|
|
|
Thank you Madame President for giving me the floor. Let me begin by stating the obvious. There is some discomfort about the venue and nature of today's debate. But let me also state what is equally obvious to all except those who refuse to see reality. Climate change is the global environmental challenge. There is general agreement among scientists that the increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations is causing global warming. We are witnessing rising sea levels and extreme weather. We are seeing the extinction of species. These effects are worldwide and potentially devastating as they increase in severity. Given their paucity of resources, developing countries will be the hardest hit. Some have their very survival at stake. For example, entire island nations might cease to exist with rising sea levels. But it is not only the poor that will suffer. If climate change causes the socio-economic conditions within developing countries to deteriorate, millions of people will be compelled to seek refuge in developed countries. Even poverty and socio-political dislocation are globalised these days. I believe that there is a broad consensus that we must act to arrest what we ourselves are responsible for. And, so many of the problems caused by climate change can only be tackled if we work together. Let us view our procedural disagreements against this backdrop. Intuitively, there may be a nexus between environmental degradation from climate change, and increased conflict over limited resources made even scarcer. Land, water, food and minerals have often been variables in that complex equation leading to conflict. It is notoriously hard to quantify exactly how much each variable is responsible. People have been studying conflicts for centuries without reaching any perfect formula as to how to predict them. But while we should recognize the complexity, we should not lose sight of the simple idea that people often fight over tangible things. While it may be difficult to quantify the relationship between climate change and international peace and security, there should be no doubt that climate change is an immediate global challenge whose effects are transboundary and multi-faceted. There will be serious implications touching on politics, socio-economics, geography, security and the fundamental way in which we interact with Nature and with each other. Given this complexity, can we realistically limit ourselves to finding one "correct" forum to discuss all aspects of this problem? Or should we use all our resources to try to understand the issue and all opportunities and fora to explore the problem from various perspectives? Each piece of the puzzle could help us see a bigger picture. We would like to view today's Open Debate in the Security Council in that light. At the very least, these discussions will keep international focus on the problems associated with climate change. We are not advocating that the Security Council play the key role on climate change. But neither can we deny the Security Council some sort of role because it seems obvious to all but the wilfully blind that climate change must, if not now, then eventually have some impact on international peace and security. The Council is one player in the broader debate on the issue. Of course the Council is not the only or the main player. With its broader membership and mandate, the General Assembly (GA) is clearly another body that must discuss this issue. The GA already has existing mechanisms to deal with this. There are also other fora like UNEP and ECOSOC. The upcoming 15th session of the Commission on Sustainable Development is expected to play a key role in discussing the problems of climate change. All these fora must continue to address the issue and its environmental, social, and economic effects on the world, particularly in those countries most at risk. After this Open Debate, let us not put aside the issue. We should see this as just one small step in the longer march. Given the magnitude and urgency of the problem, the General Assembly should consider convening a high-level event or a special session dedicated to the issue of climate change. There is no point sitting around and complaining that the Security Council is encroaching into areas that should be dealt with by the General Assembly. The Assembly should rise to the challenge and do something about this global issue. A high-level event or a special session of the General Assembly could give an added push to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change meeting in Bali at the end of the year. Ultimately, dealing decisively with climate change comes down to political will. The political will to sign the relevant treaties and protocols, the political will to make compromises, and the political will to make sacrifices for the longer-term. We now know that what we had done in the past century had caused much damage to our environment and to the world. We also know that unless we take immediate steps to rectify matters, the situation will get progressively worse in the next decades. Every long journey begins with a first step. Hopefully, the Open Debate today will inspire us to take the next step of dealing with this global issue in a broader setting involving the entire UN membership. James Freeman Clarke once said that "A politician thinks of the next election, a statesman, of the next generation". Let us all be statesmen. Let us put aside our differences and tackle this issue. This will be our legacy. . . . . . |