By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, Dec 10 2024 – After the Hamas-led attack on Israel on 7 October 2023, Israel retaliated with a war in Gaza involving bombings, shootings and blockades but with no explicit plan for achieving peace with the Palestinians.

It remains unclear what the Israeli government is trying to achieve with its continuing war in Gaza and what its postwar plan is. While Israeli leaders have vowed to maintain security control in Gaza after the war, they have not clearly stated what that control might entail.

A former Israeli defense minister said that Israel’s government with the support of far-right politicians was aiming to occupy, annex and ethnically cleanse Gaza and build Israeli settlements there. He accused the Israeli government of committing war crimes and ethnic cleansing in Gaza.

It remains unclear what the Israeli government is trying to achieve with its continuing war in Gaza and what its postwar plan is. While Israeli leaders have vowed to maintain security control in Gaza after the war, they have not clearly stated what that control might entail

Some Israeli government ministers and far-right lawmakers also said that their military control over Gaza should pave the way for renewed Jewish settlement. They called for Arab residents to leave Gaza so that Jewish Israelis can populate the coastal strip.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) issued arrest warrants for Israel’s prime minister and his former defense chief for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in the Gaza conflict. The ICC judges said there were reasonable grounds to believe that those two Israeli officials were criminally responsible for acts including murder, persecution and starvation as a weapon of war as part of a widespread and systematic attack against the civilian population of Gaza.

Furthermore, Amnesty International recently issued a landmark report indicating that it had gathered sufficient evidence to conclude that Israel has committed and is continuing to commit genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.

The report found that during its military offensive following the Hamas-led attacks on 7 October 2023, Israel had unleashed “hell and destruction” on Palestinians in Gaza brazenly, continuously and with total impunity, and obstructed humanitarian aid reaching the Palestinian population. Amnesty International said that month after month, Israel has treated Palestinians in Gaza as a subhuman group unworthy of human rights and dignity.

Israel’s actions in Gaza, the ICJ’s decisions and Amnesty International’s recent report are contributing to serious political problems and demonstrations worldwide. Protests and progressive activism opposing Israel’s actions, which are viewed as having created a humanitarian disaster in Gaza, have taken place across many countries and regions.

Various peace proposals have been offered to resolve the decades-old Israeli-Palestinian conflict (Table 1).

The proposal widely supported by most governments, international agencies and non-governmental organizations is the two-state solution. That proposal recommends establishing an independent state for Palestinians alongside that of Israel with the two states existing peacefully within recognized borders and security ensured for both nations.

The two-state solution has been the goal of the international community for decades, dating back to the 1947 United Nations Partition Plan. Many countries, including China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States, believe that the creation of a Palestinian state with guarantees for Israel’s security is the only way to finally bring peace and stability to the Middle East.

In a new resolution passed by a 157-8 vote on 3 December, the UN General Assembly expressed “unwavering support, in accordance with international law, for the two-state solution of Israel and Palestine.” The resolution also called on Israel to withdraw from the occupied Palestinian territories and pushed for the creation of a Palestinian state, convening an international conference in June to try to jumpstart a two-state solution.

Although it is not a member state of the United Nations, the State of Palestine has been officially recognized as a sovereign state by 146 countries, or 75 percent of the United Nations member states. Those countries represent nearly 90 percent of the world’s population.

The Israeli government as well as the Knesset, have rejected the two-state solution. However, they have not offered an alternative solution to resolve the conflict with the Palestinians.

The Israeli government has stated that it will not compromise on full Israeli security control over all the territory west of Jordan. In addition, despite the ICJ decision mandating Israel to end its occupation and dismantle its unlawful settlements, Israel is continuing with its expansion of Israeli settlements and apartheid in the occupied Palestinian territories.

Some have concluded that the two-state solution is no longer an option primarily due to today’s realities. Approximately 750,000 Israelis, or about 10 percent of Israel’s Jewish population, are currently residing in settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank.

As a result of those demographic realities, the de facto option to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict appears to be the one-state solution.

The one-state solution with its total population of approximately 15.5 million would provide equal rights for all its citizens, irrespective of their religious affiliation. The one-state would be similar to other democracies where equal rights and opportunities are provided to all citizens of every religious group.

Israel, however, rejects the one-state solution. It sees a single state with equal rights for all its citizens of the various religious groups would undermine the Jewish character of Israel. Whereas the current proportion Jewish of the Israeli population is about 77 percent, the Jewish proportion in the larger one-state would be approximately 50 percent.

Other proposals that have been offered to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict include: a confederation of Israel, Jordan and Palestine; a federation of smaller Palestinian provinces or cantons; autonomy-plus for the Palestinians; and the establishment of a Jewish Greater Israel.

Many Israelis of the religious far right are seeking the establishment of a Jewish Greater Israel. Their desired nation includes the occupied Palestinian territories and its population would have a large Jewish majority. Due to the existing demographics, a Jewish Greater Israel would necessarily involve the departure, expulsion or transfer of very large numbers of the non-Jewish population currently residing in the occupied Palestinian territories.

The serious human consequences of the Israel-Gaza wars continue to rise and are being regularly updated. The current reported levels of mortality, injuries, displacement and destruction provide an intelligible picture of the wars’ consequences on casualties, living conditions and the wellbeing of the populations in Gaza, Israel, Lebanon and elsewhere.

Although the true mortality figure is estimated to be many times larger, the total number of reported deaths of Israelis, Lebanese, Palestinians and others resulting from the Israel-Gaza war during the period from 7 October 2023 to 7 December 2024 is approximately 52,000.

The overwhelming majority of those reported deaths, 88 percent, were to Palestinians. Also, a large majority of those deaths, nearly 70 percent, were women and children. The Palestinian deaths were followed by Lebanese at 8 percent, Israelis at 3 percent and others, such as journalists and media workers, at 1 percent (Figure 1).

Source: Israeli Government, Ministries of Health of Gaza and Lebanon and UNOCHA.

A similar pattern is observed with respect to the numbers of reported injuries. Although the true figure of injuries will certainly be considerably larger, the total number of reported injuries is approximately 140,000. Again, the large majority of the reported injuries, about 81 percent, were to Palestinians with many being children. The Palestinians were followed by Lebanese at 12 percent, Israelis at 6 percent and others at 1 percent (Figure 2).

Source: Israeli Government, Ministries of Health of Gaza and Lebanon and UNOCHA.

The Gaza-Israel war was also responsible for the displacement of more than 3 million people. Approximately 60 percent of those displaced were Palestinians, followed by Lebanese at 38 percent and Israel at 3 percent.

Beyond the displacement of people from their homes, Israel’s bombings have damaged or destroyed approximately two-thirds of the buildings in Gaza and about 38 percent of the buildings in villages in southern Lebanon as well scores of buildings in Beirut and Baalbek. In addition, the Hezbollah rocket attacks in northern Israel have damaged or destroyed about 9,000 buildings and 350 agricultural sites.

In sum, it is clear that over the past fourteen months, the conflicts in Gaza, Lebanon, Israel and elsewhere have resulted in large numbers of deaths, injuries and displacements as well as extensive destruction of buildings and community infrastructure, notably impacting the Palestinian population in Gaza.

The decisions of ICJ concerning Israel’s crimes against humanity in the Gaza conflict and the findings of Amnesty International’s report stating that Israel has committed and is continuing to commit genocide against Palestinians in Gaza constitute an indisputable indictment of Israel’s military actions in Gaza. Simply rejecting the ICJ’s decisions and denying the findings of Amnesty International will not diminish that momentous indictment.

It is also clear that to achieve a lasting peace with the Palestinians, Israel needs to move beyond rejecting the various peace proposals. The Israeli government needs to put forth an explicit peace proposal indicating how it envisions resolving the decades-old conflict with the Palestinians. Israel not providing a just and fair peace plan will inevitably lead to future conflicts with more deaths, injuries, displacements and destruction.

Joseph Chamie is a consulting demographer, a former director of the United Nations Population Division and author of numerous publications on population issues, including his recent book, “Population Levels, Trends, and Differentials”.

By Yodhim Dela Rosa and Rajika Mahajan
NEW YORK, Dec 10 2024 – As the world commemorates UN Human Rights Day December 10, with the theme, “Our Rights, Our Future, Right Now,” it’s time to ask: Are we truly listening to what the youth envision for their present and future?

This year’s theme strikes a chord with young people globally, highlighting a pressing issue that threatens them now and their future – tobacco addiction.

Globally, about 37 million adolescents aged 13-15 years are hooked to tobacco use. They are ensnared through aggressive and deceptive marketing tactics of a powerful, profit-driven and harmful industry – the tobacco and its related industries. Beyond consumption, over a million children are also trapped in producing tobacco under harsh and exploitative conditions.

Protect Our Right, Our Future – Youth’s Call to Action

Today’s youth are a premium market targeted by tobacco and related industries, with manipulative strategies designed to lure them into life-long addiction. From digital media marketing to seemingly innovative products like biodegradable filters or vaping devices, the industry ensures its grip on the next generation.

But young people everywhere are speaking out, demanding an end to these harmful practices. The Global Youth Voices, a movement that represents youth coalitions and organizations around the world, has made their stance clear.

In October 2023, they appealed to governments to shield them from the manipulative practices of tobacco and its related industries. Through a declaration this May, they demanded justice and restitution for the harm inflicted and ongoing threats to their health and future.

Recently, in a powerful open letter to the UN Secretary-General, the youth called on the General Assembly to prioritize the well-being of young people and resist the tobacco industry’s influence. Their call is loud and clear: they want stronger regulation of tobacco promotions on all platforms, including entertainment and social media, accountability for environmental pollution– particularly that caused by tobacco plastic waste– and prevention of new addictive products being marketed as disguised innovation.

Tobacco’s Harms Globally

The tobacco industry’s adverse impact on health, the environment, and the economy is deeply troubling. It harms individuals, communities, and the planet while violating fundamental human rights.

Annually, tobacco claims more than 8 million lives, with 22,000 deaths every single day. Smoking is a leading driver of cardiovascular diseases, respiratory illnesses, and over 20 types of cancer, burdening healthcare systems and families worldwide.

Beyond health, the global economy shoulders a staggering $1.4 trillion annual loss from tobacco-related costs, ranging from medical expenses to lost productivity. Tobacco is also a major environmental offender, polluting ecosystems with 4.5 trillion cigarette butts discarded yearly, making them the most littered plastic item in the world.

These toxic, non-biodegradable wastes infiltrate our waterways and soil, causing annual marine ecosystem losses estimated at $20 billion. The magnitude of these harms highlights the urgent need to hold the tobacco industry accountable—not only to protect the health, economy, and environment of our current generation but also to safeguard the well-being of future generations.

For decades, the tobacco industry has evaded accountability for the extensive harms it causes. While the global treaty, the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) offers tools for regulation, implementation remains lacking and inconsistent. Many governments around the world have failed to act cohesively against tobacco industry interference.

Right Now: Making Tobacco Pay

A civil society report surveying 90 countries, the 2023 Global Tobacco Industry Interference Index, illustrates the industry’s evasion tactics through its so-called corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives.

These programs—often framed as philanthropic efforts—are used to repair the industry’s tarnished reputation, foster goodwill, and distract from its role as a driver of death and environmental harm. By presenting itself as a “responsible corporate citizen,” the tobacco industry seeks to escape financial liabilities while influencing policymakers and the public.

This Human Rights Day, let us remember that our rights and our children’s rights to health, a clean environment, and a life free from preventable harm are non-negotiable. The fight against tobacco is a fight for justice, equity, and sustainability.

Upholding and protecting human rights is a collective responsibility. Governments, policymakers, and advocates alike must act decisively and cohesively to hold the industry liable for both human and planetary damages.

A comprehensive solution to curbing the tobacco industry’s undue interference lies in fully implementing the WHO FCTC Article 5.3 recommendations such as, denormalizing and banning tobacco-related charity, requiring greater transparency for increased accountability, removing incentives to the tobacco industry, and providing a firewall between government officials from the industry so they can be freed-up to protect their citizens.

The industry must be held liable for the harm it causes to both human health and the environment. Governments should make the industry pay by adopting the “polluter pays” principle. The industry must bear the financial burden of cleaning up its waste and addressing its environmental damage. Because of the irreconcilable difference between profit and public health, the industry must be excluded from the policy table.

We cannot afford to let the industry dictate the terms of our health, our rights, or our future.

The time to act is now.

Yodhim Dela Rosa is the Global Research Coordinator, and Rajika Mahajan is the Communications Officer at the Global Center for Good Governance in Tobacco Control (GGTC).

GGTC works closely with governments and advocates worldwide to address the most significant challenge in tobacco control implementation: tobacco industry interference.

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 Catherine Wilson
SYDNEY, Dec 10 2024 – Advancing development of the new Climate Loss and Damage Fund was a key call by Pacific Island nations at the COP29 United Nations Climate Change Conference being held in Azerbaijan in November. For Pacific Island Countries and Territories, the fund represents a critical step towards addressing what they consider a gross climate injustice: despite contributing less than 0.03 percent of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, they bear the brunt of climate change’s devastating impacts.

The concept of climate finance as a “polluter pays” issue is grounded in the principle that those who have historically contributed the most to greenhouse gas emissions should be financing the developing world’s ability to deal with its impacts and scale climate action.

Fifteen years after the Paris Agreement’s promises, the Pacific region has only accessed 0.22 percent of global climate funds, severely impeding the region’s ability to adapt to escalating climate impacts.

“Access to funding is very limited to date,” Coral Pasisi, Pacific Community’s Director of Climate Change and Environmental Sustainability, Niue, told IPS. “There are structural impediments to why international funds are not financing adaptation and mitigation in the Pacific at the rate they need. Most global funds do not take account of the special circumstances of SIDS—including their extreme exposure to disasters, remoteness, lack of capacity and small population sizes. And there is a direct correlation between the lack of access to climate finance for resilience and adaptation measures and the mounting costs of loss and damage for the Pacific region.”

Access to climate-related international finance has been and remains a significant challenge for Small Island Developing States (SIDS). The global multilateral climate financing architecture is administratively complex, requiring considerable capacity to access and taking too long—on average three years for project development to approval. Through pooling resources and frontloading, the regional organization, the Pacific Community, is a vital partner in raising the chances of funding success for some of the world’s smallest nations.

According to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), loss and damage are ‘the negative impacts of climate change that occur after all reasonable adaptation and mitigation measures have been implemented’. These impacts can be economic, such as damage to infrastructure, destruction of homes, reduced agricultural yields, and other financial losses. They can also be non-economic, such as loss of culturally important areas, traditional knowledge, loss of life and grief. It is important to note that most often, loss and damage have both non-economic and economic implications. When communities and nations face overwhelming challenges and lack sufficient financial resources to address these impacts, they become increasingly vulnerable. This exacerbates loss and damage, undermining recovery and resilience efforts.

With the global temperature rise on course to exceed the 1.5-degree Celsius safety threshold in the 2030s, warns the IPCC, losses inflicted by climate extremes are set to escalate and will be beyond the economic resources of Pacific Island states. Even though there are six Pacific Island nations among the 20 most disaster-prone countries in the world. In 2019, disasters were costing the region USD 1.07 billion per year, with 49 percent of losses due to cyclones and 20 percent due to droughts, reports the UN Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP). And this century, annual average losses could amount to 20 percent of GDP in Vanuatu and 18.2 percent in Tonga.

Recent disasters include the violent eruption of the Hunga Tonga Hunga Ha’apai volcano in the Polynesian nation of Tonga in 2022. It affected 85 percent of the population of about 107,000 people, destroyed infrastructure, agriculture and tourism, and left a damage bill of USD 125 million.

Extreme rainfall and floods caused months of agricultural losses in Siai Village, Oro Province, Papua New Guinea, in 2012. Credit: Catherine Wilson/IPS

The following year, Vanuatu was hit by two cyclones, Judy and Kevin, plus a 6.5-magnitude earthquake in March. Again, more than 80 percent of people were affected, crops were lost, tourists fled and the cost of damages amounted to 40 percent of the country’s Gross Domestic |Product (GDP). Meanwhile, in Fiji, villagers on Vanua Levu Island have witnessed higher sea tides accelerate coastal erosion in the past 18 years and communities have been forced to relocate inland due to excessive flooding.

Climate losses in the region are related to the vulnerability of populations. Ninety percent of Pacific Islanders live within 5 kilometres of weather-exposed coastlines and plants in the region that generate 84 percent of total power are exposed to cyclones, reports ESCAP.

“Critical infrastructure, such as schools, roads and hospitals, is one of the areas that has the costliest impacts in terms of economic loss and damage and non-economic implications. This is especially the case where only one main hospital exists, for example; the effects of losing that facility extend well beyond the repair and replacement costs,” said Pasisi.

Non-economic losses are more difficult to quantify. These “are debilitating and often irreversible, including loss of land, cultural sites, burial grounds, traditional knowledge, village displacement, psychological trauma from recurrent disasters, failing human health, coral reef degradation and more,” reports the Vanuatu Government.

Despite their funding needs, Pacific island states face major bureaucratic handicaps in putting together complex international climate funding applications. These include lack of technical expertise, dearth of data and sheer capacity constraints within governments.

Mapping Loss and Damage challenges

In March 2023, the Pacific Island nation of Vanuatu was hit by two cyclones, Judy and Kevin, that affected 80 percent of the population and left a loss and damage bill of USD 433 million. Credit: Catherine Wilson/IPS

The new global Loss and Damage Fund was first agreed by world leaders at the COP27 Climate Change Conference in 2022. Its objective is to procure major contributions from industrialized, large carbon-emitting nations and aid vulnerable and developing countries in times of climate-driven crises. It will play a vital role given that a recent study claims that, from 2000-2019, climate extremes cost the world USD 16 million per hour.

Island nations view this initiative as a long-overdue step toward addressing climate injustice. Solomon Islands welcomes the spirit of cooperation and commitment to operationalize the Loss and Damage Fund.

“While we welcome the pledges being made in particular from developed country parties, we need to ensure that these pledges are being delivered,” Dr Melchior Mataki, Deputy Head of the Solomon Islands Delegation to COP28, told media in December 2023.

Progress in operationalizing the fund has been slow, even as the climate crisis accelerates. “The biggest challenge is the time it takes to access funding. Time is not on our side,” said Michelle DeFreese, SPC Loss and Damage Project Coordinator. “Countries have urged for the development of the Fund for decades, but the impact of climate-related loss and damage is already taking a tremendous toll on countries in the Pacific.” She explained that “responding to and preparing for sea level rise is one of the greatest funding needs in the region, particularly for low-lying atoll nations, including Kiribati, the Republic of the Marshall Islands and Tuvalu.”

To address this, the Pacific Community has collaborated with the Tuvalu Government to develop advanced physical and computer models demonstrating the impact of a 25–50-centimeter sea level rise on the atoll nation by the end of the century. The information is vital to making the case for the funding needed. From 1993 to 2023, the mean sea level rise in the Pacific was 15 centimetres, far higher than the global mean rise of 9.4 centimetres, reports the UN. And, if the global temperature rises to 1.5–3.0 degrees Celsius, the Pacific Islands could confront a rise of 50–68 centimetres.

Yet, while SIDS are encouraged by the global commitment to the new Loss and Damage Fund, with the secretariat hosted by the World Bank, the details of how it will operate, the criteria for applications and the amount of funds it will offer are still undetermined. Funding promises also fall far short of what is required. At COP28 in December last year, sizeable contributions were committed by nations including Germany, France, Italy and the United Arab Emirates, but the total of USD 700 million stands in contrast to the projected USD 100 billion per annum needed for accelerating climate losses this century.

“The Pacific has championed Loss and Damage since 1991 and will continue to do so. While all countries face climate change impacts, the Pacific and other SIDS have done the least to cause climate change and face disproportionate impacts,” Ronneberg said. “If the world doesn’t reduce emissions to be compatible with the 1.5 degree target, we will face existential threats from climate change loss and damage.”

Recognizing the urgency, the Pacific Community has intensified efforts to help nations develop comprehensive loss and damage strategies. With support from the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the organization has launched a project to help Pacific nations develop loss and damage plans and strategies. Denmark has pledged EUR 5 million to support vital research and data collection needed for funding applications.

“The project that the Pacific Community started this year with funding from the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs aims to support countries in the development of loss and damage national plans and strategies in parallel with the operationalization of the Fund for responding to loss and damage,” DeFreese explained.

The need for swift and substantial global action has never been greater, as the Pacific continues to face the mounting toll of climate impacts. Without accelerated efforts to operationalize the fund and deliver on pledges, vulnerable nations risk being left unprepared for the challenges ahead.

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 Tanka Dhakal
THE HAGUE, Dec 10 2024 – At the International Court of Justice (ICJ), no matter if the country had high Himalayas, was a small island nation or was experiencing armed conflict, they all agreed that the due diligence principle and the obligation of states to prevent harm caused by climate change, especially for high greenhouse gas emitters, were non-negotiable.

On Monday, December 9, 2024, countries including Nepal, Pakistan, Nauru, New Zealand and the State of Palestine presented their cases before the highest court within the United Nations.

Countries within the Hindu Kush Himalaya Region, Nepal and Pakistan, included examples of recent years disasters, including flash floods and their impact on livelihoods, while the small island state of Nauru laid out the toll faced by its people because of rising sea level. The State of Palestine connected its plea to ongoing armed conflict and climate-environmental destruction.

At the request of Vanuatu, the UN General Assembly asked the ICJ to issue an advisory opinion on the obligations of UN member states in preventing climate change and ensuring the protection of the environment for present and future generations. While its advisory opinion will not be enforceable, the court will advise on the legal consequences for member states who have caused significant harm, particularly to small island developing states. So far, more than 70 countries have presented their case before the court.

Indigenous Sherpa women in the Khumbu region of Nepal. These mountain communities are already facing the impact of climate change in the form of low snowfall and glacier melting, which causes floods. Credit: Tanka Dhakal/IPS

Human Rights and Technology Transfer—Nepal

Nepal’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Arzu Rana Deuba, stressed climate change-induced disasters were hindering the human rights of people on the front lines and said countries responsible for emissions needed to fulfil their obligations.

“Climate change hinders the realization and enjoyment of human rights, including the right to life, right to food, right to health, right to adequate housing, sanitation and water,” Deuba said. “Moreover, it impacts the rights of women, children and people with disabilities, as well as the cultural rights of minorities and indigenous communities.”

Nepal says many vulnerable states were not able to meet the obligations under international human rights laws, as the actions and emissions arising from beyond their territory also had adverse effects on the human rights of their citizens. The country of mountains, including Mt. Everest, stressed the need for material, technical and financial support from the countries whose historic emissions have caused the crisis of anthropogenic climate change.

“This includes unhindered access to technology and the sharing of meteorological and glacial data,” Deuba said. “Nepal considers that the court’s advisory opinion will contribute to clarifying the law, especially the obligations of the states regarding climate change and the rules governing the consequences of the violation of these obligations.”

Suvanga Parajuli, Under Secretary at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Nepal, added that the country was facing a gross injustice. “What countries like Nepal are calling for is not mere handouts of charity but compensation for real climate justice,” Parajuli said.

Court Opinion Could Help Avert Catastrophe—Pakistan

Another HKH region country, Pakistan, which faced devastating floods caused by climate change in 2022, stressed the need for support and knowledge sharing. Mansoor Usman Awan, the Attorney General of Pakistan, urged the court to give an opinion that clarifies the legal obligations of states to prevent, avoid, reduce, or mitigate greenhouse gas emissions.

“If lives and livelihoods are to be protected, if we want to avoid utter catastrophe, there simply is no time to lose. As has often been said, we are the first generation to feel the impact of climate change, and undoubtedly, we are the last generation that can do something about it.”

Awan continued, “For the human race, ignoring the climate emergency is no longer an option.”

We Are Facing Existential Threat—Nauru

Island country Nauru argues that climate change poses an existential threat to its security and well-being, highlighting the impact of rising sea levels, coastal erosion and drought at the UN court.

The island is a mere 21 km² (8.1 sq mi), oval-shaped island in the southwestern Pacific Ocean.

Representing Nauru Lionel Rouwen Aingimea, Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, emphasized the obligations of states in respect of climate change to be the obligations found in the principles of general international law.

“We urge this court to clarify the scope of the existing obligations of states with respect to climate change,” Aingimea said. “No more, but certainly no less, we seek your affirmation that the law protects the vulnerable and that our fundamental rights under general international law—to exist, to thrive, to safeguard our land—are upheld and respected.”

He urged the court to deliver an advisory opinion that reflects “the urgency, the dignity and the right of all peoples to exist in security.”

Island countries’ vulnerability was central to New Zealand’s arguments. Representing Pacific Island countries, Victoria Hallum, Deputy Secretary Multilateral and Legal Affairs Group at New Zealand’s Foreign Affairs and Trade ministry, emphasized the urgent need to address anthropogenic climate change. It said climate change was the single greatest threat to the Pacific Island regions.

Armed Conflict and Climate Change Connected—Palestine

The State of Palestine highlighted the intersection of climate change and international law, particularly the impacts of armed conflict and military activities.

Palestine positioned itself as a key contributor to the proceedings and referred to the ICJ’s advisory opinion on nuclear weapons to support its argument on the relationship between environmental protection and international law in armed conflict.

At the ICJ hearing, Ammar Hijazi, Ambassador of Palestine to International Organizations in The Hague, linked the relationship between climate change and emissions during armed conflict.

“The State of Palestine is responsible for less than 0.001% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Yet Palestine now grapples with unprecedented severe climate events, mainly due to Israel’s occupation and policies and practices,” Hijazi said. “Israel’s occupation curtails our ability to support climate policy. As a party to the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement, Palestine is taking action to reduce 17.5 percent of its GHG by 2040, when our goal could be 26.6 percent if Israel’s occupation ends.”

Palestine argued that the court should not miss the opportunity to address the relation, obligation and rights of the people in the context of armed conflict and climate change in the historic opinion it will issue at the conclusion of these advisory proceedings. “This will fulfill the promise not to leave anyone behind and ensure that law applies to all,” Hijazi said.

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 Kumkum Chadha
NEW DELHI, India, Dec 10 2024 – Even as India’s Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri reached Bangladesh amid strain in ties over attacks on Hindu minorities, he carried with him a bag of complaints: it sure was not a good will mission. It was one where India has focused on its discomfort, rather anger, over the persecution of Hindus under the new regime in Bangladesh.

Kumkum Chadha

The last few weeks have witnessed an increasing number of incidents of violence against Hindus. In the Indian Parliament, India’s Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar admitted that India has “taken serious note” of violence against Hindus and other minorities as well as attacks on temples and religious places, across Bangladesh.

The Indian Government has specifically mentioned the attack on a Puja mandap in Tantibazar, Dhaka and theft at the Jeshoreshwari Kali temple at Satkhira during Durga Puja 2024.

Tensions were further heightened after the arrest of a Hindu monk who had recently been expelled from the International Society of Krishna Consciousness, widely known as ISKCON or the Hare Krishnas. He was arrested on charges of sedition.

In turn, thousands of Hindu monks marched to the Bangladesh border in West Bengal; protestors attacked a Bangladeshi consulate in the Indian state of Tripura.

To link these incidents with recent political developments in Bangladesh would be a grave mistake. Behind this upsurge lies a bloody history and a seething anger against India.

The Hindu minority in Bangladesh has historically faced persecution, particularly from more extremist elements. That the common man on the streets of Bangladesh nurses a strong anti-India sentiment is a given. India has been seen as an “overbearing neighbour” particularly by the younger generation in Bangladesh who felt that the now ousted government under Sheikh Hasina was subservient to India: “an unequal relationship” to quote many.

Fast forward to the present and the situation is dismal, to say the least.

As a nation and a neighbour India has done little to assuage feelings or balm wounds. Therefore to say that it is the anti Hasina elements that are fuelling unrest and attacks would be missing the wood for the trees.

One must acknowledge and accept that India went overboard in its support for the government under Sheikh Hasina at the cost of ignoring all others. That is why when she was ousted and an interim government under Dr. Mohammed Yunus took power, India was not viewed as a reliable ally. If anything, the historical ties between the two countries have weakened as never before. Add to this the perceived marginalization of Muslims under a pro Hindu BJP government in India and the alienation is kind of complete.

On this count one cannot fault the current dispensation given that it has facts on its side.

History apart, recent developments too provide enough ammunition to the current regime and the people in Bangladesh to nurse an angst against India.

And on this, one has to begin from the beginning.

For starters, the asylum to Sheikh Hasina. It is no one’s case to even suggest that India should have turned away a former Prime Minister in distress, Sheikh Hasina or any other. Giving her refuge was, as some put it, “an honourable thing” for any neighbour to do. What is under the scanner is her extended stay.

For record, when Hasina landed in India after being driven out from a country she had ruled for 15 long years, it was said to be a temporary refuge. She had sought asylum in the United Kingdom which hit a road bloc due to a technicality.

As of now the “temporary stay” seems to have extended to a permanent one. When India’s Foreign Minister informed the Indian Parliament of her sudden arrival in Delhi in August, he did indicate that the initial request by Hasina was “for the moment only”. That the moment has extended into months with no signs of an immediate resolution is another matter.

The fact that India does not have any policy for refugees allows the government to be flexible in its response. Critics see it using this as a “convenient route” to let Hasina stay for as long as she wants. Fingers are being pointed at the Indian government not moving an inch to engage with stakeholders for Hasina’s extradition. At least visibly. This and for good reasons is enough to upset the Yunus regime in Bangladesh and write off India as “an adversarial neighbour”.

Worse still, Sheikh Hasina’s political statements against the current regime in Bangladesh from Indian soil strengthens the perception that India is adding fuel to fire.

In a virtual address ahead of Misri’s visit to Bangladesh, Hasina accused the Yunus regime of being “fascist” and one that has allowed a free run to terrorists.

In her 37 minute address Hasina made a specific reference to attacks on minorities. By doing this, she not only echoed the concerns of the Indian government but positioned herself as being one which is parroting concerns that India is attempting to tackle diplomatically and bi-laterally.

At this junction one is constrained to ask: Why is the Indian Government not restraining Sheikh Hasina? Why is it allowing her to muddy the political waters? Why is it letting the Indian soil be a convenient platform for political speak ? And why is it letting Hasina hit out at a regime that India has to mend a completely fractured relationship with?

These questions and the angst is not restricted to the corridors of power but will and has found its way to the streets. Therefore the targeting of Hindus may be rooted in religious discrimination but one cannot delink the common man’s anger at India’s “protecting Hasina at all costs” policy even at the cost of souring the bi-lateral relationship.

Therefore, India needs to recalibrate its approach and policy towards Bangladesh before its ties reach an all-time low leading to a confrontational situation.

Kumkum Chadha, an author and senior political journalist with Hindustan Times

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 Mandeep S.Tiwana
NEW YORK, Dec 10 2024 – Today is International Human Rights Day, Normally, it should be an occasion to celebrate the work of those who strive to create peaceful, just, equal and sustainable societies. But conditions for human rights defenders and their organisations to operate freely are extremely challenging around the world.

Almost three quarters of the world’s people live in states that severely constrain civic freedoms. These are the latest findings from the CIVICUS Monitor, a cross-continental research collaboration between over twenty civil society organisations.

Despite enormous technological and cultural advancements claimed by humankind the overwhelming majority of the world’s population are being actively denied agency to shape the decisions that impact their lives. Major restrictions in law and practice on the fundamental civic freedoms of peaceful assembly, association and expression are putting journalists and civil society activists at serious risk of persecution when they expose high level corruption or critique the actions of powerful decision makers.

Civic space conditions in some 30 countries where over a quarter of the world’s population live are so poor that even the slightest hint of dissent against those who hold power can get one thrown into prison for a long time or even killed. Such countries include Afghanistan, China, Cuba, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Sudan among others.

This year, Eswatini, Ethiopia and the Occupied Palestinian Territories of Gaza and the West Bank have been downgraded to the worst ‘closed’ rating on the CIVICUS Monitor due to an acceleration in repression there.

As a human rights defender it worries me that countries with proud histories of resisting colonial oppression and with hard won constitutional commitments to democratic principles such as India, Kenya, Mexico and the Philippines have ended up being placed in the second worst ‘repressed’ category on the CIVICUS Monitor.

As a development advocate who campaigned for the adoption of an ambitious set of universal Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in 2015, it concerns me that governments are deliberately limiting the ability of civil society organisations to work with them to create more equal and fairer societies.

Civic space restrictions negatively impact the quest for transparency, accountability and participation in public affairs. The Sustainable Development Goals include guarantees on access to information and fundamental freedoms as well as on responsive, inclusive and participatory decision making, which are essential for public spirited individuals and organisations to push for transformative changes in the political, social and economic spheres.

But CIVICUS Monitor researchers have recorded thousands of restrictions on the freedom of expression in 2024 including physical attacks on journalists and civil society activists merely for doing their work in the public interest.

Atefeh Rangriz, a defender of worker’s and women’s rights in Iran is currently languishing in prison on trumped up national security related charges. Guatemalan journalist Jose Ruben Zamora continues to be persecuted through the courts for exposing deep networks of patronage that exist among political and economic elites in that country.

Their cases are illustrative of the enormous challenge of thousands of journalists and civil society activists unjustly imprisoned around the world in countries as disparate as Belarus, Egypt, Israel and Vietnam.

The most recent CIVICUS Monitor Watchlist, released this September, draws attention to deterioration in civic space conditions in Argentina, Azerbaijan, Thailand and Zimbabwe, all of which are ruled by erratic authoritarian leaders. Because global civic space conditions are so challenging, including in several powerful states, the appetite of the international community to consistently call out flagrant violations of international law standards has been severely hamstrung in recent times.

It’s thus absurd that Azerbaijan, a petrostate with closed civic space, hosted the COP29 climate summit this year in an attempt to greenwash its reputation. The previous two COP summits were held in countries with equally appalling records: United Arab Emirates and Egypt. The election of Donald Trump, an avowed supporter of the fossil fuel industry, as the next president of the United States does not portend well for climate causes or for civic freedoms given his adulation for authoritarian leaders.

Climate justice, environmental and land rights activists are facing persecution in far too many countries for exercising their right to peaceful assembly. Earlier this year, five Just Stop Oil activists received sentences ranging from four to five years in prison in the United Kingdom for planning a non-violent protest action by blocking a motorway in 2022.

In Uganda, protestors were arrested merely for seeking to deliver a petition to the authorities outlining the adverse effects of an oil project including environmental degradation, land loss and violations of community rights. In September, Juan López, Honduran community leader and advocate for the rights of the Guapinol River, was assassinated despite calls for his protection.

Just as anti-apartheid protestors faced pushback in the 1980s, artists, students and academics have been targeted in several western democracies for advocating for the rights and dignity of the Palestinian people. It’s now forbidden to wear a keffiyeh within Canada’s Ontario state’s legislative assembly and there have been attempts to censor pro-Palestinian groups in Germany, the Netherlands and the USA. In Australia, four writers who had publicly opposed Israel’s war on Gaza had their workshops’ contracts terminated with the State Library of Victoria.

Nearly 10% of the total civic space violations documented globally in 2024 by CIVICUS Monitor researchers either took place in the Occupied Palestinian Territories or were perpetrated against those expressing solidarity with the Palestinian people. Despite this, throughout 2024 people continued to pour out onto the streets to express solidarity with beleaguered Palestinians. This in itself is extraordinary.

Even if global civic space conditions were mostly unwelcoming this year, civil society actions led to some remarkable victories for rights and justice. Greece became the first overwhelmingly Christian Orthodox country to legalise same-sex marriage while recognising the rights of same sex couples to adopt children. Thailand broke ground in Southeast Asia by passing a marriage equality bill in May 2024, making it the first country in the region to legalise same-sex marriage.

In the Czech Republic, civil society efforts led to a landmark reform in rape laws, now classifying any non-consensual sexual act as rape, removing the need for proof of force and strengthening protections for victims. In Kazakhstan, in response to a high-profile murder trial, lawmakers swiftly introduced new legislation that re-established criminal penalties for battery and enhanced protections for domestic violence survivors.

In Poland, a bill passed in February 2024 made emergency contraception accessible without a prescription, reversing a restrictive 2017 law and marking a significant win for womens’ rights over their bodies.

Moreover, people continued to exercise their protest rights across the globe this year. In Bangladesh, the longstanding oppressive government led by Sheikh Hasina was forced to step down following persistent public demonstrations against its regressive actions. In Venezuela, people outvoted the incumbent authoritarian government of Nicholas Maduro at the polls but his regime ended up rigging the election results. However, this doesn’t mean the struggle for democracy in Venezuela has been permanently suppressed.

“The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice,” said Dr.Martin Luther King Jr. As these examples show, despite pervasive repression, the impulse to overcome oppression remains alive. Gains made through sustained civil society resistance through 2024 offer us hope that no matter how powerful autocratic forces may be, there will always be an undercurrent of civil society ready to weather the storm and strive for a better world for all.

Mandeep S. Tiwana is the Interim Co-Secretary General. CIVICUS, the global civil society alliance.

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 Joyce Chimbi
THE HAGUE & NAIROBI, Dec 10 2024 – After many decades of colonial rule, Palau was the last country to emerge from the UN Trusteeship. Palau celebrated 30 years of independence in October 2024 “and takes seriously the rights and responsibilities of independence. Independence should mean that Palau is free to build its own future and be responsible for the security, safety, and well-being of its own people,” said Gustav N. Aitaro, the Minister of State of the Republic of Palau at the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

“Yet, Palau is learning that with freedom of independence must also come with a basic responsibility towards neighbours. Every independent nation must ensure that the activities they allow within their territory do not cause significant harm to other nations. Man-made climate change is now the biggest threat to the Palauan people’s independence and right to self-determination.”

In 2021, a youth group in Vanuatu collaborated with their Prime Minister to seek an advisory opinion from the ICJ on the obligations of UN member states in respect to climate change and the legal consequences of these actions. Nearly 100 states and 12 organisations have been enjoined in the case and public hearings are currently ongoing at The Hague, the seat of the ICJ, in pursuit of the much-needed advisory opinion. Among those making their submissions today were Palau, Panama and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Realization of Independence At Stake—Palau

Aitaro stressed that in order for Palau to fully realize its independence, “it must ask this Court to recognize that states have the legal responsibility to ensure that they do all they can to prevent emissions from their territory from causing significant harm to other states. In order to understand the threat that climate change poses to Palau, I invite you to walk with me through the lived reality of Palau, a reality deeply marked by the relentless impacts of climate change.”

Koror State is the most populous in Palau. The red areas are flood zones from sea level rise. Credit: Joyce Chimbi/IPS

In the 1970s, higher-than-normal tides were rare and only one instance was recorded, but between 2010 and 2019, the number rose to five and there were four incidences in 2021 alone, Aitaro said, showing the court how badly affected Palau is.

Ernestine Rengiil, Palau’s Attorney General, emphasised that while climate change poses tremendously complex practical problems for the world, as a matter of international law, the issue of climate change is straightforward. She said common to the principles of law of all civilized nations is the concept that one’s property may not be used to cause harm to another’s.

That if one uses or allows their property to be used in a manner to cause harm to another, that harm must be stopped and reparations paid in full. In common law systems, this is a law of nuisance.

“In civil law systems, this is a servitude established by law—and in most moral systems, this is simply the golden rule. In international law, this principle is better known as the law of transboundary harm and state responsibility. This principle is foundational to every state’s independence,” she said.

Rengiil invited the court to decline to “create new exceptions to the basic rules of the international order for climate change. The minority argue that because climate change is caused by a diffused set of global emissions sources, it will be too difficult in any future contentious cases to prove causation. But such practical problems exist in all cases and are not sufficient grounds to abandon the basic legal rules altogether.”

ICJ Needs to Reinforce International Obligations—Panama

In what is shaping up to be a David vs. Goliath public hearing, Panama’s size on the map was no barrier to making a compelling case.

“Panama, regardless of its small size and contribution of only 0.03 percent of global emissions, is mindful of the challenges that require that it has become among a handful of states a carbon-negative country. Panama is not turning away from facing the adverse conduct of others as to human-induced global warming,” Fernando Gómez Arbeláez, an expert in international legal affairs, said.

Panama invited the court to consider ongoing advisory proceedings as “a critical opportunity to attend to the inadequacies of the current Conference of the Parties, or COP, of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). By means of an opinion that in itself carries great legal weight and moral authority, the court can offer much-needed legal clarity to reinforce international obligations and inspire a stronger determination to tackle the global climate crisis.”

Human Rights and Due Diligence Work Together—DRC

In her submissions, the Democratic Republic of the Congo said, although in the minority, certain states are keen to invoke the relationship between different sources of international law to require a compartmentalised reading and a selective utilisation of them. Stressing that the different international obligations of states coexist and that compliance with one obligation in no way relieves them of their responsibility with regard to the others.

Speaking on behalf of the DRC, Sandrine Maljean-Dubois, who is a dedicated teacher and researcher in international environmental law, spoke extensively of the obligation of due diligence and human rights. Stressing that these obligations are not in conflict. That the obligations for the UNFCCC framework and the Paris Agreement are reinforced by other international obligations. Emphasising that the international climate regime, specifically the Paris Agreement alone, will not prevent significant harm to the climate system.

“On the one hand, failure to implement all available means to prevent significant harm to the climate system puts the state in breach of general international law. On the other hand, it is clear that each state has to play its part. The obligation of preventing harm is informed and buttressed, in turn, by treaty obligations,” she said.

Maljean-Dubois said the obligation of due diligence requires a maximum level of vigilance. Informed by the climate regime and enlightened by the IPCC reports, “the due diligence obligation requires states to take fair, urgent and ambitious measures to mitigate the effects of climate change and to adapt to them. Far from lessening over time, this obligation has, to the contrary, become more stringent as scientific evidence has mounted.”

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’);