Friday, February 21, 2025
Thursday, February 20, 2025
Friday, August 23, 2024
Friday, September 22, 2023
How Can the Future of the Middle East Affect European Security?
Paper: United Europe Journal, no. 19/2023
https://leuropeunie.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/A1.pdf
Friday, October 22, 2021
Tuesday, October 19, 2021
Mapping Environmental Diplomacy: An introduction
Dr. Leila Nicolas' Speech at The Grace School of Applied Diplomacy at DePaul University Conference entitled Environmental Diplomacy: Exploring Transprofessional Contributions to Global Survival, Oct 13-15, 2021.
Introduction
Good morning! It is afternoon here in Lebanon.
I will use our Lebanese greeting word, which can be
used at any time during the day and night; Marhaba.
Thank you for inviting me to this important conference. It is an
honor to be a speaker in this session and participate in
the following sessions.
When I was about to write my book "effective
forms of environmental diplomacy," I was mainly concerned about the idea
that the root causes of future conflicts in the world will be mainly
environmental.
As a researcher and an activist in the Middle East,
that idea gets me along with all the geopolitical conflicts in the region. I
thought we would need better conflict resolution strategies, more focused and
effective environmental diplomacy to preserve peace and security on the global,
regional, and national levels.
Trying to map the issue of environmental diplomacy,
I will address three main questions:
1- Why Environmental diplomacy?
2- Where are we now?
3- How to move forward?
Why Environmental diplomacy?
On the state level, diplomacy in its early
traditional sense focused only on 'high politics,' i.e., national security, defense,
and sovereignty. It did not weigh what was considered 'low politics,' i.e.,
social, cultural, and environmental issues considered peripheral.
Despite starting to negotiate environmental treaties
in the mid-nineteenth century, it was not until states began to view the
environment as a threat to security that they began to give weight to
environmental diplomacy.
What causes an environmental conflict?
First narrative: Natural Resource Scarcity
Instability can be caused by a decrease in supply
and demand, besides the people's inability to access key
resources.
2nd narrative: Population Growth
In the presence of poor economic performance and
lack of adequate infrastructure, population growth may cause conflict and
instability.
In addition to the political, economic, and social
problems, some authors argue that the root cause of the Arab spring was the
youth bulb.
3rd narrative: Human Migration
Once people migrate due to a lack of
resources and inability to survive, conflicts will arise. Then, group-identity
issues could lead to violence within migrant and host societies, and possible
conflicts may arise over host resources.
We can refer to the tensions in Lebanon between the
Syrian refugees and the host communities, especially in Akkar and Bekaa, where
resources are scarce and where people in local communities are under poverty
lines like their new guests.
4th narrative: Globalisation
This narrative also relates to the concept of food
security, where globalization has allowed for mass production and distribution,
often at the expense of the environment.
5th narrative: Unequal Resource Distribution
When communities experience livelihood insecurity
due to environmental degradation, the disadvantaged members of society will
suffer the most, and as a result, violence will likely emerge.
This is the case in most third-world
countries.
Empirical case:
Drawing one of the strongest links between
environment and conflict, we can refer to the Syrian civil war:
- An extreme drought in Syria between 2006 and 2009
(which was most likely due to climate change) was one factor in the violent uprising in 2011.
- Iraqi migration and influx
of refugees to Syria, in addition, environmental migration from rural areas to the cities, which led
to high unemployment rates, pressure on infrastructure, and resources scarcity,
are other factors.
- Population growth, unequal resource distribution,
lack of opportunities, and inability to access resources due to corruption,
clientelism, and dictatorship, were also leading factors.
Therefore,
Environmental Diplomacy should be seen as a Peacebuilding Tool.
Where are we now?
Since the end of the Cold War, diplomacy has
witnessed a huge transformation. The role of technology and media changed the
image of a diplomat. It reinforced "public diplomacy," in addition to
the emersion of new non-state actors such as non-governmental organizations
(NGOs) and even multinational corporations.
'Multilateral diplomacy' pressed by public opinion
pushed the environmental agenda forward.
And now, 'Environmental diplomacy' falls under two
categories:
1. Conventions regulating natural resources
2. Conventions regulating pollution.
On the bright side
1- Progress in IEL and its principles
On the bright side of the international
Environmental agenda, we notice the great leap in the development of
international Environmental Law and the evolution of generally accepted
principles (mainly found
in the "Stockholm Declaration" and "Rio Declaration").
