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
summit of the future
'Words Are Not Enough': UN Pact for the Future Must Lead to Action, Climate Groups Say
"This a positive signal... but the real work is in implementation and political leaders must now turn this promise into action."
Sep 23, 2024
The world's nations agreed on Sunday to pass the "potentially game-changing" Pact for the Future, drawing praise from climate groups but also warnings that its abstract, generalized reforms must lead to concrete action.
The 56-page United Nations agreement, which deals not just with climate but also such issues as inequality, security, artificial intelligence, and global governance, was passed by consensus at the end of a dramatic weekend summit. It came after nine months of negotiations, with one sticking point being whether a reference to "transitioning away from fossil fuels" would be included—ultimately, it was.
"This a positive signal for the road ahead, but the real work is in implementation and political leaders must now turn this promise into action," Mads Christensen, Greenpeace International's executive director, said in a statement. "Halfway through this critical decade, this pact must actually deliver a future the people want—a safe climate and a future free of fossil fuels."
Romain Ioualalen, global policy manager at Oil Change International, agreed with Christensen's take.
"Today, countries once again put the fight against fossil fuels at the heart of the multilateral response to the climate crisis," Ioualalen said in a statement. "But words are not enough, we need urgent action."
NEWS: The Pact for the Future has been adopted by member countries by consensus at UN Headquarters in New York.
The adoption will help pave the way for greater international cooperation for #OurCommonFuture. pic.twitter.com/JnennVi2Jb
— United Nations (@UN) September 22, 2024
U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres made similar remarks to close the weekend summit, which preceded this week's high-level U.N. General Assembly talks.
"We are here to bring multilateralism back from the brink," Guterres said. "Now it is our common destiny to walk through it. That demands not just agreement, but action."
The Associated Pressreported that "the pact's fate was in question until the last moment" and "there was so much suspense that Guterres had three prepared speeches, one for approval, one for rejection, and one if things weren't clear," based on comments from a U.N. spokesperson.
Russia intervened to try to "significantly" water down the agreement, the AP reported. Russia sought to add an amendment that said that "the United Nations and its system shall not intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state." It was supported only by a handful of authoritarian regimes, and a 54-country bloc of African nations came out against it, which the AP said was seen as "a blow to Moscow."
The Pact for the Future had been looked upon warily by progressive observers for some time. Friends of the Earth International suggested in a statement earlier this month that it didn't do enough to address the lack of Global South voices in global decision-making, and that the U.N. process was being captured by corporate interests. Gonzalo Berrón of the Transnational Institute said at the time that the pact risked "becoming yet another exercise in maintaining the status quo."
Other critiques also emerged after the agreement was finalized. Annika Silva-Leander of International IDEA wrote that the pact was "critical" but didn't address the "rise of authoritarianism and the global decline in democracy, both of which contribute to global instability."
A preliminary draft of the agreement had failed to include the words "fossil fuels," drawing criticism from observers, but the final version included the one reference to phasing them out.
The specific actions that Ioualalen of Oil Change International called for following the agreement included the adoption of national climate plans—"nationally determined contributions"—that halt fossil fuel expansion and phase out all current production, and the adoption by rich nations of an agreement to send $1 trillion annually in climate finance to the Global South.
"The clock is ticking," Ioualalen said. "It's time to pay up and phase out."
Climate finance will be at the top of the agenda at the COP29 summit in Azerbaijan in November. Advocates were dissatisfied with the progress made at preliminary talks in Bonn, Germany in June.
Keep ReadingShow Less
The UN Summit of the Future’s Commitment to Corporate Power Undermines Its Goals
If world leaders who are coming to the U.N. Summit on September 22 and 23 are serious about protecting the future of humanity and the planet, they should dismantle an anti-democratic investment system.
Sep 17, 2024
The United Nations is hosting world leaders on September 22 and 23 for a “Summit of the Future.” Unfortunately, the draft action plan for the summit, while full of lofty language and some good intentions, does not challenge the neoliberal model or corporate control of the global economy.
On the contrary, it proposes, for example, to “facilitate access of developing countries to the WTO and promote trade and investment liberalization.”
It’s astounding that this plan, which is supposed to serve as the basis for an inter-governmental agreement, is so stuck in the past. For decades now, social movements and elected officials in many countries have become increasingly opposed to trade and investment rules that grant enormous privileges and power to transnational corporations.
The increase in demand for minerals for euphemistically named “green” energy transitions means that governments will be at greater risk of facing multi-million dollar lawsuits, as these processes are generating social reactions worldwide.
In many ways, these old rules directly contradict the U.N. summit’s overall goal of creating “a world that is safe, sustainable, peaceful, inclusive, just, equal, orderly, and resilient.”
They also make a mockery of the summit’s stated commitment to the U.N. Charter principle of “full respect for the sovereign equality of all Member States” and the principle of “equal rights and self-determination of peoples.”
Just take a look at how the natural resource extractive industries have used the existing investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) system to undercut national sovereignty and sustainability and to foment conflict. The mining sector, in particular, has used this system, enforced through almost 3,000 treaties, to sue governments in supranational tribunals, bypassing national legal systems.
The vast majority of ISDS claims are directed against countries in the so-called “Global South,” and most suits are targeted at Latin American countries. ISDS allow corporations to suppress the opposition of local and Indigenous communities fighting for their territorial and environmental rights. When governments respond in favor of communities resisting mining projects, companies often use these lawsuits to blackmail governments into backing down and granting permits for environmentally destructive projects or pay “compensation” for the loss of expected corporate profits.
Investment treaties even include “full protection and security” clauses that give companies the right to demand that governments repress communities that oppose their mining projects. In Guatemala, for instance, the Nevada-based mining company KCA claims that the government failed to provide access to a mining site blocked by Indigenous protesters, and is suing the country for more than $400 million.
The increase in demand for minerals for euphemistically named “green” energy transitions means that governments will be at greater risk of facing multi-million dollar lawsuits, as these processes are generating social reactions worldwide. The Transnational Institute, the Institute for Policy Studies, and other organizations recently published extensive information on mining (and other) company lawsuits against governments in an “ISDS-Tracker” site.
Panama is facing a particularly scandalous example of these ISDS lawsuits. The people of this country have risen up against the Canadian mining company First Quantum and in November 2023 succeeded in having Panama’s Supreme Court declare the renewal of the company’s copper mine license unconstitutional. This led the Panamanian National Assembly to approve a mining moratorium law.
According to reports, First Quantum has sued Panama for the unpayable sum of $30 billion at the International Chamber of Commerce in Paris, and has threatened another $20 billion arbitration under the Canada-Panama Free Trade Agreement.
Other transnational mining companies affected by the cancellation of licenses have followed First Quantum’s example and, in total, Panama faces ISDS claims for at least $57 billion, equivalent to more than half of its GDP.
As we demonstrate in our recent report “ISDS: A portrait of transnational power in Mexico, the investment protection regime, and its consequences,” Mexico is facing lawsuits totaling at least $13 billion, with more than half of them related to mining. This figure is partial, as it corresponds only to claims at the World Bank’s International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), which publishes information about them. On the other hand, the International Chamber of Commerce, where Panama has been sued, and other supranational tribunals do not publish information on cases.
The ISDS system has been dismantled among some rich countries. For instance, the United States and Canada eliminated it among themselves in the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement. The European Union eliminated it among its member states and is exiting the Energy Charter Treaty, which also allowed these investor-state suits.
If world leaders who are coming to the U.N. Summit on September 22 and 23 are serious about protecting the future of humanity and the planet, they should dismantle this anti-democratic investment system (ISDS) for all countries.
Keep ReadingShow Less
UN 'Pact for the Future' Decried for Not Even Including the Words 'Fossil Fuels'
Nearly 80 world leaders and Nobel laureates say the 'Pact for the Future' will be deeply flawed if it ignores the key driver of the planetary crisis.
Aug 13, 2024
A group of 77 former world leaders, Nobel laureates, and scientists on Tuesday called on United Nations member countries to reintroduce into an upcoming treaty, the Pact for the Future, a strong commitment to transitioning away from fossil fuels.
The Pact for the Future has been under negotiation by U.N. member nations this year and is expected to be signed at a special meeting in September called the Summit of the Future.
The initial draft of the agreement, from January, included language fairly similar to that which nearly 200 U.N. nations agreed to at last year's COP28 climate summit in Dubai, calling on countries to "accelerat[e] the transition away from fossil fuels." The first draft also included a commitment to setting a deadline to end fossil fuel subsidies.
However, subsequent versions have not included any reference to fossil fuels, the burning of which is the main cause of the climate emergency, due to the greenhouse gases emitted. In response, the 77 leading figures have published a letter supported by the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative.
"The omission of fossil fuels from the draft Pact for the Future is another stark failure to confront one of the greatest threats to our planet and humanity."
The signatories include Muhammad Yunus, Nobel Peace Prize winner and chief adviser in Bangladesh's new interim government; Mary Robinson, the former president of Ireland; the Dalai Lama; and Stefan Löfven, the former prime minister of Sweden.
The authors of the letter wrote that they are "gravely concerned" about the watering down of the agreement.
"We call on the United Nations to ensure that the Pact for the Future includes robust commitments to manage and finance a fast and fair global transition away from coal, oil, and gas extraction in line with the 1.5ºC limit agreed to by nations in the Paris Agreement," they wrote.
"If the Summit of the Future does not address the threat of fossil fuels, it will not be worthy of its name, risking undermining a once-in-a-century opportunity to restore trust in the power of international cooperation," they added.
Jody Williams, a human rights activist and Nobel Peace Prize winner who signed the letter, said in a statement that "unless fossil fuels are tackled, there is no future to safeguard."
Löfven, who led Sweden from 2014 until 2021 and is now head of the Party of European Socialists, a coalition of center-left parties from around Europe, also spoke forcefully about the need for a stronger international agreement.
"The omission of fossil fuels from the draft Pact for the Future is another stark failure to confront one of the greatest threats to our planet and humanity, " he said. "World leaders should be unequivocal when it comes to acting decisively and collectively to prevent further climate impacts, and instead, they are deciding to bury their heads in the sand."
"Only through unwavering international cooperation to phase out fossil fuels can we safeguard our common future," he added.
The pact is not exclusive to climate issues but covers five areas: sustainable development; peace and security; science and technology; youth and future generations; and transforming global governance, including international financial architecture reform.
The first draft of the pact released in January, despite its mention of fossil fuels, was "somewhat unambitious," according to Tim Hirschel-Burns, a policy liaison at the Boston University Global Development Policy Center. The draft didn't contain many concrete, binding proposals, he wrote on the center's website in April.
Hirschel-Burns called for the treaty to include language that would give more voting power to Global South countries at the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, and an end to the gentleman's agreement that places a European in control of the former institution and an American the latter. Some language regarding Global South representation at those financial institutions was included in the newest draft of the pact.
In May, Human Rights Watch called for a strong pact that prioritized economic justice and the environment. HRW asserted that civil society organizations hadn't been consulted enough and that China, Russia, Cuba, and Iran had sought to weaken the human rights provisions in the agreement. However, the group was also critical of Western countries, saying that "their selective application of human rights undermines the credibility of such an agenda, particularly for countries in the Global South."
"While the United States and other Western countries justifiably condemn Russia’s atrocities in Ukraine, for example, many of them have not shown the same resolve concerning Israel's atrocities in Gaza," the HRW statement said. "While the European Union says it champions human rights protection globally, it opposes efforts at the U.N. to make the international tax system fairer for developing countries."
The Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative, which published Tuesday's letter, leads an effort to establish an international agreement in which full transparency is developed over fossil fuel reserves so that countries can successfully negotiate a phaseout of their use. A huge number of government entities and global organizations have endorsed the idea, but only 13 countries have signed on so far.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular