James Denselow

A new year brings with new predictions of the geopolitics of the world ahead. Will the Ukrainian border go from tense to war? Will China’s ambitions towards Taiwan become more assertive? Will the Iran nuclear deal find a new lease of life, or could it disintegrate with consequences from a region wracked by protracted conflict?

Yet all these perhaps traditional questions of war and peace pale in comparison when it comes to the climate emergency and the existential question as to whether the Earth will be able to sustain human life in the near or medium future. The major COP 26 Summit towards the end of last year was viewed as a partial success in that the international community is treating climate change far more seriously than it ever has but many worry that it is still not enough.

In the shadow of the big picture questions as to whether States can go carbon-neutral or change the ways their economies and societies function in order to be more sustainable, is the question as to whether the climate imperative can breathe new life into more longstanding issues of human disputes. Could, for instance, 2022 be the year in which the concept of ‘eco diplomacy’ establishes itself? The notion of eco diplomacy is simple, it contrasts the climate threat with the seemingly less seismic challenges of our time and uses cooperation in the fight against global warming and resource shortages as the basis of peacebuilding and a host of other initiatives.

The group EcoPeace Middle East, for example, is made up of Jordanian, Palestinian and Israeli environmentalists working together to protect water resources in their region. They advocated for a recent deal that saw solar farms built in Jordan that can supply Israel and Palestine electricity in exchange for water. In doing so they didn’t only make progress in addressing an environmental challenge, but they also created a community of practice and interdependence that could become a channel for wider efforts at diplomacy.

Conflict is in and of itself a driver of climate change. Not only does it destroy infrastructure and make notions of renewable energy completely unrealistic, but it creates situations in which planning for the long term is practically impossible as most people with any form of power or influence are focused on the conflict itself. Unsurprisingly, seven of the ten countries most vulnerable to climate change already host United Nations peacekeeping or special political missions.

Diplomacy in conflicts like Syria and Yemen has taken a reputational battering. In Syria over ten years of war and a multitude of international summits has yet to bring the conflict to a close, instead more localised and regional agreements have reduced violence or frozen issues instead of attempting to resolve them fully. UN peace envoys have found themselves repeatedly cut off at the knees by the parties to the conflict, continually having to reduce expectations or the scale of their ambitions.

Meanwhile North-eastern Syria is experiencing its worst drought in nearly 70 years, with rising temperatures and erratic weather exacerbated by continued political tensions and questions as to the future levels of autonomy of the region. Large parts of contested territory in Syria were previously known as the ‘breadbasket’ of the country, yet the violently fluctuating status of these vitally important areas mean that ensuring their long-term viability is at question.

Few could argue that new diplomatic initiatives are worth trying in Syria following the general failure of the traditional peace-making toolkit. Supporting grassroots, locally legitimate initiatives that cross conflict lines but are very focused on addressing climate issues; could find that they not only have positive results for the immediate geography of the country but could also result in their being new formats of Syrians who are able to cooperate on issues despite the legacy of the last decade.

Attempts at Eco Diplomacy should be recognised and celebrated as headline news as initiatives take root across the globe, with honest assessments as to what worked and what didn’t. In the near-term participants from a successful scheme could bring their experience on delegations to those parts of the world trying it for the first time, thus building a virtuous and reinforcing circle of practical action to issues that too many dismiss flippantly as intractable.

BY: James Denselow

Drone attack on U.S. forces foiled near Ain al-Asad air base west of Baghdad Swedish King and Queen test positive for COVID-19

Upon arriving to participate in the summit of the European Political Community, which includes around forty heads of state in Budapest, he said, "I look forward to sitting with the elected U.S. president and seeing how we will collectively ensure we meet challenges, including the threats from Russia and North Korea." He also noted that the strengthening of ties between Russia and North Korea poses a threat to the United States as well, according to reports from Agence France-Presse.

Before Trump's victory, Rutte expressed confidence that a united Washington would remain part of the defensive alliance, even if Trump became the 47th president of the United States. In an interview with German public broadcaster ZDF last Monday night, he stated that both Republicans and Democrats understand that NATO serves not only the security of Europe but also that of America. He added that both candidates are aware that the security of the United States is closely tied to NATO.

On Wednesday, NATO congratulated Trump on his victory but did not address the Ukrainian issue.

It is noteworthy that the relationship between the elected U.S. president and the defense alliance was not the best during his first term in the White House. Trump criticized NATO member states multiple times and even hinted at withdrawing from the alliance unless they increased their financial contributions.

Additionally, the issue of the Russian-Ukrainian war is one of the matters that complicate relations between the two sides, especially since Trump has repeatedly stated that he can end this ongoing conflict, which began in 2022, quickly. He implied that he had a peace plan between Kyiv and Moscow, while his vice president, JD Vance, revealed aspects of that plan, which stipulated Ukraine's commitment not to join NATO, thereby sending reassuring signals to the Russians.

Furthermore, many NATO member states in Europe fear that Trump might halt military aid to Ukraine after he previously criticized the U.S. for pouring funds into supporting Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.