SECURITY COUNCIL CLIMATE CHANGE DEBATE: RIGHT

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 USUN NEW YORK 000302 SIPDIS SENSITIVE SIPDIS NAIROBI FOR USREP UNEP NSC FOR CEQ E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: UNSC SENV ENRG UK SUBJECT: SECURITY COUNCIL CLIMATE CHANGE DEBATE: RIGHT ISSUE, WRONG FORUM REF: SECSTATE 50521 -------------- Summary -------------- ¶1. (U) UK Foreign Secretary Beckett chaired the UN Security Council's unprecedented April 17 open debate on energy, security and climate, although, because of controversy over introducing this topic into the Council, the event was formally titled "Open Debate on Letter from UK Permanent Representative." Forty member states, in addition to the 15 UNSC members, delivered statements that ran the expected spectrum of concern over feared ramifications from climate change, to outrage that the Security Council encroached on a topic that is already the purview of several other UN bodies. The session produced no formal document, but generated numerous suggestions for future action. End summary. -------------- Big Turnout -------------- ¶2. (U) Making good on months-old intentions to bring climate change to "new stakeholders" by taking it to the Security Council, UK Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett presided over the UNSC's April 17 open debate based on a concept paper titled "Energy, Climate Change and Security." Each of the 15 members of the UNSC made statements, followed by 40 other UN member states and Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon. (Note: Of UNSC members, the UK and Slovakia were represented by FMs, and Italy by an MFA U/S. Germany, Netherlands and Maldives were also represented at FM or other ministerial level, some of whom were in town for other high-level economic meetings. End note.) The UK PermRep subsequently opined that 55 national statements was a record for a Security Council open debate. Despite the high attention generated by the session, the debate itself was largely lackluster and predictable. -------------- Venue Debate a Running Theme -------------- ¶3. (SBU) As widely reported in the press, a central theme of the statements was a running debate over whether the UNSC had a mandate to discuss climate change. Both the G77 and Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) blocks condemned the UNSC's alleged encroachment on other UN organs, with Egypt, Sudan and Cuba being particularly strident, while India cheekily noted the debate was bad for the "climate in the Security Council." Several developing states that aligned themselves �00A;with those blocks nevertheless engaged substantively on the topic. All agreed that other UN bodies have significant roles to play in climate change discussions. Small island and low-lying states were most vocal in treating the topic as a security concern, while EU members focused remarks touting their own commitments for future action on emissions and renewable energy. Dutch Minister for Development Cooperation Bert Koenders gave a particularly suave, persuasive performance. -------------- Russia, China and UNSYG -------------- ¶4. (SBU) While the USG statement (www.un.int/usa) sidestepped the debate over mandate, both Russia and China devoted a portion of their remarks castigating the UK's decision to bring climate change to the Security Council. Nevertheless, both also gave defense of their national climate change policies. China spoke of its numerous clean development partnerships and the fact that it developed its own sustainable development strategy fifteen years ago. The Russian statement, running just over two minutes in length, boasted of Russia's post-1990 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions while also urging that global discussion of climate not provoke "panic" or "drama." Secretary-General Ban's ten-minute statement straddled the venue debate and echoed his predecessor's plea that the international USUN NEW Y 00000302 002 OF 002 community agree on ways to "live sustainably within the planet's means," pledging his personal engagement on the issue. He did not specifically foreshadow future extraordinary meetings on climate issues. -------------- Making Sound Bites -------------- ¶5. (U) Developing states were unanimous in calling on developed states and the world's leading GHG emitters to shoulder primary responsibility for climate change mitigation and adaptation and to do a better job of fulfilling previous commitments. Some delegates took the rhetoric to tendentious extremes. Namibia's PermRep termed climate change "low-intensity biological or chemical warfare" and an "unprovoked war being waged on us by developed countries." Tuvalu said that, in contrast to the Cold War, we are now in a "Warmer War," where the weapons are "chimney stacks and exhaust pipes" and adding that, "We are confronted with a chemical war of immense proportions." The Marshall Islands called the international response to climate change a "sad, grave disappointment." -------------- Suggesting Next Steps -------------- ¶6. (U) One of the clear aims of the UK in bringing the debate to the UNSC was to generate further momentum for a post-Kyoto agreement on GHG emissions ahead of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change ministerial in Bali in December. While there was no outcome document from the session, several states recommended further action. There were numerous calls for the SYG to convene a "climate summit" in the near future, advocates for the creation of a new umbrella "UN Environmental Organization" to help concentrate efforts on climate change, and several calls for the UNSC to better integrate environmental factors in its study of conflict situations, possibly with the creation of a new advisory office for just that function. WOLFF