It was déjà vu in the United Nations Security Council last week.
The Security Council took up climate change for a second time in the past four years. These talks were supposed to produce a unanimous statement asking the UN secretary general to appoint a climate and security envoy and officially introduce climate change into the Security Council’s agenda.
The United Kingdom first tried this in 2007, but the Group of 77 shot it down because it “encroaches” on the role of other UN groups and “compromises the rights of the general membership of the United Nations,” according to Pakistan’s deputy ambassador, Farukh Amil.
This year, Germany thought it had a better chance at making progress since it had more support from developing nations. It thought wrong.
The Security Council issued the final statement:
“The Security Council expresses its concern that possible adverse effects of climate change may, in the long run, aggravate certain existing threats to international peace and security. The Security Council expresses its concern that possible security implications of loss of territory of some states caused by sea-level-rise may arise, in particular in small low-lying island states.”
Some island nations see this as a positive step forward, an official statement linking climate change and security concerns. However, this weak agreement that mentions “possible security implications” that “may arise” makes the initial goals of adopting a climate envoy or a climate change peacekeeping force unlikely.
Those who disagreed with bringing climate change into the Security Council believe that it should be dealt with in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
China voiced concerns over addressing climate change as an international security concern and instead viewed it as a matter of sustainable development.
India also wants to keep climate change issues to the UNFCCC. "Peacekeeping missions, use of force and sanctions, which the UN Security Council can authorize, do not fit the problems of climate change," Indian envoy to the UN Hardeep Puri said earlier this week.
It was not only developing nations this time around. Russia also believed that climate change issues in the UN Security Council “will not bring any added value whatsoever and will merely lead to further increased politicization of this issue and increased disagreements between countries,” according to Russian envoy Alexander Pankin.
The conflicting views of what climate change is and how it should be dealt with hinder bringing it into other UN entities. However, since the effects of climate change are wide-ranging, implementing it into other programs could indeed help the overall climate talks in the UNFCCC. Agreements in the Security Council could create consensus on climate change that can transfer into the UNFCCC.
Maybe they’ll try again in another four years.
