By Jomo Kwame Sundaram
KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia, Dec 17 2024 – The new geopolitics after the first Cold War undermines peace, sustainability, and human development. Hegemonic priorities continue to threaten humanity’s well-being and prospects for progress.

Jomo Kwame Sundaram

End of first Cold War
The end of the first Cold War has been interpreted in various ways, most commonly as a US triumph. Francis Fukuyama famously proclaimed the ‘end of history’ with the victory of capitalism and liberal democracy.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union and allied regimes, the US seemed unchallenged and unchallengeable in the new ‘unipolar’ world. The influential US journal Foreign Affairs termed ensuing US foreign policy ‘sovereigntist’.

But the new order also triggered fresh discontent. Caricaturing cultural differences, Samuel Huntington blamed a ‘clash of civilisations’. His contrived cultural categories serve a new ‘divide-and-rule’ strategy.

Today’s geopolitics often associates geographic and cultural differences with supposed ideological, systemic and other political divides. Such purported fault lines have also fed ‘identity politics’.

The new Cold War is hot and bloody in parts of the world, sometimes spreading quickly. As bellicosity is increasingly normalised, hostilities have grown dangerously.

Economic liberalisation, including globalisation, has been unevenly reversed since the turn of the century. Meanwhile, financialization has undermined the real economy, especially industry.

The G20 finance ministers, representing the world’s twenty largest economies, including several from the Global South, began meeting after the 1997 Asian financial crisis.

The G20 began meeting at the heads of government level following the 2008 global financial crisis, which was seen as a G7 failure. However, the G20’s relevance has declined again as the North reasserted G7 centrality with the new Cold War.

NATO rules
The ostensible raison d’être of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has gone with the end of the first Cold War and the Soviet Union.

The faces of Western powers have also changed. For example, the G5 grew to become the G7 in 1976. US infatuation with the post-Soviet Russia of Boris Yeltsin and Vladimir Putin even brought it into the G8 for some years!

Following the illegal US invasion of Iraq in 2003, the sovereigntist Wolfowitz doctrine of 2007 redefined its foreign policy priorities to strengthen NATO and start a new Cold War. NATO mobilisation of Europe – behind the US against Russia – now supports Israel targeting China, Iran and others.

Violating the UN Charter, the 2022 Russian invasion of eastern Ukraine united and strengthened NATO and Europe behind the US. Despite earlier tensions across the north Atlantic, Europe rallied behind Biden against Russia despite its high costs.

International law has also not stopped NATO expansion east to the Russian border. The US unilaterally defines new international norms, often ignoring others, even allies. But Trump’s re-election has raised ‘centrist’ European apprehensions.

Developing countries were often forced to take sides in the first Cold War, ostensibly waged on political and ideological grounds. With mixed economies now ubiquitous, the new Cold War is certainly not over capitalism.

Instead, rivalrous capitalist variants shape the new geoeconomics as state variations underlie geopolitics. Authoritarianism, communist parties and other liberal dirty words are often invoked for effect.

New Europe
Despite her controversial track record during her first term as the European Commission (EC) president, Ursula von der Leyen is now more powerful and belligerent in her second term.

She quickly replaced Joseph Borrell, her previous EC Vice President and High Representative in charge of international relations. Borrell described Europe as a garden that the Global South, the surrounding jungle, wants to invade.

For Borrell, Europe cannot wait for the jungle to invade. Instead, it must pre-emptively attack the jungle to contain the threat. Since the first Cold War, NATO has made more, mainly illegal military interventions, increasingly outside Europe!

The US, UK, German, French and Australian navies are now in the South China Sea despite the 1973 ASEAN (Association of South-East Asian Nations) commitment to a ZOPFAN (zone of peace, freedom and neutrality) and no request from any government in the region.

Cold War nostalgia
The first Cold War also saw bloody wars involving alleged ‘proxies’ in southwestern Africa, Central America, and elsewhere. Yet, despite often severe Cold War hostilities, there were also rare instances of cooperation.

In 1979, the Soviet Union challenged the US to eradicate smallpox within a decade. US President Jimmy Carter accepted the challenge. In less than ten years, smallpox was eradicated worldwide, underscoring the benefits of cooperation.

Official development assistance (ODA) currently amounts to around 0.3% of rich countries’ national incomes. This is less than half the 0.7% promised by wealthy nations at the UN in 1970.

The end of the first Cold War led to ODA cuts. Levels now are below those after Thatcher and Reagan were in power in the 1980s. Trump’s views and famed ‘transactional approach’ to international relations are expected to cut aid further.

The economic case against the second Cold War is clear. Instead of devoting more to sustainable development, scarce resources go to military spending and related ‘strategic’ priorities.

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 CIVICUS
Dec 17 2024 –  
CIVICUS speaks with Ramón Zamora, son of Guatemalan journalist José Rubén Zamora, about restrictions on press freedom and the challenges of defending human rights in Guatemala.

Rubén Zamora is part of the CIVICUS Stand as My Witness campaign, which seeks the release of unjustly imprisoned human rights defenders. The veteran journalist, founder of Periódico Siglo 21 and renowned for his investigations into corruption, has been fighting unfounded accusations of money laundering for over two years. His legal situation took a turn for the worse recently when a court ordered his return to prison after a brief period of house arrest. As his family prepared to appeal, President Bernardo Arévalo denounced the court’s decision as an attack on freedom of expression.

Ramón Zamora

What was your father’s role in Guatemalan journalism and what led him to antagonise powerful forces?

My father comes from a family of journalists. His grandfather, Clemente Marroquín, was the founder of La Hora, one of the most important newspapers in Guatemalan history. In 1990, my father founded the media outlet Siglo 21. A transition to democracy was underway and he had understood that democracy couldn’t function without real freedom of expression, that is, when people aren’t able to express their ideas without fear. That’s why it was important to have a media outlet that, on top of providing information, also included a plurality of voices.

Siglo 21 opened up spaces for leftist thought, which earned it threats and attacks from sources linked to the army. In addition, from the outset it dealt with sensitive issues, which quickly put it in the crosshairs of many powerful figures. Threats and attacks soon followed for his investigations into corruption. In 1993, following a coup by then President Jorge Serrano Elías, who suspended the constitution and dissolved Congress, the presidential security service came looking for my father and the family was forced into hiding. However, my father continued to fight, publishing a banned edition of Siglo 21, which had been censored, and sharing information with international media.

After leaving Siglo 21, he founded El Periódico in 1996 and Nuestro Diario in 1998, always with the aim of continuing to investigate corruption. His investigations led to the jailing of several powerful people. Over the years he suffered arbitrary treatment, assassination attempts and kidnappings, but he continued his work, until 2022, when he was arbitrarily arrested and sentenced in retaliation for exposing corruption in the government of Alejandro Giammattei.

What were the charges that sent your father to prison?

He was accused of money laundering, extortion and influence peddling. It was alleged that he used the newspaper and his access to government sources to obtain privileged information to extort money from businesspeople and public officials. According to government officials, my father threatened to publish stories in the newspaper if they did not comply with his demands, and allegedly laundered the money from these extortions through the newspaper.

To understand the justification for his arrest, we need to consider the broader context of attacks on the newspaper. Since 2013, the newspaper has suffered economic pressure and threats from government officials, such as then Vice-president Roxana Baldetti, who called our clients to threaten them with investigations if they continued to support the newspaper with advertising. This reduced the paper’s income by more than half. To get around the pressure, my father finally started accepting donations from people who wanted to remain anonymous. This was one of the reasons he was accused of laundering undeclared money. My father was criminalised for defending freedom of expression and denouncing corruption.

How did your father experience these years of arbitrary detention?

At first it was very hard because he was held in a military prison, in a very small cell, completely isolated from other prisoners. In the same prison were people convicted of corruption thanks to the reporting he had published, which put him in great danger. He soon started receiving constant threats.

In the first few days, his cell was searched several times, and bedbugs found their way into his bed, causing severe bites all over his body. He was unable to sleep because of the constant noise, as there was construction going on next to his cell. It was all very stressful, both physically and emotionally. There were times when he thought he would never get out alive. To make matters worse, we were often denied authorisation to enter the prison or given ridiculous excuses, which kept him in a constant state of uncertainty.

He also suffered greatly during court hearings. There was one judge who went out of his way to prevent him having access to a proper defence. We had to change lawyers several times and many of them were persecuted for defending my father.

My brother and I worked to keep the newspaper afloat, even though several journalists were forced into exile. A few months ago we managed to get my father released to house arrest, but his case continued to be full of irregularities and a month later the benefit of house arrest was lifted. We are still waiting for the appeals court to review the decision, but it is likely he will have to return to prison this week or next. My father is still fighting for his freedom and a fair trial to prove his innocence.

How can the international community help?

The international community has played a very important role in the whole process. We were able to get my father out of prison in large part because of pressure from organisations such as Amnesty International, CIVICUS, the Committee to Protect Journalists, Freedom House, Reporters Without Borders and others who spoke out and mobilised.

As a family, we have always felt supported. We are now awaiting the resolution of the amparo appeal – a petition to protect constitutional rights, which could allow my father to continue his struggle from home. This would be ideal, although we are still awaiting a final decision.

The international community must continue to defend human rights and freedom of expression and support the media, particularly in countries where corruption and impunity prevail.

Get in touch
Website
Twitter

See also
Guatemala: ‘Corrupt elites see defenders of justice as a threat to their interests and try to silence them’ Interview with Virginia Laparra 30.Aug.2024
Guatemala: ‘Disregard for the will of the people expressed at the ballot box is the greatest possible insult to democracy’ Interview with Jorge Santos 13.Jan.2023
Guatemala: ‘Our democracy is at risk in the hands of political-criminal networks’ Interview with Evelyn Recinos Contreras 04.Jul.2023

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 Baher Kamal
MADRID, Dec 17 2024 – Planet Earth is drying up, relentlessly. Over three-quarters of all lands have become permanently drier in the last three decades. This is not jut a statistic but a stark scientific fact. But while such an ‘existential crisis’ affects nearly every region, guess where -and who- are the most hit? 

They are the 1.35 billion humans living in Asia’s drylands, that’s more than half the global total. And they are the 620 millions people who inhabit Africa’s drylands, e.g. nearly half of the continent’s population.

The above are some of the key findings of worldwide scientific research elaborated by the Bonn-based UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD).

A Human-Perpetrated Crime

The report by UNCCD Science-Policy Interface (SPI) — the UN body for assessing the science of land degradation and drought — points to human-caused climate change as the primary driver of this shift.

“Greenhouse gas emissions from electricity generation, transport, industry and land use changes warm the planet and other human activities warm the planet and affect rainfall, evaporation and plant life, creating the conditions that increase aridity.”

According to the world’s scientific community, aridity is considered one of the world’s five most important causes of land degradation (along with land erosion, salinization, organic carbon loss and vegetation degradation).

Drylands Expending at an Alarming Rate

The overarching trend, however, is clear: drylands are expanding, pushing ecosystems and societies to suffer from aridity’s life-threatening impacts.

The report names South Sudan and Tanzania as nations with the largest percentage of land transitioning to drylands, and China as the country experiencing the largest total area shifting from non-drylands into drylands.

Billions Living in Expanding Drylands

For the 2.3 billion people – well over 25% of the world’s population – living in the expanding drylands, this new normal requires lasting, adaptive solutions. Aridity-related land degradation, known as desertification, represents a dire threat to human well-being and ecological stability, warns the research.

“And as the planet continues to warm, report projections in the worst-case scenario suggest up to 5 billion people could live in drylands by the century’s end, grappling with depleted soils, dwindling water resources, and the diminishment or collapse of once-thriving ecosystems.”

A Billion Climate Forced Migrants

Nearly a decade ago, the International Organization for Migration (IOM) estimated that the number of climate migrants and refugees could be estimated to reach one billion in the coming decades.

Now, according to the scientific findings, forced migration is one of aridity’s most visible consequences.

“As land becomes uninhabitable, families and entire communities facing water scarcity and agricultural collapse often have no choice but to abandon their homes, leading to social and political challenges worldwide.”

From the Middle East to Africa and South Asia, millions are already on the move—a trend set to intensify in coming decades.

“Without concerted efforts, billions face a future marked by hunger, displacement, and economic decline,” warns Nichole Barger, Chair, UNCCD Science-Policy Interface.

Total Impunity for Polluters

According to the European Union (EU) the Polluter Pays Principle (PPP) is a simple idea at the core of EU environmental policy: those responsible for environmental damage should pay to cover the costs.

“This applies to prevention of pollution, remediation, liability (criminal, civil and environmental liability) and the costs imposed on society of pollution that does happen.”

Such PPP has been too far away from being applied, rather: it has been systematically denied.

The most recent evidence of such denial is the outcome of the Baku, Azerbaijan’s climate summit (COP29).

A “Global Ponzi Scheme”

Perhaps one of the clearest evidence is what the world’s coalition to fight inequality: OXFAM International, stated at the end of the Baku meeting.

Responding to the COP29 climate finance agreement, in which rich countries agree to mobilize $300 billion a year to help Global South countries cope with warming temperatures and switch to renewable energy, Oxfam International’s Climate Change Policy Lead, Nafkote Dabi, said:

“The terrible verdict from the Baku climate talks shows that rich countries view the Global South as ultimately expendable, like pawns on a chessboard…

… The $300 billion so-called ‘deal’ that poorer countries have been bullied into accepting is unserious and dangerous —a soulless triumph for the rich, but a genuine disaster for our planet and communities who are being flooded, starved, and displaced today by climate breakdown….

And as for promises of future funding? They’re just as hollow as the deal itself.”

The real PPP: “The Poor Pays Principle”

“The money on the table is not only a pittance in comparison to what’s really needed –it’s not even real “money”, by and large, warns OXFAM.

“Rather, it’s a motley mix of loans and privatized investment –a global Ponzi scheme that the private equity vultures and public relations people will now exploit.”

The destruction of our planet is avoidable, but not with this shabby and dishonorable deal. The richest polluters need to wise up —and pay up.”

No way, rather…

Did you know that billionaires emit more carbon pollution in 90 minutes than the average person does in a lifetime.

And that superyachts and jets of Europe’s elite emit more carbon pollution in a week than the world’s poorest 1% emits in a lifetime

The scientific findings show that aridity impacts vast areas of the rich Western powers – those who most contaminate.

All the above goes far beyond semantics: when it comes to the polluters, they talk just about money. But when it comes to the polluted, it is about devastation, diseases… and death.

By Busani Bafana
WINDHOEK & BULAWAYO, Dec 17 2024 – Biological diversity is on the decline worldwide, and current approaches to address its loss have been piecemeal and ineffective in tackling the crisis facing nature—this is despite estimates that over half of global GDP (USD 58 trillion of economic activity in 2023) is generated in sectors that are moderately to highly dependent on nature, a new report by the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) finds.

The Thematic Assessment Report on the Interlinkages Among Biodiversity, Water, Food, and Health—known as the Nexus Report—finds that biodiversity, water, food, health, and climate change are connected crises.

Recognizing and leveraging the connections between biodiversity, water, food, health, and climate change is the way to go about solving the crises, says the report approved at the 11th session of the IPBES Plenary being held in Namibia this week.

IPBES is a global science-policy body providing science evidence to decision-makers for people and nature.

The report, a product of three years of work by 165 leading international experts from 57 countries, finds that existing actions to address these crises fail to tackle the complexity of interlinked problems and result in inconsistent governance.

The front cover of the IPBES Nexus assessment report. Credit: IPBES

Integrated Solutions Needed

Prof. Paula Harrison (United Kingdom), co-chair of the assessment with Prof. Pamela McElwee (USA), highlighted that policymakers should decide and act beyond single-issue silos.

“Our current approaches to dealing with these crises have tended to be fragmented or siloed, and that’s led to inefficiencies and has often been counterproductive,” she says.

“If we try to address climate change, for example, by planting trees, we have to be really aware about what trees we are planting (to ensure they) are not actually making problems for biodiversity,” Harrison says, citing an often-implemented solution to reduce greenhouse gases.

Prof. Paula Harrison (United Kingdom), co-chair of the assessment report. Credit Kiara Worth/IPBES

Prof. Pamela McElwee (USA), co-chair of the assessment report. Credit: Kiara Worth/IPBES

Instead, the report offers response options, actions, or policies that can help advance governance and sustainable management of one or more elements of the nexus.

“What the report also offers is this suite of solutions. It stresses that we have over 70 response options available now that different actors can use in different context-dependent situations.”

The assessment also highlighted the unintended consequences when issues of nature are addressed in isolation.

For example, when the bat population in the United States declined due to a fungal disease known as white-nose syndrome, farmers increased their use of pesticides. This caused unintended health impacts, with an 8 percent rise in infant mortality reported in affected areas.

However, where a problem is tackled holistically, it can have positive impacts, as in bilharzia, a parasitic disease that affects more than 200 million people worldwide but is especially prevalent in Africa.

“Treated only as a health challenge—usually through medication—the problem often recurs as people are reinfected. An innovative project in rural Senegal took a different approach—reducing water pollution and removing invasive water plants to reduce the habitat for the snails that host the parasitic worms that carry the disease—resulting in a 32 percent reduction in infections in children, improved access to freshwater, and new revenue for the local communities,” says McElwee.

“The best way to bridge single-issue silos is through integrated and adaptive decision-making. ‘Nexus approaches’ offer policies and actions that are more coherent and coordinated—moving us towards the transformative change needed to meet our development and sustainability goals.”

The High Cost of Inaction

Warning of the high economic costs of inaction and the significant cost of biodiversity loss and climate change impacts, the report highlighted that biodiversity has been the loser in the tradeoffs where short-term gains are implemented and often neglect long-term sustainability.

“Policies informed by Nexus principles can create “win-win” solutions across sectors,” the report says.

According to the report, unaccounted-for costs of current approaches to tackling the multiple crises of biodiversity, water, health, food, and climate change are at least USD 10–25 trillion per year.

McElwee stressed that unaccounted-for costs, alongside direct public subsidies to economic activities worth about USD 1,7 trillion a year, have negative impacts on biodiversity. These subsidies have enhanced annual private sector financial flows estimated at USD 5.3 trillion, which are directly damaging to biodiversity.

“Delayed action on biodiversity goals, for example, could as much as double costs—also increasing the probability of irreplaceable losses such as species extinction,” McElwee warned, emphasizing that delayed action on climate change adds at least USD 500 billion per year in additional costs for meeting policy targets.

The Nexus report, building on previous IPBES reports that identified the most important direct drivers of biodiversity loss, states that indirect socioeconomic factors such as increasing waste, overconsumption, and population growth have intensified the direct drivers of biodiversity loss.

“Efforts of governments and other stakeholders have often failed to take into account indirect drivers and their impact on interactions between nexus elements because they remain fragmented, with many institutions working in isolation—often resulting in conflicting objectives, inefficiencies, and negative incentives, leading to unintended consequences,” says Harrison.

The IPBES Nexus assessment has recommended a shift to more integrated, inclusive, equitable, coordinated, and adaptive approaches as a solution to biodiversity loss.

Tapping Opportunities

The Nexus Report recommends a shift from the ‘business as usual’ approach to direct and indirect drivers of change, spelling doom for biodiversity, water quality, and human health. Furthermore, it warns that maximizing the outcomes for only one part of the nexus in isolation will result in negative outcomes for other nexus elements.

For example, a ‘food first’ approach prioritizes food production with positive benefits for nutritional health, arising from unsustainable intensification of production and increased per capita consumption. But this has negative impacts on biodiversity, water, and climate change.

“Future scenarios do exist that have positive outcomes for people and nature by providing co-benefits across the nexus elements,” Harrison says. “The future scenarios with the widest nexus benefits are those with actions that focus on sustainable production and consumption in combination with conserving and restoring ecosystems, reducing pollution, and mitigating and adapting to climate change.”

Noting that current governance structures and approaches are not responsive enough to meet the interconnected challenges from the accelerated speed and scale of environmental change and rising inequalities, the report has recommended a shift to more integrated, inclusive, equitable, coordinated, and adaptive approaches.

The work of IPBES provides the science and evidence to support the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, and the Paris Agreement on climate change, says Harrison.

Inger Andersen, Executive Director, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), commented that the IPBES Nexus Assessment is the first comprehensive global assessment that looks at the interlinkages between crises and identifies solutions.

“Biodiversity is vital to the efforts to meet humanity’s growing need for food, feed, fiber, and fuel while protecting the planet for future generations,” Andersen says. “We need to produce more with less, through the Four Betters: better production, better nutrition, a better environment, and a better life—leaving no one behind.”

While Astrid Schomaker, Executive Secretary of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), added that actions to address global challenges affecting biodiversity, water, food, health, and the climate system are often taken without sufficient regard to the interlinkages between them. She says such actions result in shortcomings and adverse impacts on biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people.

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’);