SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
global south
The Gaza Genocide Reveals That the UN Needs Serious Reform
Though the U.N. was formed following the atrocities of WWII, now it stands largely useless in its inability to stop similar atrocities in Palestine, Lebanon, Sudan, and elsewhere.
Nov 19, 2024
Francesca Albanese did not mince her words. In a strongly worded speech at the United Nations General Assembly Third Committee on October 29, the U.N. special rapporteur deviated from the typical line of other U.N. officials. She directed her statements to those in attendance.
“Is it possible that after 42,000 people killed, you cannot empathize with the Palestinians?” Albanese said in her statement about the need to “recognize (Israel’s war on Gaza) as a genocide.” “Those of you who have not uttered a word about what is happening in Gaza demonstrate that empathy has evaporated from this room,” she added.
Was Albanese too idealistic when she chose to appeal to empathy, which, in her words, represents “the glue that makes us stand united as humanity”?
Now that the Global South is finally rising with its own political, economic, and legal initiatives, it is time for these new bodies to either offer a complete alternative to the U.N. or push for serious and irreversible reforms in the organization.
The answer largely depends on how we wish to define the role being played by the U.N. and its various institutions, whether its global platform was established as a guarantor of peace, or as a political club for those with military might and political power to impose their agendas on the rest of the world?
Albanese is not the first person to express deep frustration with the institutional, let alone the moral, collapse of the U.N., or the inability of the institution to affect any kind of tangible change, especially during times of great crises.
The U.N.’s own Secretary-General Antonio Guterres himself had accused the executive branch of the U.N., the Security Council, of being “outdated,” “unfair,” and an “ineffective system.”
“The truth is that the Security Council has systematically failed in relation to the capacity to put an end to the most dramatic conflicts that we face today,” he said, referring to “Sudan, Gaza, Ukraine.” Also, although noting that “the U.N. is not the Security Council,” Guterres acknowledged that all U.N. bodies “suffer from the fact that the people look at them and think, ‘Well, but the Security Council has failed us.’”
Some U.N. officials, however, are mainly concerned about how the U.N.’s failure is compromising the standing of the international system, thus whatever remains of their own credibility. But some, like Albanese, are indeed driven by an overriding sense of humanity.
On October 28, 2023, mere weeks after the start of the war, the director of the New York office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights left his post because he could no longer find any room to reconcile between the failure to stop the war in Gaza and the credibility of the institution.
“This will be my last communication to you,” Craig Mokhiber wrote to the U.N. high commissioner in Geneva, Volker Turk. “Once again we are seeing a genocide unfolding before our eyes, and the organization we serve appears powerless to stop it,” Mokhiber added.
The phrase “once again” may explain why the U.N. official made his decision to leave shortly after the start of the war. He felt that history was repeating itself, in all its gory details, while the international community remained divided between powerlessness and apathy.
The problem is multilayered, complicated by the fact that U.N. officials and employees do not have the power to alter the very skewed structure of the world’s largest political institution. That power lies in the hands of those who wield political, military, financial, and veto power.
Within that context, countries like Israel can do whatever they want, including outlawing the very U.N. organizations that have been commissioned to uphold international law, as the Israeli Knesset did on October 28 when it passed a law banning UNRWA from conducting “any activity” or providing services in Israel and the occupied territories.
But is there a way out?
Many, especially in the Global South, believe that the U.N. has outlived its usefulness or needs serious reforms.
These assessments are valid, based on this simple maxim: The U.N. was established in 1945 with the main objectives of the “maintenance of international peace and security, the promotion of the well-being of the peoples of the world, and international cooperation to these ends.”
Very little of the above commitment has been achieved. In fact, not only has the U.N. failed at that primary mission, but it has become a manifestation of the unequaled distribution of power among its members.
Though the U.N. was formed following the atrocities of WWII, now it stands largely useless in its inability to stop similar atrocities in Palestine, Lebanon, Sudan, and elsewhere.
In her speech, Albanese pointed out that if the U.N.’s failures continue, its mandate will become even “more and more irrelevant to the rest of the world,” especially during these times of turmoil.
Albanese is right, of course, but considering the irreversible damage that has already taken place, one can hardly find a moral, let alone rational, justification of why the U.N., at least in its current form, should continue to exist.
Now that the Global South is finally rising with its own political, economic, and legal initiatives, it is time for these new bodies to either offer a complete alternative to the U.N. or push for serious and irreversible reforms in the organization.
Either that or the international system will continue to be defined by nothing but apathy and self-interest.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Climate Campaigners Demand COP29 Free of 'False' Finance Solutions
"We are hurtling toward 3° of warming; human rights can't withstand dangerous distractions," said one climate justice advocate.
Nov 11, 2024
The 2024 United Nations Climate Change Conference has been called the "climate finance" conference, with participants expected to establish a new annual target for providing funds for the Global South to confront the climate crisis—but campaigners on Monday expressed concern that on the first day of the summit, there are already signs leaders will push for "false solutions" that only perpetuate planetary heating.
An annual climate finance target of $100 billion was set by policymakers in 2009, but that pledge expires at the end of 2024 and advocates say it's just a fraction of what is needed to help developing countries invest in climate crisis mitigation and adaptation to planetary heating.
Tasneem Essop, executive director of Climate Action Network, which includes more than 1,900 global civil society groups, told The Guardian that "a down payment of $5 trillion" annually in climate finance is needed, noting that "the debt is much larger."
But Sébastien Duyck, senior attorney for the Center for International Environmental Law, said the Azerbaijani presidency of the 29th Conference of the Parties of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP29) is already looking "to speed up the endorsement of new standards on carbon markets."
"This is extremely alarming. If this moves forward, it would be a real cop-out by governmental delegations gathered in Baku," said Duyck, referring to the capital of Azerbaijan, where COP29 is being held over the next 11 days.
Duyck pointed to new standards that were passed ahead of COP29 by a supervisory body with the aim of operationalizing and expanding carbon markets—pricing mechanisms that allow governments and other entities to trade greenhouse gas emission "credits."
"Fully operationalizing carbon markets on Day 1 would set a terrible precedent for the next two weeks, starting COP29 on a disastrous note and eroding the trust needed to achieve a bold, transformative agreement on finance," said Jax Bongon, climate justice policy officer for IBON International.
Proponents say carbon markets allow wealthy countries or corporations to purchase "carbon credits" from countries in the Global South; in exchange, governments in developing countries are paid to build renewable energy infrastructure, plant trees, or take other sustainable steps.
Those steps are thought to "buy time" for the wealthy country or company to cut down on their own pollution. But the scheme has been exposed as allowing companies to continue polluting without the supposed "offsets" actually helping to mitigate the climate crisis.
Lise Masson, climate justice and energy advocacy officer at Friends of the Earth (FOE), emphasized that "carbon markets are not climate finance, and we cannot accept these neocolonial schemes to be propped up as a success of COP29."
"Decisions at COP29 threaten to open the floodgates for a global carbon market that would have devastating impacts on communities in the Global South, on Indigenous peoples, and on small peasant farmers first and foremost," said Masson.
Marta Scaaf, who directs Amnesty International's climate justice program, warned COP29 delegates may "bypass accountability norms on Day 1 and issue recommendations to govern carbon markets, which are essentially pollution permits."
Essop suggested that carbon markets are being pushed as a false solution in order to save wealthy countries from having to provide what is needed for the Global South to mitigate the climate crisis and adapt to the hurricanes, flooding, drought, and other extreme conditions that have been linked to planetary heating.
"Five trillion dollars is what we come here to demand," Essop said. "Governments out there are absolutely capable of finding the money that does wrong in the world. They found the money for military spending. They found the money for the genocide in Gaza. They find the money to subsidize and support the fossil fuel industry. To come here and say that they do not have money is absolutely untruthful and unacceptable."
Meena Raman of FOE Malaysia stressed that climate finance "isn't charity; it's reparations for a climate debt long overdue."
"Grants must replace loans, and loss and damage funding must also be scaled up tremendously to meet the needs of impacted countries in the Global South," said Raman. "Debt cancellation for the Global South is essential to break cycles of injustice. The money exists: redirecting funds from global military spending and climate justice are paths forward."
The international human rights group Global Witness drove home the point by taking over the web address that some might arrive at if they were looking for more information about COP29.
Visitors to cop29.com on Monday were met with the words "Payback Time."
"We've taken over cop29.com to unite the millions of people demanding justice," said Global Witness. "This summer broke heat records again. Wildfires, droughts, and storms are killing thousands and driving up the cost of food, energy, and insurance. Worse is coming."
"COP29 is our moment," added the group. "The loss and damage fund was created to help developing nations that are being hit hardest by climate chaos... Fossil fuel companies rake in billions. They must pay into the fund to help communities rebuild, adapt, and repair some of the damage they've caused."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Unacceptable,' Advocates Say as COP16 Ends Without Biodiversity Fund Deal
"Biodiversity finance remains stalled after a deafening absence of credible finance pledges from wealthy governments and unprecedented corporate lobbying," said one campaigner.
Nov 02, 2024
Officials at the international biodiversity conference that began in October were forced on Saturday to suspend talks without reaching an agreement on a key issue of the summit—a detailed finance plan for a dedicated biodiversity fund—after the meeting went into overtime and delegates began leaving.
The failure to reach an agreement on biodiversity finance was denounced by the head of environmental group Greenpeace's delegation at the 16th Conference of Parties (COP16) to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), which took place over two weeks in Cali, Colombia.
"Governments in Cali put forward plans to protect nature but were unable to mobilize the money to actually do it," said An Lambrechts. "Biodiversity finance remains stalled after a deafening absence of credible finance pledges from wealthy governments and unprecedented corporate lobbying... Closing the finance gap was not merely some moral obligation but necessary to the protection of people and nature that grows more urgent each day."
Lambrechts added that with international leaders now preparing to attend the 2024 U.N. Climate Change Conference, or COP29, in Baku, Azerbaijan this month, "the non-decision on a fund damages trust between Global South and North countries."
The conference was aimed at ramping up progress toward meeting goals set by the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework in Canada in 2022. That framework calls for the protection of 30% of land and sea areas and the restoration of 30% of degraded ecosystems by 2030.
In Canada, delegations also agreed to phase out subsidies that are harmful to nature and to provide $200 billion per year for the protection of biodiversity by 2030, including $30 billion per year that would be transferred from rich to poor countries. A larger goal of ultimately generating $700 billion to protect nature was also part of the agreement.
About $15 billion was transferred in 2022, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), and nations have pledged about $400 million to a Global Biodiversity Framework Fund.
But in Cali in recent days, Colombian environment minister Susana Muhamad offered a draft proposal for the establishment of a dedicated biodiversity fund—a priority for developing nations at the conference—only to have delegations including those from the European Union, Switzerland, and Japan reject the proposal.
"Two years ago, we made a commitment to do better and be better," said Jiwoh Abdulai, minister of environment and climate change for Sierra Leone. "This COP has neither delivered that additional funding nor given us confidence that governments will work together to deliver it in a transparent and urgent manner."
The Forests & Finance Coalition—which includes Amazon Watch, Rainforest Action Network (RAN), and Friends of the Earth U.S., among others—called the result of finance discussions at the meeting "disappointing."
"This latest development makes it all the more critical that banks and investors are stopped from financing destructive sectors that continue to drive nature loss and human rights abuses," said Tom Picken, RAN's forests and finance director.
Lambrechts acknowledged that "big pharma and big agribusiness failed to block a game-changing deal on corporate responsibility to pay up for nature protections."
COP16 delegates devised a plan to create a fund that would share the profits generated from digitally sequenced genetic data taken from plants and animals with the communities—mostly in the Global South—that the species come from.
Companies that make money from cosmetics, medicines, and other products that use digitally sequenced genetic data would pay into the fund, but the final agreement made participation voluntary, saying only that companies "should" contribute.
Indigenous delegates celebrated the creation of a permanent body within the CBD to represent the interests of Indigenous groups—a "historic victory," according to Leila Salazar-López, executive director of the nonprofit Amazon Watch.
A work plan was approved by the convention to expand the role of Indigenous people, local communities, and Afro-descendant people in the protection of biodiversity.
"Thanks to this new body and work plan approval, future COPs will work, amongst many other important issues, on land tenure, traditional knowledge and governance by Indigenous Peoples," said Isaac Rojas, forests and biodiversity coordinator for Friends of the Earth International (FOE). "It's a milestone in the struggle of Indigenous peoples for their rights. We congratulate them and share their joy following this win. But we have to remain vigilant, because these achievements may turn out to be empty words in view of the push for several false solutions."
FOE warned that false solutions, particularly biodiversity offsetting, were pushed heavily by corporations at the conference.
Corporate interests called for biodiversity credits—"tradeable assets intended to represent 'measurable outcomes'—such as protecting or restoring certain species or ecosystems, or parts of them," according to FOE. "Similar to carbon credits, they allow corporations to buy and sell these, to meet regulations or voluntary sustainability claims."
Nele Marien, forests and biodiversity co-coordinator for FOE, said Saturday that "corporations were here pushing very hard for all kinds of false solutions, for example on biodiversity offsetting, which had a lot of traction."
"They argue that they can keep pushing into new territories, and destroying these ecosystems, promising that they will compensate for this," said Marien. "This is simply impossible, because we don't have space in the world to compensate for these losses. Biodiversity offsetting is a mechanism that further perpetuates destruction, undermines human rights, and damages environmental justice."
A spokesperson for the CBD, David Ainsworth, told reporters that the conference would resume at a later date.
Estefania Gonzalez, deputy campaign director for Greenpeace Andino, said delegates were "able to take advantage of COP16 to bring much of the priority agenda of the Global South to the center of the negotiations, fighting to the last minute to reach agreements on financing."
But she added that "the resource mobilization committed by developed countries must be fulfilled immediately without further excuses."
"It is unacceptable that rich countries, besides failing to meet the $20 billion commitment," she said, "were unwilling to seek consensus on one of the most crucial issues: financing."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular