T

he world is on track to breach the critical 1.5 degrees Celsius warming threshold within just a few years, according to a new assessment from the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), which cautioned that the overshoot would intensify extreme weather and place growing strain on ecosystems, glaciers and coastal communities.

UNEP said reversing course and bringing long-term warming back under 1.5C remains achievable but is far from guaranteed, requiring both steep, rapid cuts to greenhouse gas emissions and active efforts to pull existing carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.

Under the 2015 Paris Agreement, nations pledged to hold global temperature increases within 1.5C of pre-industrial levels in order to limit the worst effects of climate change. With that goal now almost certain to be missed, UNEP said the priority is shifting toward minimizing how long global temperatures stay above the threshold rather than preventing the breach altogether. The agency warned that every year of inaction and every additional fraction of a degree compounds the danger, cautioning that some resulting damage could prove permanent even if temperatures eventually come back down.

Even in the best-case scenario, one in which every country fully delivers on its existing climate pledges, warming would still likely peak around 1.8C above pre-industrial levels, and the report suggested the actual outcome is likely to run higher. Based on the policies currently in place worldwide, UNEP projected that median warming could reach roughly 2.6C by the end of the century.

Carbon removal seen as essential, not a substitute

The report identified carbon dioxide removal efforts, including large-scale reforestation, as a necessary part of reining in rising temperatures, but stressed that such measures cannot substitute for deep, direct reductions in current emissions.

Scientists have long emphasized that each additional fraction of a degree of warming brings disproportionately larger risks, and that limiting temperature rise as much as possible remains essential to preserving a livable planet. It’s worth noting that a single month or year exceeding 1.5C does not by itself mean the Paris Agreement’s target has been missed, since that goal is defined over long-term, decadal averages rather than short-term fluctuations driven by natural variability such as El Niño and volcanic activity.

Still, such short-term breaches, including the record warmth of 2024, when average global temperatures ran about 1.55C above the pre-industrial baseline, are increasingly viewed as early warning signs that the world is edging closer to a lasting breach of the long-term limit.

(Source: Reuters)

E

ight decades after the establishment of United Nations, humanity still faces an alarming rise in conflict. According to the Global Peace Index, more countries are involved in active conflict today than at any given time since World War II.

Lacking effective enforcement mechanisms, the U.N. remains embedded in a post-colonial power hierarchy that privileges dominant states and functions more as a mechanism that reflects existing power dynamics.

Post-1945 conflict trends emphasize this structural weakness. Significant here is the role of the United States. The U.S. military has been engaged in conflicts across the world at virtually all times over the past century. The United States has never experienced a period in which its armed forces were entirely disengaged from conflict. Post second world war, U.S. military action has increasingly occurred without formal declarations of war, relying instead on executive authority, congressional authorizations (such as the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force ), or broad interpretations of self-defense and preemptive wars.

Washington has invoked the U.N. to confer legality and legitimacy on the use of force when multilateral authorization has aligned with U.S. strategic interests. When it has not, the U.S. has demonstrated a consistent willingness to act unilaterally or through alliances of willing bypassing the U.N. framework altogether.

This selective multilateralism has often been justified through expansive references to the “international world order”, a term frequently employed as a flexible political narrative that legitimizes U.S. action while accommodating exceptions for itself. In practice, international law is treated arbitrarily, invoked when useful and sidelined when constrained.

Is International Law subordinate to power?

Today’s American behavior is reminiscent of a declining power which feels increasingly threatened by external forces and is therefore willing to contradict the very architecture of international law it once helped create.

On January 7, 2026, President Donald J. Trump signed a memorandum initiating U.S. withdrawal from 66 international organizations, including 31 United Nations bodies such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) , and UN Women. Since returning to office for a second term, Trump has cut funds to the United Nations, exited from the Human Rights Council and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), continued suspension of support for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), withdrew from the World Health Organization (WHO)  as well as the Paris Climate Agreement.

The institutions deemed expendable are overwhelmingly those concerned with human rights, climate governance, and humanitarian relief. The administration has justified these moves on the grounds of “national interest.” This, however, is a display of selective disengagement from norms that impose political or economic costs.

As such hegemonic actors violate international norms, where enforcement mechanisms effectively collapse. Condemnation alone is insufficient.

The same logic is applicable in Washington’s actions in Venezuela. In a direct violation of state sovereignty, the United States led an intervention to seize President Nicolás Maduro and assert indefinite control over Venezuelan oil revenues. U.N. human rights bodies condemned the act as a breach of the U.N. Charter and international law, warning of its destabilizing consequences.

Trump’s open statements regarding Greenland further extend this posture. By explicitly keeping the use of force “on the table,” the U.S. president normalized territorial acquisition rhetoric that international law was designed to eliminate in the first place. Any such action would constitute an unprecedented intra-NATO confrontation, threatening the coherence of the alliance system itself.

This moment has also bought forth growing transatlantic divergence. European leaders have criticized Washington’s increasingly unilateral and coercive approach. For the first time in decades, the United States and Europe appear contradicting the fundamental principles holding the post-war international order.

Humanitarian discourse has become strategically selective. While the U.S. administration has voiced concern for Iranian protesters amid domestic unrest, it has simultaneously shielded and supported Israeli actions in Gaza. The value of human life varies with geography.

The import of democracy has always been pursued in continuation of U.S. geopolitical interests rather than supporting idea of democracy in principle. U.S. interventions are shaped only by strategic interests, particularly around oil and regional influence. Interventions in energy-rich regions, rising unilateralism, and institutional retreat, indicate anxiety over economic instability, mounting debt, and the weakening centrality of the dollar.

United States’s retreat from international institutions and violations of international law only further damaged an already fragile global system. As power politics reassert themselves, international law lays formally intact but practically hollow. International systems, long shaped by colonial hierarchies and power asymmetries, have been fraying for decades. What is new is its plain brazenness.

Global solidarity is not a finite resource 

Historically, some conflicts have attracted far more international attention than others.

What, then, determines whose suffering matters most? Why does the global response to contemporary wars reveal a clear hierarchy of concern and intervention?

In principle, international law exists to promote peace and equality. In practice, however, the international system is deeply anarchic and increasingly governed by power politics. This dynamic produces selective engagement, in which humanitarian response is activated through geopolitical relevance.

Patterns of neglect persist across parts of Africa; Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia and the Sahel, where prolonged violence generates little more than episodic concern. By contrast, conflicts situated along critical energy corridors, alliance systems, or great-power rivalries prompt emergency summits, sanctions regimes, and continuous media attention.

Both military intervention and strategic non-intervention have consistently generated large-scale displacement, producing refugee flows that are later treated as external burdens rather than consequences. Rising anti-migrant sentiment and increasingly restrictive asylum policies are against the spirit of international humanitarian laws. If migration is framed as a threat, then its root causes must also be acknowledged as policy outcomes but the same states that shape these conflicts often adopt restrictive and exclusionary migration policies when displacement reaches their borders.

Are humanitarian principles universal?

Humanitarian principles, therefore, are not universally applied. Intervention is guided by political calculation. In such a system, human suffering is bound to become stratified, with some lives rendered more visible, and more valuable, than others. Beyond ethical inconsistency, this selective engagement erodes the credibility of global humanitarian advocacy and weakens collective leverage within international institutions, allowing entire regions to remain structurally marginalized.

U.N. possesses normative authority grounded in international law, but its decisions have often remained unenforceable in practice, beyond mere verbal criticism. It lacks enforcement power and effectiveness as a mechanism for both conflict prevention and management. Entrenched power asymmetries, most visibly within the U.N. Security Council, have hollowed out the organization’s capacity to act impartially. Compliance has largely remained contingent upon the political will of states rather than legal obligation. Over the years, this has significantly damaged the credibility of international law, as state interests repeatedly superseded collective wellbeing.

Global solidarity within the U.N. framework is not a finite resource but unless international institutions are restructured to prioritize the idea of universal human rights over strategic hierarchy, conflict prevention will remain aspirational.

T

he UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) warned Monday that the world must make “bold and smarter choices” in managing land, soil and water if it is to feed a projected global population of 10 billion by 2050.

Releasing its latest State of the World’s Land and Water Resources for Food and Agriculture (SOLAW 2025) report, the agency said these core resources are finite and under growing pressure, calling for urgent action to safeguard global food security “now and in the decades ahead.”

According to the report, an estimated 673 million people experienced hunger in 2024, while many regions faced severe and recurrent food emergencies driven by conflict, climate shocks and economic instability.

Rising demand as global population nears 10 billion

FAO warned that pressure on food systems will intensify sharply as the global population climbs toward 9.7 billion by 2050, requiring agriculture to produce 50% more food, feed and fiber than in 2012, along with 25% more freshwater.

Meeting that demand, however, is increasingly difficult. The report noted that over the last 60 years global agricultural output tripled, even though agricultural land expanded by just 8%. But this growth came “at high environmental and social costs.”

The agency said more than 60% of human-induced land degradation now occurs on agricultural land. Expanding farmland by converting forests or fragile ecosystems is “no longer viable,” it warned, given the escalating toll on biodiversity, soil health and water resources.

Smarter production needed, not simply more

FAO said the world still has the potential to sustainably feed up to 10.3 billion people by 2085, but only if countries adopt more efficient, climate-resilient and environmentally sound practices.

“Future productivity gains must come from smarter, not simply more, production,” the report said.

Recommended priorities include, closing yield gaps by raising productivity in underperforming regions, diversifying into resilient crop varieties suited to shifting climate patterns, strengthening soil health and water efficiency and adopting locally-tailored, resource-efficient farming techniques.

“There is no single pathway and no one-size-fits-all solution,” FAO stressed, urging countries to build coherent policies, invest in innovation and improve governance of land and water systems.

Climate crisis reshaping global agriculture

FAO Director-General QU Dongyu said rising climate impacts, worsening droughts, and ecosystem degradation are dramatically reshaping global food production.

“With the climate crisis reshaping global agriculture, the choices we make today for the management of land and water resources will determine how we meet current and future demands while protecting the world for generations to come,” he said.

The agency called for scaling up sustainable financing mechanisms, better risk management tools and more equitable access to land and water—warning that failure to act will deepen hunger, increase economic losses and accelerate environmental decline.

(Source: Anadolu Agency)

T

he United Nations warned on October 28, 2025, that the pace of global climate action remains far too slow to prevent dangerous levels of warming, urging governments to significantly accelerate their emissions cuts ahead of next year’s COP30 summit. The warning came as the UN released its latest Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) Synthesis Report, an overview of the climate plans countries have formally submitted under the Paris Agreement.

UN Climate Change Executive Secretary Simon Stiell said there are encouraging signs that governments are strengthening their climate strategies, broadening their targets across entire economies and taking adaptation more seriously. But he cautioned that the scale of the current crisis far exceeds the scale of the response, and that the window for limiting global temperature rise to 1.5°C is rapidly narrowing.

Stiell told governments that the world is “clearly bending the emissions curve downward for the first time,” pointing to new analyses that suggest global emissions could fall by about 10% by 2035 when taking into account newer pledges announced after the September reporting deadline.

However, he emphasized that such progress, while notable compared to earlier years, is nowhere near large or fast enough. He described the gap between commitments and implementation as “a serious risk to climate stability,” and said the upcoming round of negotiations must move from abstract pledges to real-world delivery. “The direction of travel is improving every year, but we urgently need more speed,” he said. “The Paris Agreement is delivering real progress, but it must work much faster and much fairer than it does today.”

One third of global emissions

The NDC Synthesis Report reflects climate plans from countries representing only around one third of global emissions, meaning the dataset is still highly incomplete. For that reason, the UN carried out supplementary calculations that take into account newer NDC announcements — including several unveiled at the UN Secretary-General’s Climate Summit in New York last month.

These updated figures suggest momentum is growing, but the UN stresses that momentum still lacks sufficient scale to change the global trajectory of warming. Analysts say that without deeper and earlier emissions cuts, the planet is on track for increasingly severe losses: more frequent and extreme storms, heatwaves, floods, and droughts, as well as growing economic volatility and infrastructure damage.

Despite its warnings, the UN highlighted several areas of improvement. A higher share of countries than ever are now taking a whole-of-economy approach to climate planning, with 89% of submitted NDCs containing broad, economy-wide targets rather than narrower sectoral pledges. Nearly three quarters of plans now include adaptation or resilience components, signaling that governments are beginning to recognize that climate policy is not only about cutting emissions but also protecting societies from inevitable impacts that are already intensifying.

The growing integration of loss and damage elements

Stiell said one of the most notable developments is the growing integration of loss and damage elements — particularly among small island developing states and climate-vulnerable nations — a sign that countries on the front lines of climate disruption are demanding stronger recognition of the irreversible harm they face.

The UN also reported new evidence that the Paris Agreement’s “ratchet” mechanism – designed to steadily increase ambition every five years – is working, at least procedurally. Roughly 88% of countries said their latest NDC was informed by the outcomes of the Global Stocktake concluded at COP28 last year, suggesting that international peer review is influencing domestic policy choices.

However, experts note that stronger plans still do not necessarily translate into stronger action, particularly in economies that lack financing or institutional capacity to implement them. This is especially relevant for developing countries, which continue to face high borrowing costs, growing climate-linked economic shocks, and insufficient levels of international assistance.

Stiell argued that the world is now approaching what he described as a “positive economic tipping point,” driven by surging investment in clean energy technologies. Renewable power generation surpassed coal as the world’s largest energy source this year, a symbolic milestone that UN officials say demonstrates how the energy transition is beginning to reshape global markets.

The Executive Secretary said the boom in clean energy investment shows that climate action is no longer purely a moral obligation but a clear economic opportunity — one that could generate millions of jobs and unlock trillions of dollars in new investments, particularly in rapidly growing developing economies.

A fair or equitable transition?

Still, Stiell warned that market forces alone will not deliver a fair or equitable transition. Many of the countries most in need of climate adaptation or energy system upgrades are also those with the smallest fiscal space to finance them. “An equitable global transition requires clear policies and more support for many nations, especially those who did least to cause this crisis,” he said. Without such support, the UN fears that existing inequities in climate impacts will become entrenched, widening the gap between industrialized economies and developing states, particularly in Africa, the Pacific, and parts of Asia.

The UN framed COP30, which Brazil will host next year, as a decisive moment for closing these gaps. Stiell said governments must arrive prepared to send a strong signal that they remain committed to multilateral cooperation, even as geopolitical competition intensifies.

He set three priorities for the year ahead: reaffirm global cooperation, accelerate implementation across every sector and region, and ensure that climate action is visibly connected to people’s everyday lives, from jobs and health to energy costs and food security. “We are still in the race,” he said, “but to ensure a livable planet for all eight billion people, we must urgently pick up the pace — at COP30 and every year thereafter.”

(Source: UN)

I

n a decision aimed at fostering global collaboration on artificial intelligence (AI), the United Nations General Assembly overwhelmingly endorsed a resolution promoting safe, secure, and trustworthy AI systems for sustainable development. Spearheaded by the United States, the resolution garnered unanimous support from all 193 member states during the assembly’s session held on Thursday.

The resolution represents a landmark effort to bridge the digital divides both between and within countries, with a specific focus on leveraging AI to accelerate progress towards achieving the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. It emphasizes the importance of developing regulatory and governance frameworks to ensure the safety, security, and trustworthiness of AI systems.

Addressing reporters at a news conference, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, the US envoy to the UN, underscored the resolution’s significance in promoting capacity building and closing digital divides. She emphasized the potential of AI to contribute to various facets of global development, including poverty alleviation, environmental protection, and the creation of a more equitable world.

A historic step

U.S. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan hailed the resolution as a historic step towards fostering safe and secure AI systems. He highlighted the framework outlined in the resolution, which emphasizes fair access, risk management, privacy protection, and the prevention of misuse and discrimination in AI applications.

While the resolution is non-binding and lacks an enforcement mechanism, its unanimous adoption signifies a crucial milestone in establishing global norms for AI governance. The resolution follows months of negotiations among numerous countries and reflects a growing consensus on the need for international collaboration in regulating AI.

Despite the resolution’s focus on civilian applications of AI, discussions on the military use of AI were deliberately excluded from the scope of the resolution. According to US officials, ongoing diplomatic and multilateral conversations are addressing military applications of AI in other forums.

As the world tries to understand the transformative potential of AI, the resolution represents a collective effort by the international community to ensure that AI technologies are developed and deployed responsibly, respecting human rights and international law. Moving forward, continued collaboration will be essential to address emerging challenges and harness the full potential of AI for sustainable development.

Sources: Anadolu Agency, Foreign Policy

B

razil’s Foreign Minister, Mauro Vieira, used the inauguration of the country’s G20 presidency to call for a comprehensive overhaul of the United Nations (UN) and other multilateral institutions. Expressing frustration over the UN Security Council’s perceived inability to prevent or resolve global conflicts, Vieira urged for reforms to address the current challenges facing the international community.

The G20 meeting in Rio de Janeiro, attended by foreign ministers from the world’s leading nations, aims to set a roadmap for addressing issues such as poverty, climate change, and escalating global tensions.

Vieira specifically highlighted the Security Council’s limitations in dealing with conflicts in Ukraine and the Gaza Strip, emphasizing the need for a more effective and responsive multilateral system. His remarks underscored Brazil’s commitment to championing reforms in global governance institutions, including the UN, the World Trade Organization, and multilateral banks. President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva has proposed stronger representation for developing nations and a reevaluation of the UN Security Council’s structure.

Expanding the UN Security Council

One of the key proposals put forth by Brazil involves expanding the UN Security Council, allowing for the inclusion of more countries from Africa, Latin America, India, Germany, and Japan. President Lula has emphasized the urgency of reforming the Security Council by advocating for the removal of the right of veto, which he deems outdated and obstructive.

However, the success of these proposals remains uncertain, as permanent Security Council members have historically resisted reforms that could diminish their influence.

Foreign Minister Vieira expressed deep concern over the proliferation of conflicts globally, citing over 170 locations experiencing hostilities. He argued that a significant portion of the $2 trillion spent annually on global military budgets should be redirected toward development aid programs.

Addressing existential threats such as inequalities and climate change, Vieira called for concrete actions, stating, “These are the wars we must fight in 2024.”

Blinken meets Lula

While these calls for reform align with Brazil’s vision for a more inclusive and responsive international order, the challenge lies in garnering widespread support and overcoming the resistance of powerful nations reluctant to relinquish established privileges. The G20 foreign ministers’ meeting sets the stage for ongoing discussions, with a focus on shaping a collective approach to global challenges.

In a related development, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken met with President Lula to discuss global governance and other issues. The discussions also touched on the conflict in Gaza, with both leaders expressing urgency in facilitating the release of hostages and increasing humanitarian assistance. The diplomatic row between Israel and Brazil, triggered by Lula’s controversial comments comparing Israel’s actions to the Holocaust, remains unresolved, adding a layer of complexity to the diplomatic engagements during Blinken’s visit.

Source: The Associated Press

A

frican leaders have intensified their longstanding campaign for permanent representation on the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), a push that has recently gained the backing of France and Germany.

President Obiang Nguema Mbasogo of Equatorial Guinea, while addressing the African Union Committee of Ten (C-10) summit in La Paz, Equatorial Guinea, emphasized the historical injustice faced by the continent due to its lack of permanent representation on the UNSC.

Since 2005, African nations have been unified in their demand for equitable representation, calling for two permanent seats with veto power and two additional non-permanent seats.

The call for renewed and united action was echoed by Nguema, who urged that African states remain vigilant and speak with one voice to avoid being sidelined by other countries’ alliances. He stressed the urgency of accelerating reforms to ensure “equitable representation of Africa through expanded membership.”

UNSC reforms

The meeting, which saw the convergence of African heads of state and representatives from UN and African Union agencies, sought to solidify a common position on UNSC reforms.

In a significant development, German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock and French Foreign Minister Catherine Colonna, during a visit to the African Union headquarters in Addis Ababa, expressed support for the African position. Baerbock acknowledged the changing global dynamics since World War II, advocating for two permanent African seats on the Security Council.

The UNSC currently has five permanent members – the U.S., UK, France, China, and Russia – and non-permanent members who serve on a rotational basis. At present, Mozambique, Gabon, and Ghana represent Africa.

The push for African seats on the Security Council comes amid growing calls for reforming the body to better reflect contemporary global realities. African Union Chairperson Moussa Faki, alongside outgoing AU Chairman and Senegalese President Macky Sall, have voiced this demand at various international platforms, including the U.N. General Assembly.

Biden for Africa

U.S. President Joe Biden has also shown support for Africa’s representation in global economic and security forums, including the G-20 and the Security Council.

As the European Union and the African Union strengthen their relations, particularly in light of Russia’s actions in Ukraine, Baerbock highlighted the necessity of African support in “defending the European peace order.” She also condemned Russia’s blockade of Ukrainian grain exports, which has exacerbated the food crisis in the Horn of Africa.

The support from Germany and France marks a crucial step for Africa’s aspirations at the UNSC. The summit in Equatorial Guinea is expected to finalize the African common position in the quest for increased representation on the global stage.

Sources: Anadolu Agency and VOA

A

ccording to the latest report from the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), 46 countries have been designated as the least developed economies, with the majority, 33, located in Africa. The UN agency announced this classification on Tuesday, November 7, highlighting that these nations are now eligible for various concessions including preferential market access, aid, and special technical assistance to help bolster their technological capabilities.

While Africa hosts most of the least developed countries, Asia is home to nine, with three in the Pacific and one in the Caribbean. UNCTAD’s 2023 report also showcased a modest success story; only six nations have ascended from the least developed country status to date.

These include Botswana, Cabo Verde, Maldives, Samoa, Equatorial Guinea, and Vanuatu, with graduation dates spanning from December 1994 to December 2020.

Precarious financial situation

However, the financial situation for these countries remains precarious. In 2021, debt service charges for these economies surged to an alarming $27 billion, marking a 37% increase from $20 billion the previous year.

The report strikingly notes that these countries are allocating nearly twice as much on debt service as they are on healthcare and education combined.

The strain on their finances is attributed to multiple global crises, including the climate emergency, increasing debt burdens, reliance on commodity exports, and waning foreign investment. These challenges are impeding their journey towards achieving the Sustainable Development Goals, particularly the transition to a low-carbon economy.

Comprehensive measures needed

UNCTAD called for comprehensive measures to address the economic and social challenges faced by the least developed countries, stressing the need for a sustainable and multilateral approach to the debt dilemma.

The report emphasized the critical function of domestic institutions, especially central banks, in spurring the mobilization of national resources. It also stresses the importance of redirecting financial flows towards initiatives that promote green structural changes within these vulnerable nations.

The UN body’s report serves as a clarion call for international cooperation to ensure that the least developed countries can navigate out of their financial predicaments while working towards an environmentally sustainable and economically viable future.

Source: Anadolu Agency

T

here have long been calls for the reform of the United Nations (UN) on the grounds that it has failed to fulfill its peacekeeping mandate. Yet, some of the calls seem to be related to the agendas of certain countries that want to play a greater role in the decision-making mechanisms of the organization rather than to make the UN more effective in terms of its primary peacekeeping mission.

In this context, countries such as Germany, Japan, India, and Brazil aim to strengthen their positions by gaining permanent member status in the UN Security Council. On the other hand, countries like Turkey want a new structure that would ensure a fairer representation in the Security Council and facilitate decision-making.

To date, efforts at reform have not been successful. Let us examine the consequences of the failure of these efforts, and then consider why it will be very difficult to reorganize the UN. The most important consequence of the failure of any reform efforts to this day is the diminishing credibility of the United Nations as a peacekeeping body.

The problem is compounded by the fact that proposals to reform the Security Council’s decision-making mechanisms are not welcomed by the permanent members, who find the current structure advantageous. While massacres are taking place in Syria, Myanmar, Palestine, and Yemen, and countries like Iraq and Ukraine are being attacked in violation of international law, the organization remains silent.

The UN is rendered dysfunctional when decisions to intervene cannot be taken because one or more countries believe that such action would harm their interests in the region in question. Sometimes it is the United States, other times it is Russia or China that blocks intervention decisions that would end the massacres and establish peace.

In other cases, as in Iraq and Ukraine, the United States and Russia are the direct aggressors. When the veto-wielding countries of the Security Council are on the aggressor’s side, the UN cannot use military intervention or other sanctions, which are its most effective weapons in the peacekeeping mission.

The decision-making mechanism must change

Everyone knows that these shortcomings can only be addressed by changing the Security Council’s decision-making mechanism. More countries need to be included in UN resolutions on military intervention and other sanctions, and the vetoing of such resolutions by a single country must not be permitted. The way to do this is to give member states a “weighted vote” based on their economic and military size.

There is a need for a new decision-making mechanism in which the U.S. and Vanuatu would not have the same voting weight, but the U.S. would not be able to veto all resolutions it does not want. This can be done either under the auspices of the Security Council by increasing the number of members or under the auspices of the General Assembly by transferring the authority to take sanction decisions.

For example, the decision for UN intervention in Syria, which could not be taken at the Security Council, could easily have been taken at the General Assembly with a two-thirds or three-fourths majority through a weighted voting system. In this way, this tragedy, in which more than 600,000 people have lost their lives and 13 million people have lost their homes and became refugees, could have been prevented. However, because the permanent members of the Security Council do not want to lose their current privileged position, the reform that would enable the UN to take rational and effective decisions cannot be realized. The discussions under the name of reform do not go beyond the issue of increasing the number of permanent members in the Security Council.

Explaining the UN reform

If we try to explain why UN reform is not possible with the basic concepts of international relations, we see that reform is not likely to be possible in the near future either. Because, although the establishment of the UN was a product of the desire to prevent the world from being dragged into a catastrophe such as World War II—in other words, the intention to solve problems through “law and diplomacy” instead of “force and conflict”—when we look at the structure of the organization established for this purpose, we see that it reflects the “balance of power” of that period.

The countries that emerged victorious after World War II allocated a special position for themselves in the United Nation’s decision-making mechanisms. In order to reform the UN, which was designed by the powerful actors of the time to reflect their power and protect their interests, the balance of power must change. In other words, countries that want to play a more active role in the UN must surpass the permanent members of the Security Council in terms of all elements of power, especially economic and military power.

Yet, when we look at how the balance of power between the countries demanding reform and the permanent members of the Security Council has changed since the end of the Cold War in 1990, we see the opposite picture.

In 1990, the GDP of the seven countries demanding reform, which are currently among the top 12 in terms of economic capacity (we can refer to them as R7), was 77.5% of the total GDP of the five permanent members of the Security Council in purchasing power parity (PPP). By 2022, this ratio had fallen significantly to 55.4%.

UN reform and the realities of global politics

In terms of military expenditures, another important indicator of power, the picture is much worse for the countries demanding reform. While the military expenditure of R7 countries reached 28% of P5 countries in 1990, this ratio dropped to 18.6% in 2022. Again, while the contribution of R7 countries to the UN budget was higher than that of P5 countries in 1990, it dropped to 45.2% in 2022.

The demands for reforming the UN, which has failed miserably to fulfill its peacekeeping mandate, are extremely justified. In particular, decisions on sanctions against countries that violate international law should be freed from the permanent members’ stranglehold. Yet, the basic principles of international relations dictate that power will be the main determinant in changing the structure of this organization—the same way, power was the main determinant in its establishment and is reflected in its structure.

Therefore, the reform demands of the permanent members of the Security Council whose economic and military capacities have declined over the last 30 years do not find much response in the face of the realities of global politics. Currently, we are faced with a UN that serves the interests of the global system’s powerful actors and, to a large extent, is therefore unable to fulfill its mandate of peacemaking and peacekeeping.

M

icroplastics are plastics smaller than 5 mm. They have become an issue of concern in recent years due to their widespread presence and potential impact on the environment and human health. Like air pollution, microplastics pose a hidden threat that is not always immediately attributed to their toxic nature.

Despite our limited knowledge in this area, early studies are alarming about the potential harms of microplastics. These tiny plastic particles can damage human cells and have been compared to dangerous substances such as asbestos and lead, which were once considered beneficial until researchers discovered their harmful effects. Scientists are urging caution and action, as we cannot afford to wait for the unequivocal verification of all the possible unintended effects of conventional plastics.

Microplastics originate from various sources, including the decomposition of larger plastic waste into smaller fragments. Among them are microbeads, a specific category of microplastics, which are tiny pieces of polyethylene plastic that are added to personal care products such as detergents and toothpaste. These particles can easily bypass water filtration systems and end up in oceans and freshwaters, posing a serious threat to aquatic life.

Microbeads have been found in honey, sea salt, beer, tap water, sugar, and even dust. Their presence spans the globe, from Arctic snow to the Mariana Trench. Microplastics have also infiltrated unexpected places like the human respiratory tract and bloodstream, raising concerns about their potential impact on human health. Scientists have even detected microplastics on remote, uninhabited island beaches as well as in ice samples from Greenland and Antarctica, highlighting the global scale of the problem.

The plastic cycle

Around eight million tons of plastic waste enter the sea every year. Over time, the sun’s ultraviolet rays, the movement of ocean waves, and the presence of salt cause this plastic to break down into smaller and smaller fragments known as microplastics. Small marine organisms like zooplankton eat these microplastics. That is how they enter the food chain. Small fish eat the zooplankton, larger fish eat the small fish, and so on. Eventually, fish end up in our food and water ends up in our bottles. Microplastics are in everyday products like shampoos, soaps, toothpaste, and facial cleansers. They travel through sewage systems and rivers and eventually end up in the ocean. In addition, car tires shed microplastic particles, which is another pathway for their diffusion.

Polluting our bodies?

In March 2020, microplastic pollution was found in human blood for the first time. This revelation came about when scientists tested blood samples from 22 healthy anonymous adult donors and found plastic particles in nearly 80% of those tested. Of those samples, 17 had plastic particles.

Specifically, PET plastic—commonly used in beverage bottles—was detected in half of them, while a third of the donors had polystyrene in their blood, which is used for food and product packaging. In addition, a quarter of the blood samples contained polyethylene, the material used to make plastic shopping bags.

Another similar study showed that these tiny particles can stick to the outer membranes of red blood cells, which could impair their ability to carry oxygen efficiently. The scope of the problem extends beyond the bloodstream; microplastics have also entered the placentas of pregnant women. Experiments with pregnant rats have also shown that microplastics can rapidly cross the lungs and enter the heart, brain, and other organs of developing fetuses.

In a study published in 2022 in the multi-disciplinary natural science journal Science of the Total Environment, a significant pioneering achievement was announced: the detection of microplastics in the lung tissue of living humans. The tiny size of these plastic particles allows them to penetrate our bronchioles and become trapped in various sections of the airway branches.

Recently, microplastics have been detected in human heart tissue, raising new concerns about their impact on long-term health. A team of researchers from China made this discovery while examining tissue samples from 15 patients who had undergone heart surgery.

Although there is a possibility that exposure to microplastics might have occurred during the surgical procedure, medical experts point out that the presence of certain chemicals in the human body —such as acrylic, also known as Plexiglas—provides direct evidence of microplastics in patients before they have undergone heart surgery.

From crop to plastic harvest

The problem of microplastics extends to agricultural practices as well. Sewage sludge, a byproduct of wastewater treatment, is often repurposed as organic fertilizer in agriculture. This practice has led to European farmland becoming a considerable repository of microplastics. Estimates suggest that tens of thousands of tons of these particles contaminate European farmland each year.

In 2022, an analysis by the Environmental Working Group, a non-profit environmental organization, revealed that nearly 80,937 sq km of cultivated land in the United States had been contaminated by sewage sludge, carrying per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), also known as “forever chemicals.” These substances, commonly found in plastic products, defy environmental breakdown.

Catherine Wilson, an author and deputy director of the Hydro-environmental Research Center at Cardiff University, states that the magnitude of microplastics in agricultural lands might be underestimated. Additionally, microplastics can endure within soils for extended periods. Research by soil scientists from the University of Marburg in Germany found microplastics as deep as 90 cm below the surface of agricultural fields where sewage sludge had been deposited over three decades before.

Plastic odyssey

Another alarming fact is the migration of microplastics from initial sewage sludge deposition sites to aquatic environments. A study conducted in Ontario, Canada revealed that 99% of microplastics journey away from these sites to aquatic ecosystems. Before their aquatic journey, microplastics can liberate toxic chemicals into the soil, exacerbating environmental consequences.

Plastics, such as polyester, acrylic, and nylon, constitute approximately 60% of clothing materials. Yet, garments fashioned from these synthetics shed microplastics, termed “microfibers,” during washing and wear. A United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) report (2020) on the global textile value chain indicates that about 9% of annual microplastic emissions result from clothing and textiles.

Experts suggest elongating garment lifespans and reducing washing frequency to curb emissions. When selecting new clothes, choosing sustainably produced natural materials can minimize the risk of unintended microplastic release, even at the cost of other environmental considerations.

Elisa Tonda, head of the Consumption and Production Unit at UNEP, stresses that involving all stakeholders is vital to usher the textile industry towards circularity and tackle microfiber emissions. Effective policies and an environment that fosters sustainable textile design are crucial, alongside brands assuming responsibility for end-of-life product management.

T

wo major earthquakes centered in Kahramanmaraş in southern Turkey hit 10 provinces of the country and northwest Syria on Monday, February 6, 2023. Like the first, the second earthquake caused the collapse of many buildings and put rescuers in danger.

The death toll in Turkey and Syria so far has surpassed 5,000. On Tuesday, February 7, Turkish Vice President Fuat Oktay said that the death toll from the earthquakes had risen to 3,419 and 20,532 people were injured. Meanwhile, at least 1,600 people were killed in Syria and about 3,500 injured, according to figures from the Damascus government and rescue workers in the rebel-controlled northwestern regions.

The earthquakes prompted Turkey to declare a level 4 emergency state, which includes an international call for help. Many nations from all over the world have pledged aid, and some have already sent search and rescue teams.

International organizations

UN Secretary-General António Guterres stated that UN staff was on the ground in Turkey and Syria to assess the needs of the situation and provide assistance. UN High Commissioner for Refugees Filippo Grandi voiced solidarity with those affected in Turkey and Syria, and said the agency was “ready to help provide urgent relief to the survivors through our field teams wherever possible.”

The World Health Organization director-general, Tedros Ghebreyesus, said emergency medical teams had been activated to provide essential health care for the injured and most vulnerable.

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg voiced solidarity with Turkey and tweeted, “I am in touch with President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu, and NATO Allies are mobilizing support now.”

The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies is launching immediate assistance from their Disaster Response Emergency Fund.

Asia

India is sending two teams with 100 personnel and trained canine squads from its National Disaster Response Force along with equipment for search and rescue operations, medical teams, and relief material.

China will give 40 million yuan ($5.9 million) in emergency aid to help Turkey’s relief efforts and the country’s Red Cross will give emergency aid of $200,000 each to Turkey and Syria. The Red Cross Society of China said it will send further humanitarian aid if needed.

Malaysia has deployed 70 members of its Special Malaysia Disaster Assistance and Rescue Team (SMART) to assist local authorities with rescue efforts, due to arrive to Turkey early on Tuesday.

Taiwan will donate $200,000 for relief efforts and send a 40-person rescue team to Turkey.

South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol has pledged to send 60 rescue workers and emergency medical items to the “brother nation” of Turkey. Meanwhile, the regional government of Gyeonggi Province said it plans to provide $1 million in humanitarian assistance to Turkey to support the rescue efforts and medical response.

Japan is dispatching a rescue and relief team of 75 workers and providing emergency humanitarian assistance to Turkey.

Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Nasser Kanaani offered condolences to Turkey and Syria, and stated, “If there is a need for the presence of relief and health institutions of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the earthquake-affected areas, we will fulfill our moral responsibility.”

Lebanon is sending soldiers, Red Cross and Civil Defense first responders, and firefighters to Turkey to help with the rescue efforts.

Egypt has pledged urgent humanitarian aid to Turkey.

Jordan is also among the countries that will send emergency aid to Syria and Turkey.

The Emir of Qatar Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani expressed his condolences in a phone call with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. The state news agency QNA announced that the emir expressed Qatar’s support for the “sisterly” country “in mitigating the serious humanitarian repercussions left by the earthquake.”

The UAE pledged $13.6 m worth of humanitarian assistance to Syria, search and rescue teams, and urgent relief supplies. The country dispatched a plane to Adana Airport in southern Turkey which carried search and rescue teams, crews, and medical equipment. The UAE announced that it was also planning to establish a field hospital in Turkey.

The Israeli army is sending a search and rescue team of 150 engineers, medical personnel, and other aid workers to Turkey. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he has also approved a request for humanitarian aid to Syria, received through a diplomatic official.

Russian President Vladimir Putin promised to send Russian teams to both Turkey and Syria. Russia’s Defense Ministry stated that it has already deployed 10 units comprised of 300 military personnel to Syria to help with the rescue effort. The Russian military has set up points to distribute humanitarian assistance.

Europe

The European Union has mobilized search and rescue teams to help Turkey and activated the Copernicus satellite system to provide emergency mapping services. The EU announced it is ready to offer help to Syria through its humanitarian assistance programs.

The European Commission stated that 10 search and rescue teams from eight EU countries (Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia, Czech Republic, France, Greece, and the Netherlands) have been mobilized to help first responders in Turkey.

Poland sent a rescue group consisting of 76 firefighters and eight rescue dogs, according to the Polish Interior Ministry. Romania is sending specialized personnel and material to Turkey on two military aircraft. France is also dispatching rescue teams to Turkey. Croatia is sending 40 men and 10 dogs, rescue equipment, and vans to Turkey. Greece immediately sent a team of 21 rescuers, two rescue dogs, a special rescue vehicle with a structural engineer, five doctors, and seismic planning experts in a military transport plane. The Czech Republic is sending Turkey a team of 68 rescuers, including firefighters, doctors, structural engineers, and experts with sniffer dogs.

Serbia is sending 21 rescuers and three liaison officers to Turkey.

Montenegro is sending at least 24 firefighters to Turkey; meanwhile, 55 rescue workers have already been sent to Turkey.

Spain’s Interior Ministry stated that Spanish urban rescue teams with 85 personnel and a contingent of volunteer firefighters are preparing to travel to Turkey. Officials from the Spanish Defense Ministry and other departments were coordinating to send crews immediately to Turkey.

Robert H. Latiff’s Future Peace, a sequel to Future War, specifically brings to attention a subtle, yet potentially destructive effect of technologies such as autonomous systems, advanced weapons, and AI: the provocation to violence. Against the backdrop of the brewing power rivalry between the U.S. and its adversaries, technology aggregates tension and catalyzes violence.

Future Peace touches upon the ethical, security-related, behavioral, and technical aspects of technology and warfare. It consists of four chapters: “A Giant Armed Nervous System” (referring to the military), “Urge to Violence,” “Stumbling into War,” and “Avoiding War.”

Latiff’s book comes as a warning to practice caution when adopting new weapons technology, and aids in understanding human and technical behaviors to attenuate its harms and decrease the chances of war. Not only does technology make war easier and speedier, hence enabling the rush to war, but hinders human reasoning. Such technical changes make the process of sound judgement difficult; for example, thinking and acting in a diplomatic manner. Furthermore, these changes enhance the potential for human error to get out of hand.

Latiff argues that it is vitally important to avoid entering conflict in the first place. He highlights the importance of the cooperative efforts of many segments of society, from the public and technologists to militarists and decision-makers. He implies that it is criminal negligence to leave everything to automation processes or politicians. Therefore, Future Peace also lays out long to short term recommendations to maintain peace and reverse the rush to war.

A

utonomous features are not a matter of the future; they have been used in warfare for years. However, it is quite evident that with the advancement of technology and the weaponization of artificial intelligence, autonomous weapons systems are swiftly adapting and becoming accepted.

As these changes emerge, the question that is often raised by international organizations such as the UN, which set the norms of conduct in an effort to control and regulate the use of autonomous weapons, is “How will human beings maintain control of the use of autonomous weapons?” In their study, Ingvild Bode and Hendrik Huelss flip the script to reveal another perspective of this dynamic.

Bode and Huelss aim to explain how testing, developing, and using weapons systems with autonomous features shapes ethical and legal norms, and how standards manifest and change in practice. The authors also examine the consequences of autonomous weapons for international relations.

Bode and Huelss acknowledge the fear and risks that these developments bring but adopt the approach that autonomous weapon systems may push people away from taking immediate decisions on the use of force as norms adapt to the appropriate use of force.

In short, Autonomous Weapons Systems and International Norms analyses the normative repercussions of weaponizing artificial intelligence by examining them not as tools used by the military but as shaping forces. Chapters include “Autonomous Weapons Systems and International Relations,” “New Technologies of Warfare: Emergence and Regulation,” “International Law, Norms, and Order,” “Norms in International Relations,” and “How Autonomous Weapons Systems Make Norms,” and contain assisting tables and figures.

As the trend and debate of autonomizing weapons systems continues, Autonomous Weapon Systems and International Norms equips the reader with an understanding of the relation of human-machine interaction and the process of integrating new technologies into war.

I

n War Virtually, Roberto J. González takes the reader behind the scenes to expose how scientists, programmers, and engineers developed technologies that automate war, predict conflict, and regulate human thought and behavior. Does this sound utopian? Not so when you factor in the persistent drive to arm for virtual warfare. In this quest, data comes a valuable commodity.

González evaluates autonomous weapons, robotic systems, predictive modeling software, advanced surveillance programs, and psyops techniques. He examines the foundation of the latest version of warfare in order to explain how it has taken its current form through contemporary military operations and their high-tech and cultural underpinnings.

However, War Virtually transcends the design, innovative, and transformative aspects of technology and warfare, and touches upon human engineering. González reveals the relations between U.S. intelligence agencies and Big Tech, and its implications. It is no secret that algorithms construct behavioral models for anticipating or even predicting human behavior, and, therefore, all of us risk having our digital lives become part of the military-industrial economy.

Adopting a critical approach, González examines how the U.S. military is weaponizing technology and data for new kinds of warfare, and questions the notion that technological advancements will lead to more efficient and less destructive warfare. In fact, he implies that such an aspiration comes at a great cost, and argues that in this world, there is little room for hubris.

War Virtually covers a large array of topics including automated battlefield robotics, social scientists’ involvement in experimental defense research, the blurred line between political consulting and propaganda in the internet era, and the military’s use of big data to craft new counterinsurgency methods based on predicting conflict.

I

n Proto-Algorithmic War, Stefka Hristova offers a unique perspective on the Iraq War and the history of algorithmic and digital logic that came to be a crucial element of today’s warfare. She examines the military policy of the United States going into the Iraq War: the U.S. approached the war with the logic of digital and emerging algorithmic technology alongside the preceding numerical logics of the British Mandate in Iraq. In a sense, the Iraq War became an experiment in the early stages of development and utilization of such technology in warfare, and moreover war culture.

Hristova provides a case study of a comparative historical framework reaching back to the quantification techniques harnessed during the era of Mandatory Iraq (1918-1932) and analyzes the parallels and diversions between the numerical logics in both cases.

The author further evaluates the logic that moved beyond the British mandate for Iraq and reduced culture, society, and the physical body and environment into visual data-driven, sterilized, reproducible warfare, highlighting that it lacked cultural and historical context. Indeed, the actual experience of the Iraq War resulted in massive-scale death and destruction.

Proto-Algorithmic War offers an insight into the digitization and automation of war. Hristova aptly scrutinizes the ways in which the Iraq War attempted and often failed to see and incorporate population and territory as digital and further proto-algorithmic entities.

B

en Buchanan and Andrew Imbrie use fire as an analogy to showcase how AI has a dual nature: destructive and constructive. Just like our distant ancestors learning to operate their newly discovered, full of potential tool, our responsibility is to understand and use AI potential wisely. With AI revolutionizing the world, democracies have a responsibility to harness that power constructively and come out on top. Transformation is on its way—can humanity use AI to light the way? Or will the fire burn wildly and ignite a new type of war?

In The New Fire, Buchanan and Imbrie help us understand AI better by breaking it down into its “sparks,” which are data, algorithms, and computing power. They further explain the tangible and potentially destructive consequences of these sparks such as disinformation campaigns, new hacking tools, and military weapons.

On a larger scale, The New Fire shows the urgency of democracies to adapt to the powerful tool that is AI, as autocrats may use it for domestic centralized control and asymmetric advantages in combat. In that sense, they argue that harnessing the power of AI is crucial for holding democracy in balance in the world. The New Fire also acknowledges that democracies have a harder time adapting to the age of AI given ethical and civil concerns, but that new ways could be forged based on the advantages of democracy.

Drawing on examples from geopolitical competition and its analysis, Buchanan and Imbrie show how AI can work for democracy while respecting civil rights. In the age of AI, this crucial topic may determine the choice of course between war and peace.

Written by Dilara Özer

T

he United Nations Climate Change Conference was held at Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt. The COP27 invited leaders across nations and a total of 45,000 participants to address the urgent climate crisis. The impact of climate crisis deserves immediate attention as the brisk changes are likely to influence societies and economies in the near future.

The loss and damage funding is a triumph for climate justice, and aims to support heavily affected developing countries gain resistance in battling the climate crisis. It has been adopted only after long advocacy.

A “transnational committee” amongst nations has been established to figure out how the operations for funding will take place and to prepare for the upcoming COP28.

At COP 27, new pledges were made for more than $230 million to the Adaptation Fund. Until a formal mechanism is established, solidarity finance will aid in cases of urgency. The governments of Scotland, Denmark, Wallonia, and some other philanthropist states donated a symbolic $19.5 million for the loss and damage fund to be used as solidarity finance.

Commitments rather than “placebo funds”

There is no doubt that this funding will help communities and individuals deeply stricken by the current climate crisis. However, from the Paris Agreement of 2015 to COP27 in 2022, there lies a gap in sustaining the commitments made towards funding. This has cast a shadow over the seriousness of the commitments and COP27 pledges.

The $100 billion per year by 2020 goal which was set by developed countries has not yet been met. This has raised concerns for the Loss and Damage Fund, which was first initiated at the Paris Agreement and, for which, the Warsaw International Mechanism was established and signed at COP21.

Unlike previous occasions and since the initiation of the Loss and Damage Fund discussion, the COP27 meeting aimed to make the fund the “central feature of all future climate negotiations.”

Specified targets still do not ease concerns as to the full pledge and commitment governments will have towards this new fund. This pledge is one that raises hope for the climate crisis battle and climate justice.

Yet, all this does not mitigate the suspense that this new fund could also become another “placebo fund.” The term was coined by Benito Müller, who stated that “the last thing anyone needs at this stage is to create (another) climate change ‘placebo fund’, i.e. a ‘pot’ created to buy-in developing countries into some overarching deal that remains empty.”

Monetary importance of the climate crisis

Commitments and meetings held at the COP27 have voiced urgent concerns that need to be addressed, namely concerning those left most impacted by the climate crisis in least developed and developing countries. The developed countries among the COP27 have taken steps in 2022 to address the Loss and Damage Fund. Climate justice seems to have gained importance among leaders that have been acknowledging the topic’s sensitivity.

The battle against the approaching human-made natural disaster will further pressure governments. The $100 billion per year agreed as a target for 2020 has lagged behind, making it now a minimum, while $1 trillion per year by 2030 is deemed necessary to “meet the scale of investment needs” as “unlocking substantial climate finance is key to solving today’s development challenges.”

Monetary concern has become an aggravating factor, especially in the urgency of the climate crisis. This creates more anxiety as the currently “increasing debt levels are making matters worse.”

All commitments and pledges made at the COP27 have presented a huge leap to fight climate injustice and the ongoing crisis. Yet, climate finance still holds uncertainty given structural changes and economic priorities.

The commitments made will be a deciding factor for the fate of those left in the communities most harmed by this urgency, and the efforts taken regionally will also be consistent with the pledges voiced on a global scale.

Overcoming climate injustices becomes synonymous with commitments that should be made regionally too. The fragility of the political world overburdens the efforts to tackle climate crisis; however, climate crisis demands urgent and unwavering attention.

The effects of climate change are experienced on an individual, societal, and global scale. Pledges and commitments voicing the importance of climate change for the future are not enough; climate change requires critical and sincere approaches that steer away from all types of “placebo funds.”

T

n September 21, 2022, Francesca Albanese, the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories since 1967, submitted her first report on Palestine to the UN Human Rights Council. The report calls for ending colonialism and for the Palestinian people to exercise their right to self-determination.

The report is considered groundbreaking as it is the first UN comprehensive report that refers to the situation in Palestine as colonialism and calls for ending it, noting that the Palestinian people have the right to resist the foreign rule.

In the course of preparing the report, Albanese made attempts to reach out to the representative of Israel at the UN Human Rights Council, who didn’t answer her calls.

The report calls for the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and explores the legal implication of this right, noting the difficulties of implementing this principle due to the realities created by the Israeli occupation.

On April 1, 2022, following the conclusion of its 48th session, the UN Human Rights Council announced the appointment of Albanese as the new UN Special Rapporteur on Palestine, a move which was welcomed by the Palestinian Authority. Israel has denied Albanese access to the West Bank and Gaza, and accused her of adopting an anti-Israel position.

Palestinians welcome the report

The Palestinian Commission of Detainees’ Affairs welcomed the report, noting that it addressed a number of human rights concerns, particularly in regard to the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination “in the context of the settler-colonial features of the prolonged Israeli occupation.”

The prisoners’ group added, “The United Nations, through its report, reaffirms that the right to self-determination is an inalienable right of the Palestinian people, and that the recognition by the General Assembly of the struggle of the Palestinians, in order to restore the right to self-determination, represents an important recognition of the Palestinian national resistance.”

The 23-page report recommended that UN member states develop a “plan to end the Israeli settler-colonial occupation and apartheid regime.” The report urged the General Assembly to call on member states to condemn Israel’s human rights violations.

According to Albanese, “The violations described in this report reveal the nature of the Israeli occupation: a deliberate, racist, and repressive regime of appropriation aimed at preventing the realization of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination.”

Amnesty International calls for the investigation of war crimes

The Israeli occupation forces have killed at least 111 Palestinians since the start of 2022, 26 of whom were children. In a raid on October 24, Israeli forces killed 5 Palestinians in the West Bank city of Nablus, injuring 20 others, in what has become a daily occurrence for Palestinians.

In the meantime, Amnesty International has called for opening an investigation into possible war crimes committed by Israel during its August 2022 offensive on Gaza. “Israel’s latest offensive on Gaza lasted only three days, but that was ample time to unleash fresh trauma and destruction on the besieged population,” said Agnès Callamard, Secretary General of Amnesty International.

Whether the international community will take action to end Israel’s violations against the Palestinians remains to be seen.

It is only a matter of time before the international community will take action to end Israel’s violations against the Palestinians.

Only time will tell whether the international community will take action to end Israel’s violations against the Palestinians 

In a narrow diplomatic victory for China, the U.N.’s highest human rights body voted on October 6 against a proposal from Britain, Turkey, the United States, and other predominantly Western nations to hold a debate on alleged human rights abuses against Muslim Uyghurs and other ethnic minorities in China’s western Xinjiang province.

The loss – 19 against, 17 for, 11 abstentions – is just the second time in the council’s 16-year history that a proposal has been rejected, and analysts see it as a setback for accountability efforts, the West’s moral authority on human rights, and the United Nations’ reputation.

The vote was a test of political and diplomatic influence between the West and Beijing, and it would have been the first time that China’s human rights record merited a distinct agenda item at the council.

Human rights groups ‘disappointed’

“This is a disaster. This is really disappointing,” said Dolkun Isa, President of the World Uyghur Congress, whose mother died in a camp and whose two brothers are missing. “We will never give up, but we are really disappointed by the reaction of Muslim countries,” he added.

In a statement, more than 60 Uyghur rights organizations from across the globe urged the United Nations and its human rights experts to “take concrete action according to their mandates.”

An Advocate for ISHR in China and Latin America, Raphael Viana David, said, “While, in recent years, the Council has been able to scrutinize international crimes in Palestine, Ukraine or Myanmar, and to investigate systemic racism and police violence in the United States, Council members sent today a dreadful message: China remains so far untouchable”.

On Twitter, Phil Lynch, head of the International Service for Human Rights, described the voting record as “shameful” and further addressed Muslim nations in the statement, “OIC states fail to stand with Uyghur Muslims. Somalia the only African state to actually stand against systemic discrimination. Ukraine’s abstention betrays values of solidarity and accountability to which it appeals”. Somalia was the only Muslim nation in favor for the debate, despite the country’s close diplomatic ties with China.

In a meeting on August 18th at the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation, Foreign Minister Wang Yi announced China’s pledge of debt forgiveness for 17 African countries in an effort to establish connections and shift western influence away from the continent.

There is a likelihood that investments with China are the reason why numerous Muslim countries, abstained or voted against the resolution due to ‘seeking closer ties.’

China’s response

Before the voting, the Chinese ambassador Chen Xu stated Beijing’s “China firmly opposes and categorically rejects the draft decision”. He also stated that “The U.S. and some other countries, in disregard of their own serious human rights violations, are indulged in pointing fingers at others”. He reiterated that the “international community must not allow any attempt to politicize or instrumentalize human rights issues” as it sets a dangerous precedent.

China’s Foreign Ministry issued a lengthy statement after the vote, claiming that “For some time now, the U.S. and some other Western countries have been misinforming the public about Xinjiang and seeking political manipulation in the name of human rights simply to smear China’s image and contain China’s development”.

He reaffirmed that “The issues that the Human Rights Council truly needs to focus on are the serious human rights violations concerning the U.S., the UK and some Western forces, including systemic racism and racial discrimination, the rights of refugees and migrants, rampant gun violence, unilateral coercive measures, and massive killings of innocent civilians in overseas military operations”.

The U.S. ambassador, Michele Taylor, said that the purpose of the proposal for the debate was to “provide a neutral forum for discussion” that would allow China to voice its opinions and hear the opinions of others.

“No country represented here today has a perfect human rights record,” she said. “No country, no matter how powerful, should be excluded from council discussions. This includes my country — the United States — and it includes the People’s Republic of China.”

T

he war in Ukraine has escalated after Putin’s official endorsement of the referendums in Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia and their subsequent annexation. These regions amount to approximately 15% of total Ukrainian territories. With this decision, the favorable climate that emerged with the grain corridor deal has all but dissipated.

UN Secretary-General António Guterres criticized the decision as it grossly violates international law and the UN Charter. European countries and the U.S. ascribed the referendums as “shams”, declaring that they would not recognise them. The Turkish foreign ministry released a statement indicating that referendums are unacceptable since they breach international law. From his end, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy announced a quick bid for NATO membership, a move that NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg appreciated.

Putin’s recent move is worth examining from two perspectives: Moscow’s domestic strategies and the broader international context.

Popular will versus power politics

First, Russia has instrumentally used and abused the concept of popular will. From Moscow’s standpoint, the referendum was the only way to legitimize its actions amidst widespread international distrust. The same tactic was also used in 2014 when Russia annexed Crimea. Although the Russian media frequently quoted observers it deemed independent, most commentators viewed the five-day voting process as unconstitutional and lacking independent monitoring.

The referendums were initially scheduled for November but moved to an earlier date. This schedule change seems to be a tactical response to Russia’s military backlash. The recent retreats of Russian troops from several regions due to the Ukrainian counteroffensives reflect these difficulties. Furthermore, the partial mobilization of 300,000 individuals is another sign of the lacklustre Russian military performance.

Moreover, the narrative of the popular will (embodied in the sham referendum) is a strategic move that lays the foundations of a new casus belli. Such a selective and distorted approach to popular will aims to impede the growing positive attitude of the Ukrainian public towards EU and NATO membership.

According to a recent national survey by Rating, 86% and 83% of the respondents would support Ukraine’s accession to the European Union and NATO, respectively. In contrast, Russian public attitudes towards the war are not part of this narrative. Focus is solely applied to the separatist regions whose peoples have been allegedly “oppressed” by Kyiv.

The rhetoric of “divided nation” and “oppressed people”, together with the initial aims of “demilitarization” and “denazification”, remain the central pillars of Russia’s pretext for invasion.

Russia’s repeated emphasis on popularity seems to give lip service to national interests while diverting public attention from the irritating problems experienced by Russian troops in the field.

Meanwhile, President Zelenskyy’s quick bid for NATO membership and hope for a fast-track process would probably represent another futile attempt. The Ukrainian bids for NATO -and the EU- is reminiscent of an episode from Thucydides’s book The Peloponnesian War. In the part of the Melian Dialogue, the people of Melos naively trusted in Lacedaemonians (Spartans) that they would come to save them. On their way to subjugate Melos, the Athenians stated: “An intending ally looks not to the goodwill of those who invoke his aid but to marked superiority of real power, and of none is this truer than of the Lacedaemonians.”

China’s Abstention and the Fate of the UNSC

China abstained in the UN Security Council vote on Russia’s annexation of Ukraine. Similarly, India, Brazil, and Gabon abstained. Given that Russia has veto power as a permanent member, the UNSC draft resolution put forward by the U.S. was doomed to fail. Nevertheless, China’s behaviour, which has vowed to pursue “friendship with no limits” with Russia before the Russian invasion, deserves further scrutiny.

Abstaining from the UNSC vote is the conventional pattern followed by China on many occasions. Beijing’s standpoint is based on its constitutional foreign policy wisdom of “Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence”, namely, mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, mutual non-aggression, non-interference in each other’s internal affairs, equality and mutual benefit, and peaceful coexistence.

While China’s abstention is rooted in the principle of non-interference, some accompanying phrases raise questions. “The sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries should be safeguarded,” said China’s ambassador, Zhang Jun, referring to the principle of mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Beijing’s attitude essentially aims to maintain consistency in its foreign policy decisions. Therefore, the UNSC constitutes a strategic venue for China to keep its discourse of neutrality while calling for restraint from Russia and Ukraine.

In addition, three states also abstained from voting, including Brazil and India, which are members of the BRICS, a rising economic alliance that challenges the predominantly Western-led economic order. India did the same for the UNSC Resolution 2623 immediately after the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Its “neutrality” vis-à-vis anti-Moscow resolutions is a message that New Delhi refrains from adopting a clear-cut position, especially when the international balance of power is shifting. As regional power structures will solidify with time, and India’s national security concerns will be gradually relieved, different voting behavior patterns for India will probably occur.

Increasing national security concerns with the re-escalation of the Sino-Indian border conflict under Xi Jinping makes India a cautious actor emphasizing neutrality in times of uncertainty. It has become an actor that does not want to alienate the West while maintaining its non-Western alignments within the BRICS and the SCO.

T

he 77th session of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) comes at a time when there are crises on nearly every front and world leaders have a lot on their plate. Tackling inflation and economic instability, humanitarian matters, climate change, floods, droughts and fires, and the effects of the pandemic are only a few of the many challenges.

Expectedly, the war in Ukraine and nuclear threats seem to dominate this year’s agenda as Russian President Vladimir Putin warns the world that he “is not bluffing” about using nuclear weapons.

During the meetings, which are taking place between September 13 and 27, countries have voiced their concerns and presented their agendas, while leaders have an opportunity to engage in meetings on the sidelines in commissions of multilateral cooperation.

Leaders or high-level representatives attend in person; however, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was allowed by a General Assembly vote to submit a prerecorded speech. Ukrainian Ambassador Sergiy Kyslytsya stated prior to the vote that Zelenskyy, as commander-in-chief, must be and is present with the army of Ukraine.

An Undiplomatic Security Council Meeting

A UN Security Council meeting was held on September 22 to discuss the war in Ukraine. The meeting focused on accountability for alleged abuses committed by Russia.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, who appeared only for his speech, reiterated claims that Russian speakers in the east of Ukraine were oppressed and criticized the West’s support for Ukraine. He said that the West’s goal was to prolong the fighting and “wear down and weaken Russia.”

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken blamed Putin for adding fuel to the fire during the week of the UNGA meeting. Blinken stated that this “shows his utter contempt and disdain for the UN Charter, the UN General Assembly, and this council.”

Blinken called on UN Security Council members to “send a clear message that Russia’s reckless nuclear threats must stop immediately,” and argued that Russia should face further isolation.

Blinken also raised concerns about the discovery of mass graves and torture allegations in Ukraine. In March 2022, the International Criminal Court (ICC) had opened an investigation and sent teams to Ukraine to gather evidence of possible crimes. Prosecutor Karim Khan told the council that more ICC staffers would be dispatched the following week, and said that he believed there are reasonable grounds that crimes were committed.

China’s Foreign Affairs Minister Wang Yi stated that the investigations into violations of international humanitarian law should be objective and fair, and that they “must not be politicized.”

Highlights from the General Debate

The General Debate, the main event, began on September 20 and will continue until September 26. Delegates from each member state have 15 minutes to speak; however, leaders often go above the time limit.

Perhaps one of the most anticipated speeches addressing the UNGA was that of Ukrainian President Zelenskyy. Zelenskyy put forward a peace formula which called for comprehensive punishment until the internationally recognized Ukrainian border is restored, aggression is stopped, and losses are compensated. He suggested a Special Tribunal to punish Russia which could also be a warning to potential aggressors in the future. Zelenskyy accused Russia of targeting nuclear power plants and “radiation blackmailing.” “We cannot agree to a delayed war. Because it will be even hotter than the war now,” he warned.

Polish President Andrzej Duda heavily criticized Russia in his speech and called for war reparations to Ukraine affirming that “there is no justice without reparations.”

Great Britain’s new prime minister Liz Truss pledged to increase military support to Ukraine for as long as it takes. She stated that the UK will spend 3% of its GDP on defense by 2030, and will position itself as a leading security actor in Europe.

French President Emmanuel Macron criticized Russia’s decision to declare partial military mobilization saying it put youth at risk and that the move would further isolate Russia.

The Iran Nuclear Deal was brought to the agenda by Ebrahim Raisi, Iran’s president. He addressed the stalled talks saying, “We gave ample opportunities for those who trampled upon and left this agreement to return to it. We have been extremely flexible and had it not been for our flexibility, the negotiations would have stopped in the very first few days… Our wish is only one thing: commitment, observance of commitments.”

U.S. President Joe Biden reiterated that while the United States is clear that it would not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, it is prepared for a mutual return to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action if Iran steps up to its obligations.

Furthermore, the U.S. president called Putin’s nuclear threats “a reckless disregard for the responsibilities of the non-proliferation regime.”

Biden remarked on the competition between the U.S. and China, saying, “We do not seek conflict. We do not seek a cold war. We do not ask any nation to choose between the United States or any other partner.” He stated that the U.S. sought to uphold peace across the Taiwan Straits, and that it was committed to its One-China Policy.

Biden addressed the protests that have emerged following the death of Mahsa Amini, a young woman who was in the custody of the Iranian morality police. “Today we stand with the brave citizens and the brave women of Iran, who right now are demonstrating to secure their basic rights.” Biden also called out human rights abuses by China, Burma, and the Taliban.

In his speech, Nigerian President Muhammadu Buhari mentioned that Africa and other developing nations only accounted for a small proportion of greenhouse gas emissions, but are the hardest hit by the consequences of climate change. He stated, “Rocketing energy costs worldwide are, in part, the product of conflict and supply disruptions to Europe and the Americas. Yet, we are all paying the price. It is, therefore, our expectation that this UNGA 77 and the upcoming COP 27 [2022 United Nations Climate Change Conference to be held on November 6-18] will help galvanize the political will required to drive action towards the fulfillment of the various existing climate change initiatives.”

The theme of this year’s UN General Assembly, namely “A watershed moment: transformative solutions to interlocking challenges,” seems very appropriate against the backdrop of heightened geopolitical tensions, a climate crisis, and global food shortages.

Wars affect everyone differently: men are forced to leave their loved ones behind to fight in a battle over which they have no say or control; women are left to care for non-combatants while becoming further vulnerable to dangers; and children are affected in ways we cannot even fathom. However, some groups face additional difficulties such as disabled individuals which comprise 16% of the population in armed conflicts globally.

For example, if they have no visible disabilities, young men in Ukraine who are usually unfit to fight in the war have been forced to take part in the recent Ukraine and Russian aggression. They do so even if they require constant medical care or have a psychological disorder that may have triggering effects. Women and girls with disabilities, physical or mental, are unable to flee violence, and many more become vulnerable to human rights violations, violence, and abuse. These individuals already face severe adversities, to which are added emerging global complications such as climate change and the global health crisis (triggered by COVID-19).

We know wars can cause casualties that can end with a life-long disability such as losing limbs or suffering from PTSD. However, some have been suffering already prior to the war, making it extremely difficult for them and their loved ones to fight, escape, or sometimes even seek shelter. Thus, their caregivers face grave dilemmas: should they flee to a safer country despite the dangers ahead and the possible lack of necessary care and accessibility, or should they stay and continue to care for those that need them in the limited “safety” of their homes? Each decision is not without its consequences.

What does the universal law on persons with disabilities say about armed conflicts?

According to Article 11 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) adopted in 2006:

States Parties shall take, in accordance with their obligations under international law, including international humanitarian law and international human rights law, all necessary measures to ensure the protection and safety of persons with disabilities in situations of risk, including situations of armed conflict, humanitarian emergencies and the occurrence of natural disasters.

This article was one of the grounds of the open letter by the EDF (European Disability Forum), which called on all parties to ensure the protection and safety of disabled individuals in Ukraine.

In 2019, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 2475 on the situation of persons with disabilities in armed conflict, recognizing the impact of armed conflict on persons with disabilities and highlighting the obligations of all member states.

Important issues

It is essential to highlight that in a world that has long witnessed numerous wars, these resolutions are relatively new and are yet to be adequately applied. An in-depth case study titled “Unshielded, Unseen: The Implementation of UNSC Resolution 2475 on the Protection of Persons with Disabilities in Armed Conflict in Yemen” is a case in point.

The study revealed that being a signatory to the CRPD does not guarantee the implementation of these protections—far from it. The efforts to promote the right of disabled individuals have ceased since the commencement of hostilities in Yemen in 2015. Moreover, nearly 81% of disabled people cannot access humanitarian services and are excluded from internally displaced sites.

According to a report submitted to the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in the context of armed conflict by the Human Rights Watch, it was found that disabled individuals were at higher risk during armed clashes. They had difficulties escaping and lacked access to assistive devices (crutches, audio-visual aid devices, wheelchairs, etc.) and basic services (food, sanitation, health care, etc.). They were also more vulnerable to mental health impacts and psychological distress.

A similar case is now evident in the Russia-Ukraine war. Despite the joint condemnation of Russia and support for Ukraine among the international community, the humanitarian response currently lacks inclusivity and is inaccessible to many. According to the EDF, there are currently 2.7 million recorded disabled individuals in Ukraine who require services on all levels, including care, access, safety, and evacuation. Those that cannot flee have no choice but to stay; however, they require safe access to health services and care, which is extremely difficult in times of war.

Safety precautions must be provided in accessible methods for those with limited sight or hearing. People with mental disabilities or traumas may find it extremely difficult and triggering to stay in shelters which are usually underground and crowded. Low hygiene conditions may also be a triggering factor for people with chronic illnesses or OCD.

For those who wish to flee, the escape routes are not usually disabled-friendly, starting from the lack of inclusive access to critical information about safety and evacuation to uneven roads and lack of electricity that make it extremely difficult for those traveling with aid equipment.

What could be done?

The devastation of war affects everyone, but it becomes harsher and more taxing for some people because they are not included in the disaster response. Unfortunately, during times of war, the “Every man for himself” attitude comes to the foreground, putting vulnerable people in further jeopardy. This explains why large humanitarian organizations must communicate with the disabled community or specific organizations that represent disabled individuals to set up a more inclusive response strategy and emergency plans during crises and humanitarian responses.

The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and Resolution 2475 must be followed by all states. The convention must be followed up with implementation, which includes protection, access to information protocols (via braille, visual-audio aid, etc.), and basic services (hygiene products, health care, assistance, transportation, etc.). All of the above applies to those who flee from the war and those who stay.

The wrath of war is difficult to handle. We must all ensure that access to humanitarian aid and the right to flee or be safe is shared equally and fairly, and that no person is ever left behind.

Note: Unless otherwise indicated, this op-ed uses the term “disabled individual” to describe all types of disabilities (mental, physical, psychological, chronic illnesses, etc.)

Almost 70 years after the establishment of the United Nations (UN), the aim to protect international peace and security remains as relevant and urgent as ever. Today’s conflicts cause immense human sufferings in terms of human casualties, displacement, and humanitarian needs. Approximately one and a half billion people live in about fifty conflict zones around the world under the threat of violence.

The UN was established to prevent the reoccurrence of the great destructions and humanitarian sufferings caused by the past wars, World War II being the most prominent. For a series of reasons, however, the UN has mostly failed to fulfill its most fundamental task, its raison d’être: protecting peace and security.

The Russia-Ukraine War is another striking example of a UN failure. Let’s have a look at how, where, and why the UN system fails.

The UN Peacekeeping System

As in all legal systems, the main purpose of international law is to protect the existence of the international community through preventing violence. Article 1 of the UN Charter states that the main purpose of the UN is to “maintain international peace and security” by taking “effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace.”

The main responsibility for eliminating the threats to peace or suppressing aggression is given to the UN Security Council which can take binding decisions for all states in order to inflict collective measures, as stated in Chapter VII of the UN Charter, against an aggressor such as political, economic, and even military measures when other measures fail.

The Security Council makes decisions with the majority vote of 9 out of 15 members. However, for a decision to go through permanent members of the Security Council, i.e., China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, must not veto said decisions. These countries have the “veto power” to preventing passing any resolution.

The UN, as a whole, also deals with issues like the protection of human rights and the environment, the peaceful use of space and seas, international commercial and/or economic issues, and international organizations, as they indirectly affect the protection of international peace and security.

How the UN Failed to Prevent the Russia-Ukraine War

About eight years prior to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which started on February 24, 2022, Russia’s annexation of Ukraine’s Crimea in 2014 and the confrontations in the Donbas region had already caused enormous tensions and even military confrontations between the two countries, signaling a major conflict.

Unsurprisingly, Russia launched a major military attack in Ukraine on February 24, 2022, naming it a “special military operation.” At the very least, it was an “armed attack” clearly meeting the definition of “aggression” as worded by the UN Charter and endorsed by the UN General Assembly with a decision taken on March 2, 2022.

However, the UN Security Council failed to take any decision to prevent or stop the aggression due to Russia’s veto. During the time, the UN could not carry out an effective process at the level of both the General Assembly and the Security Council to stop the war in Ukraine. The General Assembly failed to organize an extraordinary meeting to decide on possible measures.

The Security Council, which has the authority to take binding decisions, has not been able to take measures against Russia. As a matter of fact, the Security Council came together at two extraordinarily meetings with no results. Russia preferred to start the attack while the Security Council meeting was in process. As U.S. ambassador to the UN Linda Thomas-Greenfield said, Putin somewhat disdainfully declared the war while the council meeting was going on.

After the beginning of the Russian attack, the Security Council, at its first meeting on February 26, 2022, similarly could not take any coercive decision against Russia, again due to Russia’s use of its veto. Ironically, Russia, which held the rotating presidency of the Security Council, for a period of one month when the invasion of Ukraine took place, has even taken steps that have caused more tensions rather than help move towards peace, by calling the Security Council to a meeting to discuss the “biological weapons” of the U.S. in Ukraine.

Since no decision could be taken, there have been no collective and coordinated measures by the international community against Russia. States are left on their own to decide what to do to stop the war and restore peace in Ukraine, a process that has been quite insufficient.

There has only been partial UN success in reporting, investigating human rights violations, and helping Ukrainian civilians. Raising funds for Ukrainian civilians seems relatively successful. The United Nations and its humanitarian partners launched emergency appeals totaling $1.7 billion to provide emergency humanitarian assistance to people in Ukraine and refugees in neighboring countries. On March 7, the World Bank approved an emergency funding of $700 million to support Ukraine. These funds will ensure the continuation of essential services to the population.

However, the inability of the UN Security Council to take a globally binding decision, which could include collective sanctions, has prevented the international community from assuming a joint and coordinated position towards Russia. As a result, the UN, has remained ineffective in fulfilling its duty in such a challenging situation.

Why Is the UN Peacekeeping System Not Working?

Although the UN has achieved certain success in supporting the right of many countries to self-determination, the development of international law, free trade, human rights, and peacekeeping operations, it has not achieved a similar success in maintaining international peace and security.

The first of the fundamental reasons behind the UN peacekeeping system’s lack of success is structural. The fact that permanent members of the Security Council are given the authority to veto draft resolutions demonstrates that the system was established to work only with the consensus of five countries.

The fact that permanent members of the UN Security Council do not actually agree on many peace-related international issues means that the system in most of the cases is blocked. Moreover, the UN Security Council could not work against any permanent member even if it is an aggressor, like the case of Russia in Ukraine. In the limited cases where the UN peacekeeping system has worked, it did so only for the common interests of its permanent members.

The second reason for the failure of the UN peacekeeping system is the lack of budgetary autonomy. Major contributors to the UN General Budget include the U.S. and other countries that use their financial power to affect the functionality of the UN and to make sure it operates according to their own interests rather than those of the international community.

Another fundamental reason relates to the capacity—or lack thereof—of the UN to enforce its decisions relating to international peace and security, including those of the Security Council. Even if the Security Council is able to take a decision despite difficulties, there is no permanent structure for the UN that will enforce the resolutions. The enforcement is actually left to the power of the member states, if any is willing to act.

Middle powers are states that rank neither as great powers nor as small actors in international relations. There is no single definition or straightforward approach to conceptualize their role other than the commonly held view that such countries are key players in the geopolitics of their regions. The variety of roles and aims assumed by middle powers also vary according to their regional context. Some middle powers such as Turkey are traditionally seen as key military allies by the West, while others such as Canada and Japan are considered major trade partners.

However, despite such fundamental differences in their strength or standing, countries like Australia, Brazil, Canada, Japan, India, South Korea, South Africa, and Turkey are increasingly involved in international crises and developments. Below, I shall outline both challenges and opportunities provided by the current global context for middle powers. I ultimately argue that middle powers can implement collective strategies on the basis of their common interests and gain more say in global affairs.

Middle Powers’ Organizational Capacity

The foremost challenge facing middle powers is organizational. There are many international organizations populated by middle powers, but almost none of them are exclusively middle-power oriented. Middle powers are often members of the global institutions dominated by great powers, like G20 and BRICS, whose agendas mainly benefit the great powers involved. An exclusively middle power organization is yet to be formed, the closest organization of such a nature being MIKTA. MITKA is an exclusive club of a number of middle powers with quite limited membership, namely Mexico, Indonesia, Turkey, South Korea, and Australia.

In the absence of an organization representing their interests vocally, middle powers cannot assume a bigger role in international politics. The security architecture of the UN privileges the five permanent members of the UN Security Council; NATO, the world’s most significant military alliance, is under American leadership; and the EU, the largest trading bloc, is led by a Franco-German alliance. Middle powers such as Turkey, South Africa, Brazil, and India are all key players in their region but none seems capable of exerting global influence. An alliance or an organization exclusive to middle powers can change the overall dynamic.

Middle powers such as Brazil, Turkey, and India can agree among themselves on pushing for a reform of the UN.

One of the first goals of any middle power club should be a reform of the UN system. Middle powers individually, or collectively, should have more say in the UN’s decision-making on international security crises. Such reform may stipulate more quotas for each region and some rotational representation for middle powers, and particularly African, Latin American, and Middle Eastern middle power states should be afforded more representation at the UN’s Security Council. However, the reform proposal first requires a consensus among middle powers and that may prove hard to achieve.

Middle powers such as Brazil, Turkey, and India are all part of the liberal international system. As democratic countries with huge potential for economic growth and no significant military or strategic conflict with the West, they can agree among themselves on pushing for a reform of the UN. More established and traditional middle powers like Australia, Canada, Japan, and Sweden may also join the reform call, as this may benefit them as well. The less democratic, or authoritarian ones, such as Egypt, Iran, or Saudi Arabia, however, may have more radical demands concerning the UN reform and might not join a collective reform movement.

As mentioned above, the most straightforward path forward could be a reform of the UN’s security architecture allowing more say to middle power states, maybe through a recognition of their status which may provide them some form of collective representation. In order to make that happen, middle powers need to agree on their common interests and goals.

Middle powers are mostly liberal democratic states, so they should highlight the fact that they are in favor of the liberal order, e.g., the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the UN system. Mediation and peacekeeping should remain their most preferred means of international crisis diplomacy, though they must publicize their efforts and seek more recognition for their contributions.

An effective alliance or organization of middle power diplomacy should be formed and take sides in global crises since leaving such crises to be mainly decided by great power politics will only downgrade the middle power cause.

In short, middle powers need more concerted actions and efforts in highlighting their undeniable role in world affairs. The world is no longer divided into two or three competing strategic blocs. Global affairs are much more complex and require collective action of actors with different levels of international standing. Middle powers are no longer bound to side with one or the other alliance; these days, more than ever before, they collectively command a much more serious economic and military might.

Organizational problems can be tackled and collective interests can be furthered particularly if the leading middle powers such as Australia, Brazil, Canada, Japan, India, Mexico, South Africa, South Korea, and Turkey can agree on a collective initiative. The list of countries mentioned is just indicative – more states can be welcomed into this group, and even small nations can join their forces with middle powers as they see that international peace and stability can be furthered through a collective movement.

Afghanistan is facing the collapse of essential services as food aid runs out, according to U.N. agencies, who released a rapid appeal for more than $600 million on October 5, 2021 to sustain approximately 11 million people across the crisis-plagued country until the end of the year.

Due to security concerns, staff evacuations, closures, and legal difficulties, most of the former Afghan government is no longer operating due to the recent Taliban takeover. Humanitarian relief and other assistance given by the U.N. agencies and civilian groups as a result have been severely restricted. U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres said on August 31, 2021 that “a humanitarian catastrophe looms” in Afghanistan and asked donor countries to “dig deep” to support an emergency flash appeal. The United States and the European Union have declared that humanitarian help will continue to be provided to Afghanistan.

Following the Taliban’s takeover, the U.S. froze $7 billion in Afghan reserves, while the International Monetary Fund (IMF) froze  funding to the country, including hundreds of millions of dollars in Special Drawing Rights, which may be turned into currency during times of crisis, according to the IOM. The Central Bank of Afghanistan can only get a fraction of the money it needs. As a result, Afghan banks’ coffers are unable to be easily replenished, resulting in ATMs running out of cash and the imposition of withdrawal limitations.

The developing situation has created a significant disturbance and threatens Afghanistan’s critical winter wheat season, which is about to start.

An IMF spokesperson stated, “As is always the case, the IMF is guided by the views of the international community. There is currently a lack of clarity within the international community regarding recognition of a government in Afghanistan, as a consequence of which the country cannot access SDRs [special drawing rights] or other IMF resources.”

The developing situation has created a significant disturbance and threatens Afghanistan’s critical winter wheat season, which is about to start, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) warned of a major fundraising conference.

The complex set of sanctions imposed on the Taliban by the United Nations Security Council, as well as sanctions imposed by the United States, the European Union, and many other governments, should be reviewed to ensure that they do not obstruct the delivery of humanitarian aid by nongovernmental organizations.

Uncertainty looms about the type of administration the Taliban will form; it’s a crucial concern for both international actors holding Afghanistan’s reserves and humanitarian organizations halting programs and financing. However, at what cost will withholding the Taliban monetary assets negatively impact Afghan food scarcity and a growing humanitarian crisis?

We learn more about the climate crisis every year. The evidence is pouring in: increasing temperatures, enormous deforestation, and record rains. And, once a year, we learn more about the human cost of climate change, when data on the deaths of land and environmental activists, the same individuals who are highlighting and resisting the disintegration of our climate, is revealed. According to Global Witness’s annual report, that number increased to a record 227 murders globally in 2020.

The 2021 Global Witness report has gathered data on the death of land and environmental activists over a nine-year period, beginning in 2012. During this period, a bleak picture emerged. There are signs that as the climate crisis worsens, violence against individuals who defend their land and the planet is on the rise as well. The inexplicable exploitation and greed that exacerbated the climate crisis also contributed to violence against earth and environmental activists.

The report states that “[i]n 2020, we recorded 227 lethal attacks – an average of more than four people a week – making it once again the most dangerous year on record for people defending their homes, land and livelihoods, and ecosystems vital for biodiversity and the climate.” The authors of the report claim that an average of more than four individuals are killed each week, which is more than double the amount recorded in 2013. They also linked the increase in violence against climate change and earth activists to the worsening of the climate catastrophe.

Murders, Threats, and Much More

According to the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights to Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and of Association, environmental activists struggle to exercise assembly and civil rights around the world.

Kenya

Activists in Kenya’s Lamu County have been trying to raise awareness about the environmental, health, and climatic consequences of the Lamu Port-South Sudan-Ethiopia-Transport (LAPSSET) Corridor project, which includes a proposed coal-fired power station. According to Human Rights Watch, at least two activists were kidnapped by persons posing as police officials on Lamu, a Kenyan island, in 2016, and are still missing.

Brazil

People in Brazil are risking their lives to save the Amazon rainforest, which is one of the world’s most significant carbon sinks. Intimidation, threats, and violence are used by criminal networks involved in illegal deforestation against anybody who stands in their way by denouncing their unlawful operations, including Indigenous peoples, small-scale farmers, community leaders, and even environmental law enforcement officers. Human Rights Watch recorded 28 homicides, four attempted homicides, and more than 40 death threats connected to illegal forestry between 2015 and 2019, the majority of which took place between 2015 and 2019. Only two of the offenders in these incidents have been brought to justice.

Speaking on the relationship between big corporations and the dissolving rights of Indigenous communities, environmentalist and academic Bill McKibben stated,

[Defenders are] at risk because they find themselves living on or near something that some corporation is demanding. That demand – the demand for the highest possible profit, the quickest possible timeline, the cheapest possible operation – seems to translate eventually into the understanding, somewhere, that the troublemaker must go.

Can We Fix This?

In the 2021 Global Witness report, suggestions were presented for stemming the tide of violence against environmental activists. The report urges the UN to acknowledge that human rights are linked to a safe environment , to ensure that pledges made at the upcoming climate change conference are consistent with human rights duties, and that governments safeguard defenders by regulating extractive industries and putting a stop to any efforts to criminalize protest and land defense. Furthermore, the report urges businesses to enact due diligence procedures to prevent violence from taking place anywhere in their supply chain, to adopt a zero-tolerance policy against all violence, and to offer reparations when it occurs.

The head of U.S. Communications and Global Partnerships at Global Witness Miranda Brobeck spoke to EcoWatch about the recent report, by emphasizing the relationship between the climate crisis and the economic effects of the pandemic, and how it affects environmental activists. She stated, “I think it’s also really important that we recognize the threat to earth and environmental activists on the ground, who not only are facing the health threats from the pandemic and the economic impacts of the pandemic, but are also facing the worst of the climate catastrophe and are just trying to defend our planet and their homes.”

A letter was sent by a group of environmental activists from around the world to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres calling on him to push the UN to support a global implementation of the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders.

Environmentalists are the first line of defense against socio-ecological collapse and the climate crisis. Because the world needs them, it should also support them.