Copenhagen Conundrum

The only thing that's interesting - and significant -- about the ongoing UN climate change conference in Copenhagen is the rallying together of the so-called weak countries: the African nations, Bangladesh, Island nations and others and their being backed by the BASIC four - Brazil, South Africa, India and China. And why wouldn't they fight for their survival, pushed to the wall as they are by the rich world?

Why is it so surprising that wealthy - and selfish - countries led by the likes of Denmark, Australia and the US are holding a brief for their like-minded brethren, refusing to commit themselves to targets and figures to slowdown global warming? Of their outright rejection of the Kyoto Protocol that was formulated with great thought, based on the principle of common but differentiated responsibility? What happened to the upholding of the polluter-pays-principle that requires those with historical responsibility to make amends in the interests of the common good? Isn't it inhuman to expect that while they remain well fed and uncommitted, poorer countries - who are only now taking the path of poverty alleviation and basic development needs - ought to reduce their energy consumption and infrastructure programmes? Is this not a violation of human rights?

Even as the rich countries wrangle over their right to continue to pollute, they have chosen to forget that the developing world is only asking for help - by way of clean technology transfer and funding for adaptation - to not take the same indiscriminate, environment-unfriendly path the developed world has taken so far. Is that asking for too much? Mary Robinson, former UN Commissioner for Human Rights, delivering a global verdict along with Archbishop Desmond Tutu, says: "International human rights law says that 'in no case may a people be deprived of its means of subsistence'. Yet because of excessive carbon emissions, produced primarily by industrialized countries, millions of the world's poorest people's rights are being violated every day. This is a deep and global injustice."

Could there be any reasonable argument against this stand? With just four days to go before the current UN climate change conference concludes, tensions are running high with no sight of either monetary and technology transfer nor emissions cutback commitments from developed countries despite the UN framework underlining the fundamental principle of equity and justice in all such international negotiations.

The rich countries are guilty of several human rights violations against millions of people in the developing world, and these include the denial of the right to livelihood, the denial of the right to their homes, the denial of the right to food, shelter and clothing, the denial of the right to employment opportunities, the denial of the right to freedom from disease, denial of the right to preservation of cultures and traditions and in all, the denial of the right to a future free of poverty.

In its March 28 resolution in 2008 the UN Commission on Human Rights declared that climate change "poses an immediate and far-reaching threat to people and communities around the world" and that the link between climate and change and human rights could no longer be ignored. From the International Panel on Climate Change fourth assessment report it is clear that there is scientific evidence that the acceleration in climate change and the ensuing consequences of the increase in the frequency and intensity of floods and droughts, and other what were hitherto seen as "natural" calamities are no longer natural but man-made, on account of the huge volume of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere with fast-paced industrialization and burning of fossil fuels, mostly by the developed world.

What the UN conference ought to address urgently is how culpable countries can be made to account for their responsibilities with regard to righting human rights violations of people living in vulnerable countries who had little or no part in the creation of the climate change problem in the first instance. If this question remains unanswered, maybe it is time the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change calls it a day, admitting that the entire expensive exercise - that began in 1992 with the Rio summit - has been a dismal failure, contributing to rather than helping to solve the problem that inspired the creation of the framework in the first place.

Sorry delegates, for squashing your plans for your next junket to Mexico City.