Blog

Posted:
August 7, 2012
Author:
Nathan Thanki

Has US given up on keeping warming below 2 degrees?

As we are now only 3 weeks away from crucial climate change negotiations in Bangkok (which will set the stage for this years 18th Conference of the Parties, in Doha), US Special Envoy on climate change – Todd Stern – has dropped a bit of a bomb during a speech at Dartmouth. Rather than stick to what the science demands, and limit global warming to 2 degrees celcius, Mr Stern is advocating for a DIY-style pledge and review system. Rather than honouring what had been agreed 20 years ago in the Climate Convention, and fleshed out in the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, Mr Stern wants to treat China and India like first world nations. As Bob Marley said, "in this bright future, you can't forget your past." So let us not forget where the historical responsibility for climate change lays. 

The following is a cross post from the always excellent RTCC blog and the original can be seen here

 

 

"US says two degree guarantee should be dropped by global climate change deal"

by RTCC Staff

The 2°C guarantee should be dropped from the global climate change deal to allow for more flexibility and avoid deadlock, US Special Envoy for Climate Change Todd Stern has said.

Speaking at Dartmouth College he said removing the 2°C specification from the agreement would allow countries to get on with actions to limit climate change now while leaving it open for further ambition at a later date.

“It is more important to start now with a regime that can get us going in the right direction and that is built in a way maximally conducive to raising ambition, spurring innovation and building political will,” he said adding that insisting on an agreement that would guarantee the 2°C limit would only lead to deadlock.

The 2°C target, which all countries signed up to at the Copenhagen climate conference in 2009, follows from the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change looking at the impacts of climate change which surpasses this limit.

In Durban last December, countries signed up to the UNFCCC, agreed to put together aglobal climate agreement by the end of 2015 to be effective in 2020.

The next meeting, taking place in Doha, Qatar this December will continue these talks.

A ‘flexible’ agreement should begin with countries submitting their own targets to the UNFCCC, said Stern, with an opportunity for public consultation after six months to help drive ambition further.

He said a ‘highly prescriptive’ climate agreement would be hard to agree to for all countries who could see this as a hindrance to growth and development, but that a new deal should be flexible enough to allow for modification as technological advancements make emissions reductions easier in the future.

“The key to making headway in this early conceptual phase of the new agreement is to be open to new ideas that can work in the real world and to keep our eyes on the prize of reducing emissions rather than insisting on old orthodoxies,” he said.

He told the crowd that the negotiations were at an ‘interesting juncture’ following the results in Durban – which saw all countries agree to be part of a future deal setting out climate change targets.

It would be impossible to set out a new legal target which didn’t include the developing world, alongside the developed world, he told the audience, adding that securing Senate support in the US is difficult enough but would be impossible if the likes of China were not included in the global agreement.

“You can not build a system that treats China like Chad, when China is the world’s second largest economy, largest emitter, second largest historic emitter, [and] will be twice the size of the US in emissions in a few years,” he said.

Posted:
July 27, 2012
Author:
COA Students

The Arms Trade Treaty has come to its end but states parties fail to adopt an agreement.

By Angeline Annesteus

The UN conference on the Arms Trade Treaty comes to its end but as always a lot can happen in the last minutes of the negotiations. Yesterday, the chair of the negotiations released a new draft text but it is full of potential loopholes. Many different areas of the text would need to be reconsidered in order for the treaty to meet its overall goal and objective: a robust, comprehensive treaty with the highest possible common standards

One of the most serious loopholes is in article 5.2 of the text which states that implementation of this treaty shall not be cited as grounds for voiding contractual obligations under defense cooperation agreements concluded by States Parties to this Treaty.

This is just one of the many drafting challenges that would for instance allow exporters, according to this article, to continue to sell weapons to governments even in instances where the weapons will likely violate International Human Rights and Humanitarian Laws.

Key blockers

The key blockers are USA, India, Russia, the African States, CARICOM and China. Each blocker presents a different issue but this time China is apparently trying to avoid a great escape. Article 2 B (3) of the consolidated text states "this Treaty shall apply to those activities of the international trade in conventional arms….. under the scope of this Treaty". According to China and many other delegates, the article provides a serious gasp because states can evade control of weapons through gifting weapons or military assistance programs.

The African states, did not allow for a consensus to be reached because of the exclusions of ammunition under scope and the lack of full inclusion of gender-based armed violence under the treaty. The concerns of the African states are legitimate. For decades, the continent has suffered from armed violence, civil wars, and human right abuses including lack of socio-economic development due to illicit and irresponsible arms transfer.

Similarly, conflict in and around Africa has made military spending a necessity in the region where almost all countries have focused on securing their territories instead of working to mitigate poverty. The Stockholm International Peace Research (SIPRI) acknowledges that in 2008, $ 20.4 billion has spent in military spending in Africa with Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Morocco, and Tunisia accounting for 40% of it. Rapidly growing revenues or emerging countries in the region, including South Africa, have been made considerable investments in purchasing arms for security purposes as well.

The clock is ticking and the ATT is at a high risk a failure but Africa cannot stand for a weak ATT in the name of consensus. They are the most affected by the direct and indirect consequences of the irresponsible arms trade that causes the lost of millions of lives and holds back socio-economical development. The world, but most particularly Africa, needs a strong and robust ATT with the highest common standards possible.

