CLIMATE CHANGE:
Legitimacy of Security Council Meeting Challenged
Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Apr 17 (IPS) - The legitimacy of a much-ballyhooed
Security Council meeting on climate change was challenged by developing
nations who argued that the threat to the global environment is not a
subject within the purview of the U.N.'s most powerful political body.
Speaking on behalf of China and the 130-member Group of 77 (G77)
developing countries, Ambassador Farukh Amil of Pakistan told delegates
Tuesday that the G77 has consistently maintained that the U.N. Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) "is the appropriate forum" to
consider risks associated with that phenomenon.
There was "no role" envisaged for the Security Council on climate change,
he declared.
Despite a letter of protest from the G77 Monday, the Council decided to go
ahead with an open debate on "Energy, Security and Climate."
Although the meeting was addressed by more than 50 countries, only three
Council members were represented by high level ministers: Britain (which
initiated the meeting), Italy and Slovakia. The only other ministers
addressing the meeting were from Germany, the Netherlands and Maldives.
"Despite all the hoopla surrounding the meeting," one G77 delegate told
IPS, "the Brits could garner the support of only five ministers in an
organisation with 192 members. It was obviously a big disappointment for
what was billed as a key meeting on climate change."
Amil said the Security Council's primary responsibility is for the
maintenance of international peace and security, as set out in the U.N.
charter. All other issues relating to economic and social development were
assigned by the charter to the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) and
the General Assembly.
And he accused the Security Council of "encroaching" into subjects outside
its purview, and "infringing" on the authority of the general membership
of the United Nations.
On earlier occasions, the Security Council has also held meetings on
gender rights, HIV/AIDS, terrorism and U.N. procurement.
The Security Council was itself divided on the issue, with two
veto-wielding permanent members - China and France- holding conflicting
views.
Ambassador Jean-Marc de La Sabliere of France insisted that the issue of
energy and climate change came within the Security Council's mandate to
prevent conflicts.
"Thus, it was the duty of the Council to consider what could be done in
terms of preventive diplomacy," he said.
But China's Liu Zhenmin pointed out that developing countries believed the
Security Council did not have the necessary expertise.
He said climate change solutions required the concerted effort of the
international community. The 15-member Security Council, he said, did not
allow for extensive participation in its decision-making or help produce
widely acceptable proposals.
"Discussions in today's meeting should be regarded as an exception, with
neither outcome documents, nor follow-up actions," he added.
South Africa, a non-permanent member, also challenged the right of the
Security Council to hold the meeting, on the grounds that climate change
was a threat to international peace and security.
After outlining the disastrous consequences of climate change on Africa,
Ambassador Dumisani Kumalo of South Africa bluntly told delegates: "The
examples we have raised, describing the impact of climate change, do not
as yet directly threaten international peace and security."
Moreover, he pointed out, the issues are, first and foremost, of a
developmental nature. "These can be best dealt with regionally and in the
General Assembly, a more representative organ than the Security Council.
Furthermore, the mandate of the Security Council does not deal with such
matters," said Kumalo.
He said he attaches great importance to the assurance given by Britain
that the meeting will not result in any presidential statement or draft
resolution.
"We further hope that these discussions will not, in any way, elevate the
issue of climate or environment to being an agenda item of the Security
Council," Kumalo warned.
The Gulf state of Qatar, another non-permanent member of the Council, also
distanced itself from the debate.
Ambassador Nassir Abdulaziz Al-Nasser of Qatar told delegates that his
country did not believe that the Council "was the optimal mechanism to
address the question of climate change because the power line-up in the
15-member body lacked balance."
"What was needed was a specialised, competent and expanded membership
forum like the Commission on Sustainable Development, the Economic and
Social Council, and first and foremost, the General Assembly," he argued.
"And the question of climate change could not be addressed by debates
limited exclusively to the Security Council," he added.
Ambassador Nirupam Sen of India virtually blamed the world's rich
countries for precipitating a possible conflict over climate change.
"In so far as international peace and security are concerned", he pointed
out, "developed countries reducing their greenhouse gas emissions and
energy consumption will considerably reduce such threats (to international
peace and security) through a reduction in the need for privileged access
to energy markets."
Conceptually and logically, even if one assumes that catastrophic
scenarios are certain (which is not the case), the only way to discuss
what can be done about the physical effects of climate change is not
through the Security Council but in the context of the U.N. Framework
Convention on Climate Change, he added.
Sen said that climate change is not a threat in the context of Article 39
and Article 41 of the U.N. charter, both of which call for "action with
respect to threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of
aggression."
In marked contrast, he argued, a more immediate and quantifiable threat is
from possible conflicts arising out of inadequate resources for
development and poverty eradication, as well as competition for energy.
(END/2007)
 |
|
|
