugal had sewn up enough General Assembly votes in the secret ballot to win the only contested seat. Several sources told me that members of a powerful voting bloc in the 192-member assembly – the 57 countries of the Organizations of Islamic Conference – were united in voting for Portugal over Canada, mostly because of Mr. Harper’s record of supporting Israel.

In addition to the OIC, anti-Western countries like Cuba and Venezuela have been active in opposing Canada’s candidacy. Mr. Harper’s right-of-center government, which had originally tried to stay above the fray, increased its efforts in the final weeks, mounting a world-wide campaign to capture the council seat.

But a diplomat familiar with the behind-the-scenes horse trading that marks the annual General Assembly vote tells me that top diplomats from Portuguese-speaking Brazil became particularly active in the last few weeks, convincing Muslim countries that “Canada’s vote on Israel-related issues will be no different than that of the United States, while Portugal would be more balanced.”

The U.N.-based correspondent of Canada’s National Post, Steven Edwards, reported yesterday that foreign ministry officials in Ottawa criticized the timing of a Tel Aviv visit by the country’s international trade minister, Peter Van Loan, in which he announced Sunday – on the eve of the U.N. vote – his intention to tighten Canada’s trade relations with Israel even further.

“That’s no way to win friends and influence people at the U.N.,” one diplomat here said today. While blocs that included the African and Latin American countries were largely thought to have split their vote on the contested seat, the Arab countries and the OIC were largely believed to have voted en-bloc to bar Canada entry to the council.

Mr. Harper’s government has become one of Israel’s more forthright defenders in organizations like the Geneva-based U.N. Human Rights Council, where members like Cuba and Libya often single Israel out and garner enough votes to condemn its human rights record.

Only a few years ago, the American ambassador here would have made a public issue in defense of Canada. But in the maneuvering leading to today’s vote, American diplomats were all but absent.

Conversely, Israeli diplomats who habitually count heads before the votes at international bodies do not see Portugal as a reliable ally among the members of the European Union, which often joins the majorities or abstains after attempting to “soften” anti-Israel votes.

Portugal ended up winning 122 votes in the first round of today’s General Assembly ballot – just short of the 127 needed. Canada got only 114 votes in the first round, and eventually withdrew in the second round, after which Portugal received 150 votes. The balloting is often marked by small bribery in the form of trinkets. Vials of Canadian Maple syrup — an ambrosia unequaled on the planet for its deliciousness — were found by ambassadors as they arrived at their seats before the vote.

There are 10 elected seats at the Security Council, of which five new members are chosen once a year for a 2-year stint according to regional affiliation. The group of democracies known as the Western European and Others Group fielded three candidates this year for the two available seats that were vacated by Turkey and Austria. Germany won easily, which left Canada and Portugal.

Three other regional groups sent one candidate for each available council seat. Colombia replaced Mexico, India replaced Japan, and South Africa – which has amassed a remarkable anti-Western and anti-Israel voting record in its last council stint – replaced Uganda.

On January 1, the five new members will be seated at the famous horseshoe-shaped table alongside the five countries that were elected last year – Bosnia, Brazil, Gabon, Nigeria, and Lebanon – as well as the five permanent council members, Communist China, Russia, Britain, France, and America.