In a weak state drought, disease and economic stagnation may reach a critical level. The global HIV/AIDS has renewed international concern that widespread death from infectious diseases could destabilise vulnerable nations. The vulnerable nations fail to provide effective security, education and health care. A recent study from the World Health Organisation (WHO) and London school of hygiene and tropical medicine estimates more than 160,000 people die annually from ancillary effects of global warming such as malaria and malnutrition. It will be doubled by 2020.
Least developed nations
Poor developing countries suffer from the effects of climate change. These states lack the economic, governance or technical capabilities to adapt. They lack the capacity to prevent the humanitarian disasters e.g. weather events, drought, famine and disease.
Weak states
Failed and failing states have a weak government, poor border control, repressed population or marginal economies. Weak states have no capacity to respond to climate change and to prevent humanitarian disasters. In 1990 in Somalia 10,000 people died because of drought, crop failure and also, state failure.
Undemocratic states
20 years ago economists Amartya Sen noted that democratic leaders had to be responsive to people who can vote them out of power, the leaders donāt produce famine. But undemocratic states fail to protect populations at a risk of drought, floods and other weather related phenomena. While modern India has never suffered a famine, tens of millions died in China under Mao. North Korea is able to produce nuclear weapons but remains unable to meet its peopleās basic nutritional needs. Thus populations in undemocratic states will be vulnerable to humanitarian crises induced by the climate change.
The United Nationsā strategy for addressing climate change is to facilitate agreements among nations.
- To mitigate those nationsā greenhouse gas emissions and concentrate these gases at a safe level and
- Help vulnerable nations to adapt to the adverse consequences of global warming.
While these goals are the right ones, the UN system is not acting with sufficient ambition or effectiveness to deal with the security risks posed by climate change.
Global warming will continue until concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which will only occur after net global annual emissions of these gases decline to zero. Global emissions are still rising rapidly in the majority of nations. A major focus of the UNās climate change security strategy must be to facilitate emission mitigations in both developed and developing nations. Global efforts to arrest climate change have been carried out largely in the context of the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and its 1997 Kyoto Protocol. Today, those efforts have produced very modest results. Developed nations ignored the political commitment. They made under convention to return their emissions to 1990 levels by 2000. If the Kyoto Treaty goes into force, it will cover only 25 per cent of global emissions. By 2012, Kyoto will have reduced emissions in participating industrialised countries by only less than 3 per cent below 1990 levels.
The climate architecture associated with the Kyoto Protocol has become increasingly divisive, not only among advanced industrialised countries, but also within the North-South dialogue. Since 1992 earth summit, the environment has lost ground politically submerged under broader sustainable agenda. The Secretary General must raise the visibility of climate change and play a more active role to run speedy mitigation efforts. One complication is that while developed nations should take the lead in reducing emissions, but in developing nations emission mitigation could be more cost effective. Until the international community develops the political will necessary for public private financing of emission reduction.
Security challenges are not met properly as for example Iraqās people remain vulnerable to long term security threats due to climate change and environmental crisis. One option would be for Secretary General to advocate the creation of UN High Commissioner for the environment. The high commissionerās mandate would be to raise global awareness about environmental degradation including climate change. Climate would be only part of agenda. This official should also have a role in building political will to meet other international environmental goals e.g. providing safe drinking water and sanitation for all. Locating the office in Geneva would help integrate environmental concerns and climate change into the UN system in a way that UN environmental programme Nairobi has been unable to accomplish.
A two part of strategy is needed to deal with the adverse effects of climate change. First, the UN should strengthen those programmes that handle disaster and humanitarian crises and that are already beginning to take climate change into account. Second, the UN should create new effort focussed on predicting, preventing and handling climate change related disasters in weak states and those with repressive governments.
