Global Outlook

Exactly one year ago, on 23 March at the beginning of the pandemic, UN Secretary General, Antonio Guterres, called for a global cease fire. He said: “Now is the time for a collective new push for peace and reconciliation. And so I appeal for a stepped-up international effort — led by the Security Council — to achieve a global ceasefire by the end of this year ... The world needs a global ceasefire to stop all ‘hot’ conflicts. At the same time, we must do everything to avoid a new Cold War.” His urgent appeal has gone unheard.

On February 23, the UN Security Council (UNSC) held a high-level open debate on the topic of climate and security. The meeting, convened by the Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom, was the latest in a series of open debates and Arria-formula sessions set to define the role of the Council in addressing threats to international security posed by climate change. Despite a decade-long discussion, the UNSC is still divided on a series of conceptual and procedural issues that, as it will be shown in this article, prevent it from defining its role in relation to climate change.

The EU’s foreign and security policy is plagued by unclear concepts, contradictory interests and fierce controversies between its member states. At the moment, priorities are set for a stronger military and defence role. The EU as a “power of peace”, a term popular ten years ago, has been pushed aside and geopolitical ambitions moved into the foreground.

At the end of February, the government of the Pacific island nation of Kiribati announced that it planned to collaborate with China in developing Natovatu land bought by the Kiribati government in 2014 on the Fijian island of Vanua Levu. In the light of increasing attempts by the People’s Republic of China to expand its influence in Pacific Island Countries, this announcement was met with some concern on the international stage. It was interpreted in the context of the growing geostrategic power rivalry in the region.

Countries spend vital funds to stockpile expensive weapon systems at the cost of making actual necessary investments to protect their populations. National security calculations presuppose that power and status equate with costly weapons accumulation. However, none of the challenges that pose existential dangers to nations in the 21st century can be tackled with weapons, or solved by one country acting alone, or even fought with military means.

The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons should be seen in Western Europe as a signal by the rest of the world to take the promise of nuclear elimination much more seriously. Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany should work together to get rid of the American nuclear weapons on our soil, and sign the Ban Treaty as soon as politically possible.