Business, Economics and Consulting

The United Nations was formed by a conglomeration of nations whose leaders envisioned all countries reaping the benefits of a socially just and democratic world. The original purveyors of the UN were driven by the dream of nations rich and poor, working together, sharing resources and gaining from this mutual cooperation without one taking advantage of the other.

When I was younger, I nurtured the dream of joining the United Nations and contribute to important discussions that would positively impact the world. I dreamt of joining the ranks of a global police force that looked at policies and actions that emphasized peace, harmony and unity among all the nations of the world.

Now, I am one among the multitudes excruciatingly disappointed with the results of the latest UN hullaballoo that is Copenhagen. 194 nations, two weeks and all I got from vigilantly following the proceedings was a paltry two and a half page Copenhagen Accord that was one hundred percent rhetoric and zero percent substance.

If there was a ray of light in the Accord, though, it was the fact that finally, the world acknowledges the results of scientific researches that unequivocally quantify anthropogenic causes of global warming and its devastating effects. The dark gray mist that clouded the horizon, however, was the glaring fact that with a concern as urgent and complex as climate change, the road to clear solutions are blocked by a lack of leadership and the employment of negotiation styles that are more about compromises, concessions and false diplomacy accented by arm wrestling and maybe even blackmail.

The Accord was actually formulated after US President Obama engaged in last minute talks with the Chinese Premier, the Indian Prime Minister, the Brazilian President and the South African President. There were 194 nations in the Conference of Parties, and yet only five perspectives were thoroughly integrated in a document that is far from thorough.

Some participants in the summit say that this top-down imposition was to be expected because of the minutiae of concerns that define the main issue: rich versus poor nations, the US versus Europe, poor versus middle class countries as well as the interest of oil states, and island nations endangered by rising sea levels. These “versus” leaves me doubting if there is still the concept of a United Nations at all.

Even UN Chief Ban Ki-Moon admits that the conference failed to arrive at a global consensus. The UN, US and other developed nations however, defend the Accord as “better than nothing” and “a good first step”. This is an extremely flimsy excuse for the Accord not to have any substance – in fact the issues being discussed in Copenhagen were already laid out in previous conferences and Copenhagen was actually mounted to define and detail the next steps to address the issues identified years ago. The sad reality is that Copenhagen is a duplication of the unsuccessful events of the past. No concrete targets were set for mid and long-term reductions of greenhouse gases. At best, Copenhagen “encourages” developed nations to reduce emissions but they are not required to; and the Accord is not even legally binding.

Allow me then to extrapolate at this juncture. The UN, as a conglomeration of world leaders, has failed to exercise leadership to protect the concerns of the majority of the world, especially vulnerable and disadvantaged nations such as the Philippines. The concessions it has given to the US and China, in particular, means that the summit is an expensive and unsuccessful exercise of democracy. Maybe what the UN needs is a fresh perspective, a mechanism that will allow them to listen to less economically developed nations, and people within who are untouched or unaffected by global politics – because we all have a stake in climate change.

Feel free to send your comments to nic_agustin@yahoo.com.