1. A Sovereign Shall
Do No Harm
2. The Duty to Prevent
3. The Principle of
Cooperation
4. The Principle of
Sustainable Development
5. The Precautionary
Principle
6. The 'Polluter Pays'
principle
7. The principle of
Common but Differentiated Responsibility
2- Multilateralism pushed the environmental agenda
forward
More than ever, environmental non-governmental
organizations play an important role locally and internationally in addressing
different environmental issues. Since the 1980s, these organizations have
increasingly influenced environmental policy and discourse globally.
The NGOs' widespread influence highlights the
importance of their advocacy plans and their role in adopting and implementing environmental projects.
Engaging in 'multilateral diplomacy' helped
facilitate cooperation and coordination between different stakeholders at
international and national levels and between civil society, public and private
sectors.
3- Decentralization led to better governance
For the last few decades, decision-making powers
have been decentralized, shifting from governments towards more participation
of local institutions and NGOs. In the environmental governance realm, this
power shift helped promote the fundamental principles of environmental
governance and enhanced effectiveness.
4- Environment became an essential part of
decision-making levels
The environment has become part of every level of
decision-making processes, which results from the modern understanding that
cities and communities and economic, social, and political life are
all subsets of the environment. All people belong to the ecosystem in which
they thrive.
5- Environment is a part of policy priority areas
States' policies within environmental governance
tend to emphasize several aspects of environmental policy. The most notable
policy priorities are the effect of the environment on the quality of life,
climate change, ecosystem degradation, nature and biodiversity, natural
resources, and waste management.
Challenges
and dilemmas
1- State's national interests
States' territorial boundaries rarely reflect
natural boundaries, so national industries and consumption devastate resources
and generate pollution causing environmental problems beyond the state.
Even though progress has been made in environmental
preservation, the problem lies in the states' national interests, which affect
their compliance with environmental laws and principles.
2- Economic growth vs. environmental
sustainability
The economy and environment are interconnected.
Environmental diplomacy will not succeed without considering economic
interests. Besides, economic diplomacy will not be sustainable unless it
addresses environmental issues. However, this relationship caused asymmetrical
perceptions and differences in interests and conceptualization between the
Global South and the Global North.
While most of the sustainability discourses in
industrialized countries refer to environmental issues, developing countries
are still involved with economic and social problems such as poverty, social
injustice, and lack of development.
3- Populism
The rise of populism (esp. right-wing populism) in
the world was accompanied by the spread of "conspiracy theories" and
the rise of "climate change denial" theories.
This coincided with lobbying against "green
policies." From 1989 onwards, industry-funded organizations sought to
spread doubt among the public about global warming in a strategy already
developed by the tobacco industry.
As a result, the public discourse shifted from the
"science and data of climate change" to a discussion of politics and
the surrounding controversy. The scientific skepticism developed to denial, then to a hoax or conspiracy theory.
4- Weak negotiators: division at home
Driven by voters' interests, many politicians and
world leaders are still reluctant to consider the environment as essential to
"high politics" or consider the environment a
national security issue.
Usually, internal conflicts over economic versus
environmental policies cause a disturbance in the state's negotiating power and
weaken it, giving opposing parties an advantage, sometimes for the benefit of
anti-environment agendas.
5- Coalition-building: Double-edged sword
Informal diplomacy has altered the way of conducting
international negotiations, especially on the environment. Despite not having
an official status, coalitions between states and /or NGOs facilitated
coordination, advocacy and led to successful environmental negotiations.
Coalition-building is a form of 'associative diplomacy" that increases the group members' bargaining strength when voting and increasing
lobbying power.
This coalition-building has proved to advance the
environmental treaties and agenda; however, an environmental coalition
may only be as strong as its weakest link. Each member will have different
levels of resources and experience, so states or organizations that provide a
lot of resources and powerful leadership can lead the coalition to serve their
own interest.
6- NGO diplomacy: the Astroturf!
NGOs are independent of government institutions, but
they usually rely on funds to carry on their missions.
Some NGOs receive millions of dollars funds from
states. This may raise some questions about their level of independence and
legitimacy. As Transparency International points out, "NGO status risks to
become a mere vehicle used by special interest groups to avoid control
mechanisms." Others have raised the problem of the Astroturf, which is the
"process by which firms create mobilizations that take the form of an NGO,
resemble an NGO but whose existence is, in fact, provided by private funds, for
commercial purposes."
How to move forward?
1- Train expert diplomats
Today, in a complex interdependent world, diplomacy
is facing many challenges that require better practices. It must realize this
urgency "to develop or perish."
The earlier developments changed its character and
the number of players competing with traditional diplomats. Today, it is
essential to move towards more professionalism, to have "expert
diplomats."
Expert diplomats are "professionals with
advanced scientific training and are authorized to make politically or legally
binding decisions."
2- interdisciplinary training
Building a team of expert diplomats and negotiators
from various backgrounds helps facilitate conflict resolution
strategies by thinking out of the box and adding extensive new knowledge and
skills to the already known ones.
What is needed is a
consistent interdisciplinary training program for diplomats that provides them
with extensive knowledge and position at the same time to reinforce their
expertise in scientific fields.
Here, I suggest the training should go both ways:
- Providing scientific knowledge to political
negotiators and diplomats.
- Provide political knowledge and negotiation skills
to scientific experts.
3- Construct Scientific –Political Negotiators
The notion of scientific expertise should not
omit the political nature of international negotiations.
In other words, governments should train their
expert diplomats to act upon their scientific knowledge and
their political and diplomatic understanding.
What is needed is not just using technical and
scientific experts to work beside the political negotiators but also to empower
environmental expert diplomats and train them to actively engage in all phases of the
negotiations.
4- Build an "Environmental Diplomat"
career
The urgency of protecting the environment pushes us to establish an "environmental diplomat" as a 'career.'
This career should be linked to social and political
construction in which the diplomatic factor is not replaced, but it complements
the work of other diplomatic agents.
An environmental diplomat should speak with an
expert and a political voice at once.
They should approach any environmental issue with a
globalist perception.
In traditional diplomacy, diplomats are trained to
incline towards the national interest of their states. However, environmental
diplomats should protect their state's national interest and look beyond it to
foresee environmental topics as convergent issues that touch the whole universe
and affect all nations.
Conclusion
On a final general note, I urge scholars and practitioners in the field of
diplomacy, international relations, and political sciences to move beyond the traditional
perceptions and understanding of their fields.
More than ever, the environment is becoming an
essential question in various fields:
- At the global level, nature is becoming the source
of both cooperation and conflict, which imposes a new vision for the future of
diplomacy.
- States are more aware of the new challenges caused
by environmental degradation on national, regional, and global levels.
- Environment is becoming the main issue for voters'
choices in elections. Politicians are more to offer "green" policies
and promises in their programs.
- Environment has become one of the main sources of
economic power nationally and globally. States are looking for more investments
in a green economy and foresee solutions for their unemployment problems.
- International relations are moving away from traditional concepts of security and conflicts and forecasting that the main root causes of future conflicts will be environmental.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
- In February 2025, his rhetoric toward Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky became increasingly harsh.
- Trump has labeled Zelensky a "dictator without elections" and claimed that his approval rating in Ukraine is only 4%.
In a defiant response, Zelensky accused Trump of "living in a world of disinformation."
- U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance has warned that Zelensky will “pay a price” for his criticisms of Trump.
On another Level:
Trump has proposed a deal that would grant the U.S. rights to extract Ukraine’s rare earth minerals in exchange for the financial support it provided to Ukraine.
Zelensky rejected this offer, stressing that discussions about profit distribution would only be considered once clear security guarantees were established.
The Bottom Line:
Zelensky understands that Trump does not tolerate being challenged. Nonetheless, fully aware that his time in office is short, he aims to depart the political stage as a "hero."
Meanwhile, Ukraine finds itself in a dire situation—having suffered the loss of an entire generation, significant territorial concessions, and a declining economy.
Placing faith in Europe to change the tide of the war, whether through military might or diplomatic efforts, is a perilous illusion; from the outset, the U.S. has dictated the course of this conflict and holds the power to end it whenever it chooses.
Note: The upcoming German elections could significantly alter Germany's stance on Ukraine, introducing new dynamics into this ongoing crisis.