The legitimacy of a much-ballyhooed Security Council meeting on climate change has been challenged by developing nations that argue that the threat to the global environment is not a subject within the purview of the UN’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 on Tuesday that the G77 has consistently maintained that the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change “is the appropriate forum” to consider risks associated with that phenomenon.
There is “no role” envisaged for the Security Council on climate change, he declared.
Despite a letter of protest from the G77 on 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 said, “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 UN charter. All other issues relating to economic and social development are assigned by the charter to the Economic and Social Council and the General Assembly.
He also accused the Security Council of “encroaching” into subjects outside its purview, and “infringing” on the authority of the general membership of the UN.
On earlier occasions, the Security Council has also held meetings on gender rights, HIV/Aids, terrorism and UN procurement.
Conflicting views
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 comes 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 believe the Security Council does not have the necessary expertise. He said climate-change solutions require the concerted effort of the international community. The 15-member Security Council, he said, does 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 is 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.
‘Not optimal mechanism’
The Gulf state of Qatar, another non-permanent member of the council, also distanced itself from the debate. Ambassador Nassir Abdulaziz al-Nasser told delegates that his country does not believe that the council is “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.”
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 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, he added.
Sen said that climate change is not a threat in the context of articles 39 and 41 of the UN 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. — IPS