We lost an historic opportunity today but the battle will continue. Governments will have a second chance to make the treaty a reality by taking the text forward to the General Assembly in the fall. 

Posted:
July 26, 2012
Author:
COA Students

The Arms Trade Treaty and the P5’s dilemma

By Angeline Annesteus

 

With one day left to conclude the first ever Arms Trade Treaty, the African states, CARICOM, NGOS, and other delegations urge the P5 to close the remaining gaps in the treaty text that is now under negotiations.

The whole point is that nobody is supposed to be making profit by transferring arms to governments or any armed group that will use them to attack civilians. The P5 (China, Russia, UK, France, US) are the five permanent Security Council members, and along with Germany they are responsible for 74% of global arms deal. Meanwhile, the P5 are also responsible to maintain peace and security. The P5’s dilemma is that there is a conflict between peace and profit and that they have no other choice than choosing one or another.

Despite the pressure from Washington, France and UK have been key champions advocating for peace and security throughout the negotiations. They believe that an Arms Trade Treaty that does not include strong provisions on ammunitions and Human Rights and International Humanitarian rules will not serve as an effective tool for preventing the deadly consequences of the poorly unregulated International Arms Trade.

China, Russia, and the US are still uncertain. They all wish to promote peace and security but with putting a band aid on a serious issue. China is calling for weak provisions on Human Rights and International Humanitarian Laws while the US is asking for the exclusions of ammunitions. In fact, the US has made clear that they prioritize profit over peace. In April16 of 2012, the head of the US delegation, Thomas Countryman, had reiterated the US position on his remarks at Stimson Center:

The US has made our position on one other issue very clear in the preliminary discussions with international partners. Many states and organizations –many of them without major armaments industries or significant international arms trade – have sought to include ammunition in the scope of an ATT. The United States, which produces over seven billion rounds of ammunition a year, has resisted those efforts on the grounds that including ammunition is hugely impractical.

It’s hard to believe that the US would not want to regulate the international movement of ammunitions when they know that of the 12 billions of ammunition produced each year, huge amounts of them fuel all forms of armed conflict globally. As Nigeria points it out, a weapon is only a weapon when there is ammunition inserted. Without strict control on ammunition, it’s less likely that states will be able to control the hundreds of millions of weapons that are already in circulation. States parties have to put tight regulations on ammunitions to help control the weapons that are already in circulation and are responsible for 750.000 deaths yearly as a result of armed violence.

As for now, we remain optimistic that states parties will not miss this unique opportunity to make the most important step toward regulation of global arms trade that will save the life of millions of civilians around the globe. 

Posted:
July 25, 2012
Author:
COA Students

The Arms Trade Treaty’s running behind schedule and under serious threats!

By Angeline Annesteus

 

The opening week of the Arms Trade Treaty was characterized by procedural matters and wrangling because the Arab Group (Egypt) asked for Palestine to be recognized as a state, which Israel obviously refused. The past three weeks, states got down to some important discussions but did not have the basis for negotiations on most of the key elements of the treaty.

As states are running a least one week behind schedule and there are now only three days left, the chair finally put out a complete negotiating text but it is very weak and there are potential risks for loopholes and gasps. Some key elements such as ammunitions are excluded from the text’s provisions.

The talks which carried on throughout the weekend until now are being dominated by skeptical governments such as Cuba, Syria, and Iran that wish to have either a weak or no treaty at all. The United States wants the exclusions of ammunitions, or if included it shouldn’t be under scope and criteria.

Russia and China are against effective human rights and international humanitarian rules in any deal. In fact, China and Russia positions are very threatening but not surprising. Of the five Permanent Security Council members, not only China and Russia are against the inclusions of effective human rights and international humanitarian laws, but also they are chief violators of these laws and UN arms embargoes by transferring arms to governments that perpetrate civilian terrors, including Syria and Sudan.

France and United Kingdom which throughout the negotiations have been key advocates of a strong treaty are now facing pressure from Washington, and show concerns that they might have to trade-off strong human rights and international humanitarian laws just to get China, US, and Russia sign up any final deal.

Countries, including Japan and Australia, are reportedly saying less and less of real substance in the negotiations instead of putting their efforts to have key players behind-closed door talks.

The top escape clauses for States in the final draft of consolidated text of the ATT are summarized as follow,

1.      Meaningless references to controlling parts and components and ammunition

2.     States can evade controls on weapons through gifting weapons or through military assistance programs.

3.     The rules governing arms exports allow states to ignore human rights

4.     States can make their own judgments irrespective of the criteria

5.     Existing arms deals can’t be broken regardless of the behavior of the recipient

While this situation is very critical and disappointing, we still believe that states can reach to a consensus to bring about what is being seen as the most important initiative toward regulation of global trade in conventional weapons: A robust and comprehensive Arms Trade Treaty with the highest international standards.

The African states (except Tanzania), the CARICOM and ECOWAS group will not bow down to pressure. The ATT must include clear and strong provisions on ammunitions, and human rights and international humanitarian laws or there will be no treaty. 

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →