By Naureen Hossain
NEW YORK, Apr 24 2024 – The UN Palestinian refugee agency welcomed the recommendations made in the report from the independent investigation led by Catherine Colonna and warned of new and continuing concerns that threaten the agency’s operations.

Philippe Lazzarini

UNRWA Commissioner-General Philippe Lazzarini spoke to reporters on Tuesday. He was in New York to speak before the Security Council, which recently convened to discuss the status of UNRWA, where he warned of the “reluctant disregard” for UN staff and premises in the region since the current outbreak of violence in Gaza on October 7.

He noted that over 160 UNRWA buildings have been damaged, and 180 UN staff members have been killed during this time. The premises that have been vacated are now being used by military groups from both sides of the conflict, including Hamas and Israeli military forces.

Lazzarini remarked that the attacks on UNRWA—literal and rhetorical—were motivated not by concerns for its neutrality but were “primarily motivated to strip Palestinians from the region”.

Where UNRWA’s support has taken the greatest hits, there has been in support from donors. Since late January, more than sixteen countries suspended their support to UNRWA in the wake of accusations that some of its staff members were involved in the October 7 attack in Israel. Support had been suspended under the stipulation that while the agency was under investigation, donors had to temporarily freeze funding. Since the release of the interim report from the Colonna investigation, Lazzarini stated that “a number of countries” have resumed their support of UNRWA to the extent that the agency is funded through the month of June.

Lazzarini also told reporters that his focus now was to bridge the funding gap left by the United States, which was UNRWA’s biggest donor, and was among the first to suspend its support. The US is stipulated to freeze its funding to UNRWA until March 2025. Should this suspension be long-lasting, Lazzarini warned that it would have a “sustainable impact” on UNRWA funding and operations.

He remarked that “grassroots solidarity through digital fundraising” has bolstered support for UNRWA. The agency has received 50–100 million USD in donations since the current hostilities.

UNRWA staff on the ground continue their work under dangerous circumstances and even under questions of the agency’s neutrality. The ongoing attacks against the Palestinians raise the question of whether UNRWA can or should maintain neutrality under the circumstances. Lazzarini noted that UNRWA staff and the communities they serve are “deeply anxious of the possibility that UNRWA could be dismantled. UNRWA has been a lifeline not only for the community, but for their families,” Lazzarini said.

Lazzarini’s press briefing also followed the public release of the report from the independent investigation into UNRWA, led by former French foreign minister Catherine Colonna. The report is the result of a nine-week investigation into the agency’s operations and conduct to assess its neutrality as a UN entity. In short, the report makes several key recommendations to address concerns over transparency in communications and accountability, management reform, staff neutrality, and cooperation with other UN agencies, among others.

With regards to the report, Lazzarini said that UNRWA would keep member states regularly informed of their plans to implement the recommendations made in the Colonna report, while also adding that the success of these recommendations would require the full support of donors.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

By Ramzy Baroud
SEATTLE, Washington, Apr 24 2024 – The vote and the American veto at the United Nations Security Council on April 18 was predictable. Though European countries are increasingly supportive of a Palestinian state, the US is not yet ready for that eventuality, for these reasons:

One, US foreign policy in the Middle East is still governed by Israeli priorities. And since the majority of Israelis reject the idea of a Palestinian state, of any ‘concession’ to the Palestinians, or even of the most basic rights for Palestinians, the weak US president could have not possibly defied that solid Israeli position.

Two, the fact that Israel, per the words of its ambassador at the UN, Gilad Erdan, saw that a vote for Palestine would be equivalent to ‘rewarding terrorism’, created the kind of political discourse that would have made a positive American vote or an abstention from the vote akin to supporting so-called terrorism.

Three, Biden, in his mind, cannot politically afford supporting an independent Palestine only a few months ahead of one of the most decisive elections in US history.

The Republicans made it clear that their support for Israel is blind and unconditional. They have also made it clear that they are ready to exploit any comment – let alone action – by Biden and his officials that may seem critical of Israel in any way. All of these factors combined made the American veto quite predictable.

However, the vote was still important and revealing for the following reasons:

One, the international community remains largely united in its support of the Palestinians.

Two, the positive vote by France, a very important and influential European country, signals a shift in the perception of European body politic towards Palestine.

Three, the strong statements emanating by Ireland, Spain and others in this regard indicates that the trajectory of the support of Palestine in Europe will continue in the coming months and years.

Four, the outcome of the vote further isolates the United States, exactly as much as the Israeli genocide in Gaza has also exposed and isolated Washington, as the only line of defense for Tel Aviv, allowing it to violate the rights of the Palestinian people and to deny them the very political horizon needed for a just peace in the Middle East.

And finally, it further accentuates Biden’s inability to liberate himself from the stronghold imposed on him and his party by Israel’s supporters – Israel’s backers within the Democratic Party institution and the pro-Israel lobby from without.

Despite the negative vote, however, Palestinians, now, have renewed resolve that they would ultimately be able to prevail. This feeling is buoyed by the strong support for Palestine at the UNSC and at the General Assembly, the growing sympathy of the Palestinians worldwide and the continued resistance of Palestinians in Gaza.

https://www.ipsnews.net/2024/04/will-two-state-solution-include-palestine-un-member-state/

Dr Ramzy Baroud is a journalist and the Editor of The Palestine Chronicle. He is the author of six books. His latest book, co-edited with Ilan Pappé, is “Our Vision for Liberation: Engaged Palestinian Leaders and Intellectuals Speak out”. Dr. Baroud is a Non-resident Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Islam and Global Affairs (CIGA). His website is www.ramzybaroud.net

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

By Jomo Kwame Sundaram
KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia, Apr 24 2024 – Rich nations’ climate hypocrisy is accelerating global heating, pushing the planet closer to irreversible catastrophe, with its worst consequences borne by the poorest, both countries and peoples.

Climate injustice
While official and other discourses acknowledge or even invoke the need for collective responsibility, the disparity in culpability between wealthy nations and the developing world is stark.

Jomo Kwame Sundaram

Historically, the industrialised nations of the global North have been the primary contributors to greenhouse gas emissions but continue to evade their fair share of responsibility.

The narrative of an equally shared burden of combating climate change conveniently obscures disproportionately greater emissions and historical exploitation by rich countries.

The European Union’s ambitious new ‘equitable’ climate policies, such as the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), continue this hypocrisy. While ostensibly aimed at reducing emissions, such measures burden developing countries more, further deepening world inequalities.

Market solutions best?
Similarly, carbon taxes, prices and emissions trading systems make it much harder for nations with fewer resources to afford adequate climate action. They have few resources to adapt to global heating and its effects, let alone afford the costly transitions to cleaner technologies and other mitigation measures.

Furthermore, developed nations have relocated energy-intensive industries to the global South to ‘export emissions’. Thus, they effectively shift blame while consuming most goods and services produced at high environmental costs.

Limiting the average temperature increase to no more than 1.5°C (degrees Celsius) above pre-industrial levels, as agreed to by the UNFCCC, will require drastic reduction of carbon (dioxide equivalent) emissions by 45% below 2010 levels by 2030!

Instead, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates current trends will increase the average temperature by 2.7°C by 2100, far above catastrophic levels.

Despite the urgency, countries are mainly focused on committing to the distracting ‘net-zero’ carbon emissions by 2050, ignoring the urgent need for substantial greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions cuts.

At recent climate conferences, carbon pricing and related market mechanisms have been ‘sold’ as an effective and fair means to rapidly reduce carbon dioxide and other GHG emissions to mitigate climate change.

Carbon tax revenue distribution
Worse, there is no discussion of how revenues from carbon taxation should be distributed equitably to accelerate climate adaptation and mitigation efforts in poorer countries.

Carbon pricing claims to penalise GHG emitters for the economic damages and losses caused by global warming. However, there is little evidence of efforts to compensate those most adversely affected.

Moreover, carbon market schemes have only made grossly inadequate impacts. Emissions have only been marginally reduced, well short of what the world needs to address the climate threat.

Besides being ineffective, only a tiny fraction of global GHG emissions are subject to carbon taxes, often imposed using biased methods and assumptions.

Carbon price discounts
Carbon prices have also been grossly discounted to induce market participation and public acceptability. Hence, carbon tax rates do not reflect the supposed social costs of adverse externalities.

Worse, despite the potential of carbon taxes to generate significant revenue for climate finance, progressive redistributive measures have not been developed, let alone implemented.

Hence, carbon pricing policies are not up to the task. They also fail to address underlying systemic issues driving global heating. Carbon taxes tend to be regressive, disproportionately burdening low-income individuals and countries.

Without a progressive reallocation of resources, poor nations and people cannot afford to adapt to global heating, let alone contribute to needed worldwide climate action efforts or achieve sustainable development.

Government fossil fuel subsidies, e.g., to ensure support against Russia after its Ukraine invitation, have undermined the purpose of carbon pricing. With such subsidies, carbon prices became negative in many countries in 2022.

Zero for ‘net-zero’
Carbon offset markets, touted as a way to achieve net-zero emissions, have been criticised as an ineffective distraction, allowing the wealthy to continue emitting GHGs while profiting financial intermediaries.

While successfully touted as a rallying slogan for climate action, the net-zero emissions target is dangerously misleading. Commitments to achieve net-zero emissions typically rely on ‘offsetting’, which allows countries and companies to avoid reducing emissions.

Despite earlier surges in demand for carbon offsets from major financial investors, much of the profit goes to arbitrage, speculation, and trading rather than decarbonisation efforts.

Initiatives like the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero were touted as significant breakthroughs. However, there is much reason to be sceptical about the effectiveness of such initiatives for reducing GHG emissions.

Less than half a year after the Glasgow Conference of Parties (COP), the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and allied countries abandoned their declared commitment to end burning coal despite all its additional dangers, such as sulphide and sulphate emissions.

Market solutions or delusions?
While carbon pricing and offset markets have been promoted as solutions to mitigate global warming, their limitations and ineffectiveness in significantly reducing emissions underscore the need for alternative strategies.

Selective investment and technology promotion policies and greatly increased climate finance for adaptation and mitigation in developing countries are crucial.

They can only succeed if pragmatically conceived and implemented, considering the range of sustainable development and other challenges faced.

Addressing climate change requires a comprehensive, equitable, and pragmatic approach that prioritises substantial emissions reductions and supports vulnerable populations most affected by global heating.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);