With this year’s UN Climate Change Conference (COP28) starting today, those leading it continue to inspire concern and even indignation. After all, the host is the United Arab Emirates (UAE), among the world’s largest oil-producing countries, and the head of state-owned Abu Dhabi National Oil Co, Sultan Al Jaber, will be running the proceedings.
But is that really so bad?
The Middle East is not exactly the climate champion of our time. Regional leaders have historically doubted climate science and often refused to help poorer countries suffering from climate-related damage, but it is the role of Al Jaber himself that is most controversial.
Illustration: Mountain People
As US Representative Ro Khanna put it, having the head of a national oil company as the president-designate of a climate conference is a “slap in the face to young climate activists.”
This explains why, earlier this year, more than 130 members of the US Congress and the European Parliament signed a letter calling for his removal.
However, while the developed world has largely balked at Al Jaber’s appointment, many developing countries openly support it.
The UN-sponsored global climate negotiations are intended to keep countries — both friends and rivals — engaged with one another and aware that, despite our differences, we all share a planet. While they tend to be dominated by the actors one might expect — developed countries such as the US, as well as rising powers like China — they are also one of the rare multilateral forums where questions of historical responsibility might be raised.
To be sure, the advanced economies do not exactly reckon with their legacy of violent and extractive colonialism at COPs, even though that history directly enabled their industrialization and all the associated greenhouse-gas emissions, but, to some extent, they do acknowledge their disproportionate contributions to climate change.
Meanwhile, smaller, poorer countries are granted a kind of moral authority and, often, the opportunity to exercise greater political voice than they have elsewhere.
My country, Bangladesh, is a case in point.
In recent years, Bangladesh has been battered by severe cyclones and floods, which will only worsen as sea levels rise, yet it accounts for just 0.4 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions.
Countless well-meaning academics and activists have underscored this imbalance, although often in simplistic and unconstructive ways. I distinctly remember watching with dread as a Western climate scientist recounted the real-world effects of climate change — and, in particular, the horrors that lay ahead for vulnerable countries — at a 2015 conference at the University of Oregon.
When she brought up Bangladesh, she began to sob as she repeated her desperate question: “What have they done to deserve this?”
Heads swiveled in my direction — I was the only Bangladeshi at the conference — but I could only sit slumped at my seat, skewered by a lance of pity and liberal guilt.
As an anthropologist who has studied COPs for nearly a decade, I have watched developing countries approach climate negotiations in surprising and creative ways. I can assure you Bangladesh is not as hapless as that panel speaker implied.
As sociologist Kasia Paprocki has observed, the highly market-friendly Bangladesh has turned climate-change adaptation into an economic opportunity.
Similarly, anthropologist Jason Cons has pointed out that Bangladesh has cultivated the contradictory image of a country on the brink of ruin from climate change and one flush with economic opportunity.
At COPs, Bangladesh has distinguished itself as a leader on the issue of loss and damage. While the emotional theatrics are unnecessary, it bears repeating that in countries like Bangladesh, people are already losing their homes, livelihoods and lives to the effects of climate change.
Even if the world begins to reduce emissions rapidly, these losses will not be undone.
Loss and damage makes developed countries nervous. If they acknowledge that climate change cannot be fully mitigated, and that there are limits to human and ecosystem adaptation, the next logical step could well be to seek legal means of pressuring them to pay far more to compensate climate-vulnerable countries.
Recognizing this, Bangladesh initially took a diplomatic approach to the issue of loss and damage: Instead of pushing developed economies to assume liability, it advocated protections for climate-displaced refugees, such as a resettlement policy or a refugee-coordination agency.
A Bangladeshi delegate was involved in the creation of the Warsaw Mechanism on Loss and Damage in 2013, and Bangladeshi voices contributed to the agreement to establish a Loss and Damage Fund at last year’s COP.
Bangladesh is also a member of the Like-Minded Developing Countries (LMDC), which was established in 2012 to keep the needs and interests of the Global South on the COP agenda. Not all of the LMDC’s members, from Pakistan to China, have the moral authority of Bangladesh when it comes to climate change. Hearing Saudi Arabia, for example, weigh in on historical emissions or debt distress is a bit rich.
However, wealthier Middle Eastern countries lend a certain rhetorical and political heft to the LMDC’s cause. This might explain why so many poorer countries, including Bangladesh, are coming out in support of a COP host that continues to woo oil companies even as it advocates for green energy.
In this sense, the leadership of the UAE and Al Jaber might not be out of line with the goals of young climate activists after all. On the contrary, the future these activists seek to avoid is already the reality for countries like Bangladesh.
Effective action on loss and damage today — the action the Global South is fighting for — would thus serve everyone’s interests. Any effort by the UAE to use its position to advance progress on this front should be welcomed.
Naveeda Khan, a professor of anthropology at Johns Hopkins University, sits on the board of the JHU Center for Islamic Studies.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS