Every article that appears at Cliscep is very much the work of its author, and does not necessarily represent a collective view. Indeed, it’s always possible that authors who contribute articles will disagree fundamentally with the contents of articles written by others. In the “Legal stuff” at the end of the website’s “about” section this is made clear: “Each individual contributor is solely responsible for his/her own articles, and the views expressed in any article are not necessarily those of any other contributor”.I stress this for the simple reason that what follows is possibly a little off topic in Cliscep terms, represents my own thoughts, and hasn’t been discussed with (and certainly not “cleared” by) others.

Chapter one of the United Nations (UN) Charter tells us that the purposes of the United Nations are four-fold. First:

To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace.

Second:

To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace.

Third:

To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.

And fourth:

To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.

These are all worthy aims, and while climate change wasn’t considered in 1945, it might just about be argued that it falls under part of the third category, namely “…international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character…”.

It isn’t clear whether the four objectives are set out in order of deemed importance, but if so, I would support the prioritisation involved. Given that climate change, as an issue, at best sneaks in as a stretched interpretation of what may well be a tertiary priority, it seems odd that an obsession with it appears to have taken over pretty much every aspect of the UN’s activities, while arguably its other (and more important) purposes are today largely left lying in the dust.

One of the early activities of diplomats at the UN was the setting up of a global health organisation. BY 22nd July 1946 the constitution of the World Health Organisation was finalised and signed by representatives of 51 Members of the UN and of 10 other nations. Those signatures required ratifications by home governments, and the WHO’s constitution came into force only on 7th April 1948 when the 26th signature ratification occurred. Today it has 194 member states. Over the decades the WHO has carried out much important work, but it became mired in controversy with regard to the emergence of SARS-CoV-2, not least with regard to the easy ride some considered it gave to the Chinese authorities with regard to the question of how the virus emerged. It’s a curious coincidence that the WHO arguably owes its existence to the fact that in April 1945, when delegates to the putative UN were first meeting in San Francisco, it was representatives from China and Brazil who proposed that an international health organization be established and a conference to frame its constitution convened.

There are now plans (controversial to some) for a WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty. While some, such as the Telegraph have worried about the implications of such a treaty for national sovereignty (claiming that “[l]ockdown measures could be imposed on the UK by the World Health Organisation (WHO) during a future pandemic under sweeping new powers…”), others, such as the Lancet say that “the bureau text includes provisions safeguarding national sovereignty, which has been consistently emphasised by the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) during negotiations.” It is to be hoped that this is true, given that Article 2 of the UN Charter contains this as its seventh principle:

Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter.

After all, perhaps some at the UN need reminding of this principle. Here’s the heading of a UN press release from 19th April 2021 – “UN Experts Condemn UK Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities Report”. I have not looked into the details of the claims and counter-claims concerning the issue in question, but whatever the rights and wrongs of the issue I find it remarkable, in view of the seventh principle, that the UN should use the language it does here:

The UN Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent categorically rejects and condemns the analysis and findings of the recently published report by the UK’s Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities…

…Stunningly, the Report also claims that, while there might be overt acts of racism in the UK, there is no institutional racism. The Report offers no evidence for this claim, but openly blames identity politics, disparages complex analyses of race and ethnicity using qualitative and quantitative research, proffers shocking misstatements and/or misunderstandings about data collection and mixed methods research, cites “pessimism,” “linguistic inflation,” and “emotion” as bases to distrust data and narratives associated with racism and racial discrimination, and attempts to delegitimize data grounded in lived experience while also shifting the blame for the impacts of racism to the people most impacted by it. For example, the Report seeks to rely on police reports of hate crimes …

…[It] is a tone-deaf attempt at rejecting the lived realities of people of African descent and other ethnic minorities in the UK.

Finally, the Report’s mythical representation of enslavement is an attempt to sanitize the history of the trade in enslaved Africans. This is a reprehensible, although not unfamiliar tactic, employed by many whose wealth came directly from the enslavement of others, ever since slavery was outlawed. Seeking to silence the brutal role of enslavers, the mind-numbing generational wealth they accrued, and the social capital and political influence they gained from exploiting black bodies is a deliberate attempt at historical misrepresentation…

…We urge the British government to categorically reject the findings of the Report…

Even if the criticisms are justified (and the lack of objectivity in comments which accuse the original report of a lack of objectivity must at the very least make it questionable), the only possible response is to ask why the UN has chosen to “intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of [the UK] state”, in breach of the principles set out in its Charter?

The answer to that question, I suggest, is that organisations of this sort inevitably seek to expand their remit. They are never satisfied with the constraints upon them, are anxious to increase their influence, yet will retreat if met with serious opposition, while pushing into areas where opposition is limited or non-existent. Hence, perhaps, the retreat from probing the origins of SARS-CoV-2 when met with opposition from China, one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. The make-up of the Security Council, with its five permanent members, might be understandable in a 1945 context, but it’s arguable that it makes little sense today, especially given the power of any one of those members to veto resolutions which might otherwise be passed with almost unanimous support.

I would suggest that the presence of Russia on the Security Council renders the UN impotent to intervene in a meaningful way with regard to the conflict in Ukraine. The presence of the United States makes it impossible for the UN to intervene wherever the USA sees its interests as being affected. Whatever one thinks of the rights and wrongs of the dreadful situation in Palestine, it is undeniable that the USA is deeply interested in the situation, and that it is strongly supportive of Israel (even if, perhaps, behind the scenes, it is seeking to control or limit Israel’s actions). Thus we find a situation where the USA seems to have far more to say about, and far more influence over, events in Gaza and elsewhere in Palestine than does the UN. As Gordon Brown recently wrote in the Guardian:

…it is a sad commentary on the polarised times we live in that this week, the UN security council could not even bring forward an agreed resolution that provides explicit safeguards for the rights of children currently caught up in the conflict, reinforcing a perception that the international community is as powerless to protect children in Israel and Gaza as it has been in a succession of tragedies in Yemen, Sudan, Myanmar and Ukraine.

The UN, then, is powerless to protect children in conflicts around the world where they are clearly in danger. Instead, it busies itself writing reports blaming climate change for the problems of children around the world. In fairness, it also writes about children affected by conflict:

Around the world, attacks on children continue unabated. The number of countries experiencing violent conflict is the highest it has been in the last 30 years. The result is that more than 30 million children have been displaced by conflict. Many of them are being enslaved, trafficked, abused and exploited. Many more are living in limbo, without official immigration status or access to education and health care. From Afghanistan to Mali, to South Sudan, Yemen and beyond, warring parties are flouting one of the most basic rules of war: the protection of children….

Between 2005 and 2022, more than 315,000 grave violations were verified against children, committed by parties to conflict in more than 30 conflict situations across Africa, Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America. The actual number is undoubtedly far higher. 

The report is powerful and moving, but its conclusions are limp. It says we must act now, but offers no mechanism by which such action might be implemented. There is no suggestion that we should hold an annual conference of the parties to agree actions to deal with violations against children. There is no blueprint to reform the UN, to change the structure of the Security Council, to render the UN a meaningful international body that has in place structures capable of meeting the objectives set out in its Charter.

Meanwhile, tens of thousands are due to attend the 28th annual jamboree that will fail to achieve anything with regard to climate change. The resources devoted to this are huge, probably because it’s an area where no push-back to the process is ever encountered (though only lip-service is ever paid to the objectives, especially by two of the permanent members of the Security Council, China and Russia, who probably see the whole COP process as a means of empowering the useful idiots who seek to undermine the west).

A visit to the relevant part of the UN website reveals an organisation which sees itself as central to a massive policy agenda which is arguably peripheral at best in terms of its Charter obligations. Vast amounts of money and resources are devoted to this area where it should be patently obvious by now that it is making no meaningful difference to levels of greenhouse gas emissions or to climate change. Meanwhile it stands around limply wringing its hands with regard to areas that are central to its Charter obligations. My advice to the President of the UN General Assembly and to the UN’s Secretary-General is to stop grandstanding with regard to issues where the UN can achieve nothing, and to concentrate instead on the day job, however difficult that job might be. The world is on fire, but not in the way that the UN wants us to believe. Do something about it.

38 Comments

  1. Mark,

    A recurring theme here on Cliscep is the apparent suspension of democratic scrutiny accompanying the introduction of far-reaching policies. In particular, you have recently written regarding the introduction of the Energy Bill and the insouciance in which MPs have nodded it through Parliament. I have written similarly on the subject of the Online Safety Bill and its pretext of using child protection in order to justify the appointment an unelected Ofcom as arbiters of Truth. In both cases, legislation of almost Talmudic complexity is being passed into law with little political debate, particularly given that there is so much concern from those outside of Westminster wishing to see the protection of civil liberties. To the list you could add the 2023 amendments to the International Health Regulations, amendments that promise to turn nation states into vassals of a World Health Organisation suzerainty. How much Parliamentary scrutiny will those amendments receive before the UK signs up to them? With such concerns in mind, this article regarding the priorities and powers of the United Nations is not so much off-topic as a widening of topic. I see nothing wrong with drawing attention to such concerns on this website, even when such concerns go beyond the rights and wrongs of net zero policies and strategies. Scepticism has a way of finding its own direction.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. How about the United Nations Population Replacement Migration Project?
    https://canucklaw.ca/u-n-population-replacement-agenda-tracing-the-steps/
    Evil Whitey, responsible for all the bad stuff in the World such as that has created slavery that never existed before Whites got to Africa and the Industrial Revolution that caused caused Anthropogenic Global Warming which is destroying the planet is going to be replaced by brown and black people!

    Like

  3. John,

    Thanks for the vote of confidence. One of the (many) problems with the UN, brilliant concept though it must have seemed at the end of the second appalling global conflict within just over 30 years, is the fact that it’s unelected, unaccountable, yet takes on the mantra of global authority in areas that don’t (or shouldn’t) concern it, while failing hopelessly in the areas that ought to be its core concern.

    It’s all very well the Lancet claiming that nothing will be imposed by the WHO (or any other arm of the UN, come to that) without it first being approved democratically by national governments, but as you point out, our elected politicians (and unelected ones in that offence to democracy known as the House of Lords) don’t seem to be up to the job of scrutinising complex legislation or treaties. Politicians seem to be increasingly happy to hand over power and responsibility to unelected bodies – the Bank of England, SAGE, OBR etc etc. It’s handy for them, because it avoids them having to make difficult decisions and when things go wrong they have a get-out-of-jail-free card: “it’s not our fault, we trusted the experts, and it was their job to get this right”. Handing over powers to the WHO might be another step along this path, and once its embedded in an international treaty, woe betide any politician who tries to differ from the Treaty obligations – the usual suspects will have them in Court before you know it.

    Meanwhile, as UNICEF says, “The number of countries experiencing violent conflict is the highest it has been in the last 30 years.” I understand that seeking peace and avoiding conflict is a monumentally difficult task, and I have every sympathy with the UN in its difficulties. However, given that this is its main job under its founding Charter, I do believe it should be concentrating more on that and less on the plethora of tasks (of which climate change is perhaps the most obvious) it has chosen to take on.

    Like

  4. Catweazle,

    Thanks for that link to a rather perplexing story. The UN does seem to be determined to extend its influence just about everywhere. I’d be interested in any other examples that readers might care to share.

    Like

  6. Beth, thanks for the link. I see that I’ve read it and liked it before. Maybe something lodged in my subconscious!

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Mark,

    Given the complacency with which The Lancet appears to be treating the risks associated with the IHR amendments, it may be worth repeating the link I gave recently to the Opinio Juris analysis:

    The Proposed Amendments to the International Health Regulations: An Analysis

    Note that the professed purpose of the analysis was to:

    “…encourage those involved in the negotiation processes at the WHO to examine proposals also for their compatibility with states’ duties to respect, protect and fulfil human rights, including by ensuring that their membership in international organisations like the WHO does not prevent them from complying with these duties (see. here (para. 67), here (para. 144) and here (Art. 61)); and with the WHO’s own responsibilities for human rights under its Constitution, the current Art. 3(1) IHR and customary human rights law.”

    Note also that one of the two lawyers who wrote the analysis, Dr Silvia Behrendt, was formerly legal consultant to the IHR Secretariat at WHO. So there is no question that the analysis carries an expert authority that dwarfs that of The Lancet. Consequently, statements such as the following should be well heeded:

    “Finally, many of the proposals to significantly extend state duties in regard to their ‘core capacities’ will potentially reshape domestic health systems and promote shifts in domestic health resource allocations towards pandemic surveillance, preparedness and response activities. This may conflict with health priorities democratic societies have set for themselves in implementing the human right to health within their local context reflecting locally specific disease burdens.”

    Liked by 1 person

  8. John,

    More on the amendments to the International Health Regulations:

    “World Health Organization IHR Amendments: Letters for Health Secretary & Your Local MP”

    https://togetherdeclaration.org/who-letters/

    As many Together supporters already know, the WHO’s “IHR Amendments” sound boring, but contain some real nasties.

    We should always remember the WHO didn’t have a monopoly on dreadful policies in Covid. Our own politicians showed themselves quite capable of introducing lockdowns, vaccine passports and mandates. We will always have to fight for fundamental rights, whether the threats come from Geneva, London or anywhere else.

    However, taken together, the WHO’s proposed “International Health Regulations” Amendments could empower the WHO to issue “requirements” for the UK to mandate highly restrictive measures such as lockdowns, masks, quarantines, border closures, travel restrictions, medication of individuals including vaccination, medical examinations etc, in a “Public Health Emergency of International Concern” (PHEIC) declared by themselves. This constitutes a serious threat to basic human rights, medical ethics and the doctor-patient relationship, and must be opposed.

    We ask you to help us lobby the Health Secretary and your MP to put pressure on the UK Government to reject the Amendment to Article 59, which reduces the time we will have available to reject future Amendments, BEFORE 1 December 2023….

    Why before 1st December?

    …these amendments come into force, under international law, for all member states after 24 months (31 May 2024) UNLESS they actively opt out of any of them within 18 months (30 November 2023) invoking Article 61 …

    Like

  9. Mark,

    Of course, sovereignty was a big issue during the Brexit debate and a great deal of political noise was made about. And yet with IHR the political silence is deafening. I suspect you are right and it sometimes suits our feckless MPs to let others make the difficult decisions for them.

    Like

  10. More on the IHR amendments:

    “What the UK Government doesn’t want us to know about the WHO Pandemic Treaty and IHR negotiations
    In August, we asked the Government under FOI to reveal who is heading up the negotiation teams working on the WHO’s Pandemic Preparedness Treaty and IHR Amendments. The response was surprising.”

    https://usforthem2020.substack.com/p/what-the-uk-government-doesnt-want

    …We may hope that the updated draft version of the IHRs unveiled in December will show some improvement on the original proposals from 2022, but all of the evidence suggests it would be foolish to assume it. There is still time for the UK to course-correct, but the window is closing. So what can be done?

    In the face of the bewildering apathy of a majority of MPs, efforts must now be focussed on supporting the few parliamentarians willing to challenge the Government’s arrogant belief that the public should be kept in the dark. Steve Brine MP and the Health Select Committee have a critical role to play here, but it is not clear that they have yet grasped the urgency of their task. The Committee has the authority to call Ministers to account for their handling of the process and to call officials to explain the operational and public spending implications of the international obligations to which they together intend to commit the UK for generations to come.

    The collective energy of those of us in the UK who remain concerned about the corporate-backed WHO’s ambition to dominate global public health policy-making should now be directed — constructively and respectfully — at encouraging and supporting the few people left in a position to deliver that accountability. On too many occasions our Parliament did not adequately hold Ministers and officials to account for their policies and decisions during the pandemic; it could begin to atone for that failure now.

    I haven’t read enough on the subject to know whether the amendments are as problematic as suggested, but I certainly agree that the majority of our MPs display a bewildering apathy when it comes to many of the big decisions that affect their constituents.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. The second of my free Spectator reads this month:

    “Why did the United Nations hand a human rights job to Iran’s ambassador?”

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-did-the-united-nations-hand-a-human-rights-job-to-irans-ambassador/

    What does Iran have to teach the world about human rights? The United Nations appears to think we have plenty to learn from a pariah state which backs Hamas, arrests and beats women for failing to wear a hijab, executes protesters and hangs gay people. In Geneva, the Social Forum of the UN Human Rights Council – essentially a human rights jamboree – opens today; its chair is Ali Bahreini, Iran’s UN ambassador, who will oversee a conference discussing the contribution of science, technology and innovation to the promotion of human rights. Iran, which has used facial recognition technology to identify dissidents, is likely to have some expertise here.

    It’s beyond a joke, of course. ‘This is like granting Bin Laden a Nobel Peace Prize,’ said Naftali Bennett, Israel’s former prime minister. He’s right. But to make matters worse, the whole thing is a stitch-up. The appointment was approved by the president of the UN Human Rights Council, one Václav Bálek, the UN representative from the Czech Republic. However, we shouldn’t point the finger of blame at Bálek. While the rules that led to the appointment are somewhat opaque, it seems that the shortlist was very short indeed: according to reports, there may have only been one candidate for the job: Bahreini.

    This Asia bloc, from which it appears Bálek had to choose, includes other countries – like China, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia – where human rights are, it’s safe to say, not much of a priority. For them, one suspects, a country like Iran that would not embarrass their own governments at home by rocking the civil rights boat – and which could be trusted to show scepticism about any awkward western ideas of freedom – was an obvious choice. There support for Bahreini also means that any attempt to get the nomination withdrawn by the Human Rights Council, as many demand Bálek should do, would ignominiously fail.

    The Human Rights Council’s Social Forum is essentially a talking shop that no-one takes much notice of: it follows that its descent into farce is of itself a bit of a side issue. Nevertheless, it is still troubling.

    The appointment is symptomatic of the way in which the UN is abandoning its role as honest broker and becoming partisan….

    Like

  12. “Politicians who delay climate action must live with consequences, says WHO expert
    Delegates at Cop are ‘negotiating with our health’, says Maria Neira, the doctor in charge of environmental health at WHO”

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/04/politicians-who-delay-climate-action-must-live-with-consequences-says-who-expert

    Politicians who delay climate action should be prepared to live with the human fallout of their choices, the World Health Organization’s top environment expert has warned.

    “Anytime you postpone, OK, are you ready to cope with that?” said Maria Neira, the doctor in charge of environmental health at the WHO. “You have to live with that weight on your shoulders of the fact that you are at least not saving those lives – I don’t want to say killing – but at least not protecting the lives of those people.”

    On Thursday, the World Meteorological Organization and dozens of research partners including the WHO issued a stark warning that climate change threatens to roll back decades of progress in human health.

    Speaking to the Guardian on the sidelines of the world health summit in Berlin last month, Neira said doctors would make policymakers understand the damage done by burning fossil fuels at the upcoming Cop28 climate conference, which will devote a day to health for the first time in its history.

    “Nobody will be able to say ‘I didn’t know’,” said Neira. “No one will leave Cop this year saying ‘Oh, I didn’t know health was affected’. We will make sure that this will not be the case. Everyone needs to know this is not just about climate, polar bears and glaciers. This is about my lungs and your lungs.”

    Coal, oil and gas release toxic particles when burned that kill millions of people each year. Some of the emissions also heat the planet, making extreme weather more violent and increasing the chances of harvests failing and some diseases spreading.

    “Whether they like it or not – whether they know it or not – the negotiators at Cop are negotiating with our health,” said Neira.

    Doctors have started to shout louder about the damage that weak climate policies do to human health as scientific and medical evidence has mounted. Last year, the WHO director general, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, said subsidising and burning fossil fuels was “an act of self-sabotage”.

    Echoing his words, Neira said there was no longer any way for public health experts to escape debates around energy. The WHO has recognised its importance to health, she added….

    Like

  13. I have largely (though not entirely) steered clear of the Hamas/Israeli conflict, due to its controversial nature, even though I have strong opinions about it. However, this just seems too relevant to my argument to omit:

    “The UN is in disarray over the Israel-Hamas war
    It’s an emotional time for an institution whose staffers are being killed in Gaza while Russia and the United States feud at the Security Council.”

    https://www.politico.com/news/2023/11/04/the-un-is-in-disarray-over-the-israel-hamas-war-00125370

    …The drama revives the question of whether the United Nations is a useful forum for solving problems or just one to air grievances. Moscow and Beijing are using the moment to erode U.S. influence with countries that identify with the Palestinian cause and resent how their own needs are ignored by Washington…

    …In the days since, Russia and the United States have quarreled over the texts of potential Security Council resolutions, each accusing the other of bad faith and offering varying descriptions of where they really stand. Members diverge on whether to call for a cease-fire, whether to say Israel has the right to self-defense and whether to even mention the initial attack in statements.

    The United States in particular has resisted calls for a cease-fire, saying such a move would undercut Israel’s ability to defend itself, instead backing “humanitarian pauses” — lulls in fighting that could last as little as a few hours.

    Russia and to a lesser extent China — who, like the U.S., wield veto power on the council — have led the opposition to the United States. Other countries, including Brazil and the United Arab Emirates, have also played key roles.

    So far, no resolution related to the Israel-Hamas war has passed the 15-member body. Russian-backed ones have received too few votes. A Brazilian-led one that earned enough votes was vetoed by the U.S., while a U.S.-led one with enough votes was vetoed by Russia and China….

    Liked by 1 person

  14. Poverty is a dreadful thing. In my opinion, Tory governments tend to be less concerned about it than non-Tory ones (though effectiveness at dealing with poverty is not necessarily the same as concern about it, and Labour’s energy plans seem calculated to increase, not reduce poverty levels). Whatever the rights and wrongs of those views, it seems clear to me that in a country with a reasonably (certainly not perfect) democratic system in place, where people can freely express their concern about poverty and policies relating to it in regular, free and fair general elections, it’s a domestic matter, and nothing to do with the United Nations. Regrettably, the UN (which is flailing helplessly in the midst of numerous challenges to global peace – you know, its day job), seems to think it is entitled to interfere in this domestic arena:

    “UK ‘in violation of international law’ over poverty levels, says UN envoy
    Exclusive: Special rapporteur Olivier De Schutter to urge ministers to increase welfare spending on visit to country this week”

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/nov/05/uk-poverty-levels-simply-not-acceptable-says-un-envoy-olivier-de-schutter

    Poverty levels in the UK are “simply not acceptable” and the government is violating international law, the United Nations’ poverty envoy has said ahead of a visit to the country this week, when he will urge ministers to increase welfare spending.

    Olivier De Schutter, the UN’s special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, cited research showing universal credit payments of £85 a week for single adults over 25 were “grossly insufficient” and described the UK’s main welfare system as “a leaking bucket”.

    In an interview with the Guardian five years after his predecessor, Philip Alston, angered the Conservative government by accusing it of the “systematic immiseration of a significant part of the British population”, the Belgian lawyer risked a fresh confrontation by saying: “Things have got worse.”

    The government hit back, insisting that it had not broken international law, that absolute poverty had fallen since the Conservatives took power, and that it was helping thousands into jobs.

    De Schutter said: “It’s simply not acceptable that we have more than a fifth of the population in a rich country such as the UK at risk of poverty today,” referring to government data showing that 14.4 million people lived in relative poverty in 2021-22 – a million more than the previous year. “The policies in place are not working or not protecting people in poverty, and much more needs to be done for these people to be protected.”

    De Schutter said the UK had signed an international covenant that created a duty to provide a level of social protection which ensured an adequate standard of living but that it was being broken, with welfare payments falling behind costs for the poorest people.

    “If you look at the price of housing, electricity, the very high levels of inflation for food items over the past couple of years, I believe that the £85 a week for adults is too low to protect people from poverty, and that is in violation of article nine of the international covenant on economic, social [aand cultural] rights. That is what human rights law says.”

    He said increasing universal credit would be “the single most important step that the UK could meet towards meeting its international obligations”….

    Since when did the unelected and unaccountable UN get to decide on the UK’s domestic policies? At the same time, Mr de Schutter might reflect on the fact that some of his UN colleagues are seeking to insist that the UK doesn’t backtrack on net zero plans, i.e. that it doesn’t backtrack on plans which, if implemented will impoverish and immiserate millions (their partial implementation to date has already worsened poverty).

    Like

  15. There were so many places I could have posted it, but here will do nicely:

    “China ‘world’s biggest debt collector’ as poorer nations struggle with its loans
    Country, estimated to be owed up to $1.5trn, is increasing penalties for late payments and cutting back on infrastructure projects”

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/06/china-worlds-biggest-debt-collector-as-poorer-nations-struggle-with-its-loans

    I would suggest that China has made a point of lending money to developing countries which are home to materials the west will need for its mad net zero project, and by ensuring that poor countries who can’t afford to pay it back are deeply indebted to it, China is obtaining a handy near-monopoly over a lot of this stuff – a very effective way (aided and abetted by the useful idiots in the west) of ensuring Chinese world domination and the (rapid) decline of the west. At the same time, China has guaranteed itself access to large fossil fuel reserves elsewhere in the world. And China is a permanent member of the security council, with a veto on resolutions it doesn’t like. Sort that lot out, Guterres!

    Like

  16. “Why did the UN let Iran chair a human-rights forum?
    The UNHRC is giving succour to one of the most brutal regimes on the planet.”

    https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/11/08/why-did-the-un-let-iran-chair-a-human-rights-forum/

    Last week, the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) held its annual Social Forum. Such events are usually just an opportunity for the global ambassador class to mingle with representatives from well-funded intergovernmental organisations and put the world to rights over champagne and fine dining. Normally, these lavish conferences pass with barely a mention in the media.

    But this year’s Social Forum was noteworthy. The theme was using ‘science, technology and innovation [for] the promotion of human rights’. As usual, discussions were steered by a chair appointed by the Human Rights Council from candidates put forward by regional groups of UN member states. Back in May this year, the chair was announced as Ali Bahreini, the UN ambassador from Iran. Bahreini’s chairmanship of the Social Forum was then approved by the president of the UN Human Rights Council, Václav Bálek, from what was, apparently, a shortlist of one.

    The idea of a global summit to discuss the promotion of human rights being led by a representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran – a country responsible for some of the worst human-rights abuses on the planet – truly beggars belief. Bahreini presumably has the official blessing of Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei – a head of state who oversees a regime of deadly brutality against its own citizens….

    Like

  17. “UN criticises ‘severe’ Just Stop Oil sentences”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn0p6ll3jjgo

    Long jail sentences handed to two Just Stop Oil climate campaigners could stifle protest, the United Nations has warned the UK government.

    The protestors caused traffic gridlock after scaling the Dartford Crossing Bridge for almost 40 hours in October last year.

    Morgan Trowland, 40, was jailed for three years and Marcus Decker, 34, for two years for causing a public nuisance.

    In response to the UN, the government said that the right to protest is a fundamental part of the UK’s democracy but that the “law-abiding majority” must be able to go about their daily lives.

    At an appeal hearing last month Lady Chief Justice, Lady Carr defended the sentences, saying they met a “legitimate” aim of deterring others from such offending. The activists were refused permission to challenge them in the Supreme Court.

    The warning comes in a letter shown to BBC News, sent to the government by the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights in the context of climate change, Ian Fry, on 15 August this year.

    The sentences are “significantly more severe than previous sentences imposed for this type of offending in the past,” Mr Fry notes.

    He says he is worried about “the exercise of their rights to freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful assembly and association”.

    The letter goes on to say the new Public Order Act which came into force in July “appears to be a direct attack on the right to the freedom of peaceful assembly”….

    So much for “Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state…”.

    As for those “severe” jail sentences, one was for three years, the other for two. If they both behave themselves in prison, they’ll be walking the streets (or climbing motorway gantries) again within 18 months and 12 months respectively.

    Like

  18. As Paul Homewood points out this guy Ian Fry is just a special rapporteur on human rights and climate change at the UN, who has worked for the Tuvalu government for 21 years no doubt trying to convince us all that the islands are being swamped by rising sea levels when in fact they are growing and there is no justification whatsoever for accepting ‘climate refugees’ from Tuvalu.

    https://duckduckgo.com/?q=ian+fry+tuvalu+climate+refugees&t=brave&ia=web

    But it strikes me that all of this could have been avoided if they had just left the idiots up there and waited until they had to come down under their own steam or starve to death or die of thirst. No need to stop traffic. Just monitor them and arrest them when they came down. Far more effective. The disruption they caused and now the free publicity they’re getting because of their ‘severe’ sentences – courtesy of another eco-nutter at the UN – just aids their ridiculous protest by giving these morons at Just Sod Off the oxygen of publicity.

    Liked by 1 person

  20. Are my worries about unelected global officials overdone?

    “We need power to prescribe climate policy, IPCC scientists say
    Exclusive: Five IPCC report authors say scientists should be allowed to make policy prescriptions and potentially oversee implementation”

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/dec/07/we-need-power-to-prescribe-climate-policy-ipcc-scientists-say

    Senior climate experts are calling for an overhaul of the structure and powers of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in despair at the slow pace of climate action.

    Five lead authors of IPCC reports told the Guardian that scientists should be given the right to make policy prescriptions and, potentially, to oversee their implementation by the 195 states signed up to the UN framework convention on climate change (UNFCCC).

    Their call came after it emerged that the United Arab Emirates had been planning to use its position as Cop28 host to strike oil and gas deals .

    Sonia Seneviratne, an IPCC vice-chair and coordinating lead author since 2012, said: “At some point we need to say that if you want to achieve this aim set by policymakers then certain policies need to be implemented.

    “As climate change becomes worse and worse, it is becoming more difficult to be policy relevant without being prescriptive.”

    Scientists should be able to call for fossil fuel cuts and phaseouts, she said. The discrepancy between IPCC science and action on the ground was “very difficult for us to understand as scientists because it doesn’t seem to make any sense”.

    Gert-Jan Nabuurs, a coordinating lead author on three IPCC reports, said: “The IPCC’s critical, independent and guiding roles seem to be less and less evident. As they decline, countries seem to be exerting a larger and larger influence.”…

    Like

  21. “Why Does the WHO Falsely Claim it is Not About to Seize States’ Sovereignty?”

    https://dailysceptic.org/2023/12/12/why-does-who-falsely-claim-it-is-not-about-to-seize-states-sovereignty/

    The Director General of the World Health Organisation (WHO) states “No country will cede any sovereignty to WHO”, referring to the WHO’s new pandemic agreement and proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR), currently being negotiated. His statements are clear and unequivocal, and wholly inconsistent with the texts he is referring to.

    A rational examination of the texts in question shows that:

    The documents propose a transfer of decision-making power to WHO regarding basic aspects of societal function, which countries undertake to enact.
    The WHO Director General (DG) will have sole authority to decide when and where they are applied.
    The proposals are intended to be binding under international law.
    Continued claims that sovereignty is not lost, echoed by politicians and media, therefore raise important questions concerning motivations, competence and ethics.

    The intent of the texts is a transfer of decision-making currently vested in nations and individuals to WHO, when its Director General decides that there is a threat of a significant disease outbreak or other health emergency likely to cross multiple national borders. It is unusual for nations to undertake to follow external entities regarding the basic rights and healthcare of their citizens, more so when this has major economic and geopolitical implications. The question of whether sovereignty is indeed being transferred, and the legal status of such an agreement, is therefore of vital importance, particularly to the legislators of democratic states. They have an absolute duty to be sure of their ground. We systematically examine that ground here….

    Like

  22. “UNRWA claims: UK halts aid to UN agency over allegation staff helped Hamas attack”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-68104203

    Several countries including the UK have paused funding for the UN agency for Palestinian refugees, UNRWA.

    It comes after the agency announced the sacking of several of its staff over allegations they were involved in the 7 October Hamas attacks.

    The UK government said it was “appalled” by Israel’s allegations.

    The US, Australia, Italy, Canada, Finland, the Netherlands, Switzerland and Germany have also suspended additional funding to the UN agency….

    Like

  23. “European nations must end repression of peaceful climate protest, says UN expert
    Nations should be cutting emissions to meet Paris agreement, says Michel Forst after year-long inquiry”

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/feb/28/european-nations-must-end-repression-of-peaceful-climate-protest-says-un-expert

    European nations must end the repression and criminalisation of peaceful protest and urgently take action to cut emissions in line with the Paris climate agreement to limit global heating to 1.5C, the UN special rapporteur on environmental defenders has said.

    After a year-long inquiry that included gathering evidence from the UK, Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands, Spain and Portugal, Michel Forst said the repression faced by peaceful environmental activists was a major threat to democracy and human rights.

    All of the nations inspected are party to the Aarhus convention, which states that peaceful environmental protest is a legitimate exercise of the public’s right to participate in decision-making and that those engaged in it must be protected.

    But Forst said that across Europe the response to peaceful environmental protest was to repress rather than to enable and protect.

    “The environmental emergency that we are collectively facing and that scientists have been documenting for decades cannot be addressed if those raising the alarm and demanding action are criminalised for it,” he said.

    “The only legitimate response to peaceful environmental activism and civil disobedience at this point is that the authorities, the media and the public realise how essential it is for us all to listen to what environmental defenders have to say.”…

    Interesting quote. I’m all for freedom of speech and the right to protest, even (perhaps especially) among those with whom I disagree. But to conflate that with the need to tolerate “civil disobedience” is quite a leap. As is conflating climate alarmists with “environmental defenders”, especially since so many of their demands are environmentally damaging.

    Liked by 2 people

  24. No comment…

    “Fix Europe’s housing crisis or risk fuelling the far-right, UN expert warns”

    https://www.theguardian.com/news/article/2024/may/06/fix-europe-housing-crisis-risk-fuelling-far-right-un-expert-warns

    “Far-right parties prosper when they can exploit the social gaps that emerge out of underinvestment and inadequate government planning … and when they can blame outsiders,” said the UN’s special rapporteur on the right to adequate housing.

    “That’s the situation many EU countries are now in,” Balakrishnan Rajagopal told the Guardian. “The housing crisis is no longer affecting just low earners, migrants, single-parent families, but the middle classes. This is the social issue of the 21st century.”

    Liked by 1 person

  25. So, if you want to stop the ‘far right’ from exploiting the housing crisis, you exercise state control over the housing market and you make having access to ‘affordable’ accommodation a legal right (presumably not just for locals but for everyone, including imports):

    Rajagopal, who recently reported on the Dutch housing crisis, said a first step should be to enshrine affordable, adequate and secure housing as a legal right.

    “EU countries have a long and laudable tradition of social protection, of welfarism,” he said. “But when it comes to recognition of housing as a legal human right, Europe is lagging behind international law. EU citizens cannot go to their national courts over housing. European countries recognise this, but are not doing anything about it.”

    Beyond that, the housing crisis in Europe – including the UK – was a product of “treating housing like any other commodity, to be bought and sold”, and of abandoning state planning, Rajagopal said.

    “Europe drank the 1980s Kool-Aid … markets were good, planning bad,” he said. “But markets only really take care of themselves. If you also abandon state planning, nobody’s supplying housing. And that’s what allows the PVV, for example, to blame migrants for the Dutch crisis when there is no evidence migrants are to blame.

    “If we want to stop the rise of the far right, starve it of some oxygen, things like housing have to be seen as fundamental rights.”

    Yep, that will surely drive a stake right through the heart of the ‘far right’!

    Liked by 1 person

  26. I initially said “no comment” because I didn’t want to go down the rabbit hole of blaming immigrants for everything, as some among the far right do. However, for a UN “expert” to claim that there is no evidence that immigration has anything to do with a housing shortage is risible. More people require more houses (and more shops, schools, hospitals etc) pretty much by definition.

    Perhaps the Guardian has put its own spin on his comments (it wouldn’t be the first time), but it does look like yet another example of the UN ignoring its founding obligation to respect the sovereignty of its member states, and doing so in an illogical manner.

    The lessons with regard to its attitude to climate change (which allows it to feel it can lecture its member states), and also with regard to the WHO’s bid for global powers, should be both obvious and worrying.

    Liked by 1 person

  27. “Ban fossil fuel ads to save climate, says UN chief”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cv22vl99vwro

    No fact-checking or BBC Verify here, just Matt McGrath in full flow:

    The world’s fossil fuel industries should be banned from advertising to help save the world from climate change, the head of the United Nations said on Wednesday.

    UN Secretary General António Guterres called coal, oil and gas corporations the “godfathers of climate chaos” who had distorted the truth and deceived the public for decades.

    Just as tobacco advertising was banned because of the threat to health, the same should now apply to fossil fuels, he said.

    His remarks were his most damning condemnation yet of the industries responsible for the bulk of global warming. They came as new studies showed the rate of warming is increasing and that global heat records have continued to tumble.

    Liked by 1 person

  28. Perhaps if the UN was better at its day job, it would achieve its obsessive objectives better too:

    “Russia’s war with Ukraine accelerating global climate emergency, report shows

    Most comprehensive analysis ever of conflict-driven climate impacts shows emissions greater than those generated by 175 countries in a year”

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/jun/13/russia-war-with-ukraine-accelerating-global-climate-emergency-report-shows

    The climate cost of the first two years of Russia’s war on Ukraine was greater than the annual greenhouse gas emissions generated individually by 175 countries, exacerbating the global climate emergency in addition to the mounting death toll and widespread destruction, research reveals.

    Russia’s invasion has generated at least 175m tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO2e), amid a surge in emissions from direct warfare, landscape fires, rerouted flights, forced migration and leaks caused by military attacks on fossil fuel infrastructure – as well as the future carbon cost of reconstruction, according to the most comprehensive analysis ever of conflict-driven climate impacts.

    The 175m tonnes includes carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and sulphur hexafluoride (SF6), the most potent of all greenhouse gases. This is on a par with running 90m petrol cars for an entire year – and more than the total emissions generated individually by countries including the Netherlands, Venezuela and Kuwait in 2022.

    Historically, governments have accounted poorly for the climate cost of war – and of the military industrial complex more broadly. Official data is extremely patchy or nonexistent due to military secrecy, and there is limited frontline access for researchers. The economic cost of the greenhouse gases, which will have global consequences, is even less well understood.

    But according to the new report by the Initiative on Greenhouse Gas Accounting of War (IGGAW) – a research collective partly funded by the German and Swedish governments, and the European Climate Foundation – the Russian Federation faces a $32bn (£25bn) climate reparations bill from its first 24 months of war.

    The UN general assembly has said that Russia should compensate Ukraine for the war, leading the Council of Europe to establish a registry of damage, which will include climate emissions. Frozen Russian assets could be used to settle the costs. The reparations estimate draws on a recent peer-reviewed study that calculated the social cost of carbon as $185 for every ton of greenhouse gas emissions.

    The IGGAW lead author, Lennard de Klerk, said: “Russia is harming Ukraine but also our climate. This ‘conflict carbon’ is sizeable and will be felt globally. The Russian Federation should be made to pay for this, a debt it owes Ukraine and countries in the global south that will suffer most from climate damage.”…

    Liked by 1 person

  29. Two more in similar vein from the Guardian, several months apart:

    “Emissions from Israel’s war in Gaza have ‘immense’ effect on climate catastrophe

    Exclusive: First months of conflict produced more planet-warming gases than 20 climate-vulnerable nations do in a year, study shows”

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/09/emissions-gaza-israel-hamas-war-climate-change

    And:

    “Revealed: repairing Israel’s destruction of Gaza will come at huge climate cost

    Reconstructing buildings destroyed in first four months of Israeli assault will generate nearly 60m tonnes of CO2 equivalent – study”

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jun/06/rebuilding-gaza-climate-cost

    Liked by 1 person

  30. Remember that Article 2 of the UN Charter contains this as its seventh principle:

    Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state…

    How is this OK, then?

    “‘Not acceptable in a democracy’: UN expert condemns lengthy Just Stop Oil sentences

    Michel Forst, UN special rapporteur, joins growing chorus of voices criticising jail terms handed to five defendants”

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/jul/19/not-acceptable-un-expert-condemns-sentences-given-to-just-stop-oil-activists

    ...The lengthy multi-year sentences handed to Just Stop Oil activists are “not acceptable in a democracy”, a UN special rapporteur has said, as the government faced growing pressure to reverse the previous administration’s “hardline anti-protest” approach.

    Michel Forst, the UN special rapporteur for environmental defenders, joined a growing chorus of voices condemning the sentences handed down to the five defendants for planning non-violent protests on the M25….

    …Forst, whose role is to protect individuals facing penalisation, persecution, or harassment for exercising their environmental rights, attended two days of the trial earlier this month as he attempted to intervene with UK authorities on behalf of Shaw. He called the jail terms “punitive and repressive”....

    ...“Even if we are talking about a disruptive form of protest, and there is no denying that, it is still entirely non-violent and it should have been treated as such. For me, for my team, it’s not acceptable in a democracy like the UK.

    “The second element is that it’s a very dangerous ruling, not only for environmental protesters, but also for the right to protest as such, because we understand now that those who would like to go to the street to demonstrate, to organise a rally, they would consider twice before going out.

    “That’s a deterrent for the right to protest in the UK.”…

    For someone who attended two days of the trial, that’s a remarkably ignorant statement. The right to protest in the UK is alive and well. Over-stepping the line via a criminal conspiracy is very different.

    Liked by 1 person

  31. Guterreres is as it again:

    “Surging seas are coming for us all, warns UN chief”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3ej0xx2jpxo

    The United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres has said that big polluters have a clear responsibility to cut emissions – or risk a worldwide catastrophe.

    “The Pacific is today the most vulnerable area of the world,” he told the BBC at the Pacific Island Forum Leaders Meeting in Tonga. “There is an enormous injustice in relation to the Pacific and it’s the reason I am here.”

    “The small islands don’t contribute to climate change but everything that happens because of climate change is multiplied here.”

    But eventually the “surging seas are coming for us all,” he warned in a speech at the forum, as the UN releases two separate reports on rising sea levels and how they threaten Pacific island nations....

    …“The reason is clear: greenhouse gases – overwhelmingly generated by burning fossil fuels – are cooking our planet,” Mr Guterres said in a speech at the forum….

    Meanwhile, also on the BBC website news headlines (but much lower down, naturally):

    “Lake Tahoe sees first August snow in 20 years”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/videos/cx2newg9g89o

    …The local ski season doesn’t start until November 27, though some resorts have announced they may tentatively open in August following the snowfall.

    Like

  32. I missed this post Mark and linked to the same story on the ‘What’s going to happen at COP29 thread’. Apologies.

    Like

  33. No need to apologies, Robin. It’s equally relevant to both threads.

    Like

  34. I also mentioned the story to Paul Homewood. I hope he uses it: there are a lot of claims there for him to get his sharp teeth into.

    Like

  35. Global sea surface temperatures, though still high, are on a downward trend right now. In particular, the eastern equatorial Atlantic has declined precipitously since June, confounding the ‘experts’ predictions of an extremely active hurricane season. How long before we can declare that Guterres’ Era of Global Boiling is over?

    Surface ocean temperatures are plunging rapidly around the world with scientists reported to be puzzled at the speed of the recent decline. Less puzzlement was to be found when the oceans were ‘boiling’ during the last two years. Plebs flying to Benidorm for an annual holiday and causing ‘global heating’ was a favourite explanation, although mainstream media put it in marginally more polite terms. For almost two years, this boiling ocean trope has been a reliable standby for every alarmist spiv promoting the Net Zero insanity.

    https://jaimejessop.substack.com/p/eastern-equatorial-atlantic-swings

    https://dailysceptic.org/2024/08/27/party-over-for-alarmists-as-sea-temperatures-plunge-around-the-world/

    Like

  36. Antonio Guterres: “The small islands don’t contribute to climate change but everything that happens because of climate change is multiplied here.”

    According to WRI’s Climate Watch website, the country with the world’s highest per capita CO2e emissions (including LULUCF) is… Solomon Islands! Highest by a long way, too: 65 tCO2e per cap in 2021, when the second highest emitter (Qatar) was on 45 tCO2e per cap.

    Now, it’s true that not many people live in Solomon Islands, so the country doesn’t have a very big impact on global warming. Its population is about 730k, which is about the same as Nottingham’s. But if you assume that UK emissions (6.4 tCO2e per cap) are distributed evenly (which they obviously aren’t), Nottingham is only about one tenth as naughty as Solomon Islands, emissions-wise. London’s population is about ten times that of Nottingham and Solomon Islands, so perhaps it would be more useful to compare Solomon Islands with London.

    Perhaps the next time the UN’s Secretary-General visits London he’ll put on his compo face and say this: “London doesn’t contribute to climate change but everything that happens because of climate change is multiplied here.”

    Liked by 1 person

  37. “Not Even the Justice League Could Save This UN”

    https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/09/28/united-nations-superheroes-comic-con-00181404

    …The U.N. has become so dysfunctional that — despite a strong new push for reform — I’m starting to think it’s beyond repair. What’s especially nerve-wracking is that the institutional decay comes at a perilous time, with the great powers falling into rival blocs as if another global war is imminent. And it’s that rivalry between the United States, China and Russia that’s at the core of the U.N.’s malfunction….

    …The United Nations is charged with maintaining global peace and security. But its most important organ, the U.N. Security Council, is largely frozen due to tensions among the U.S., China and Russia, all permanent members wielding vetoes. Whether on border-crossing crises, such as Russia’s war on Ukraine and the Israel-Hamas war, or internal ones such as in Sudan, the council has struggled to make meaningful moves, if it acts at all. One speaker this year compared it to a “zombie.”…

    …How much longer is the U.N. going to be a place even to meet?

    Chinese leader Xi Jinping almost never attends the U.N. General Assembly’s annual gathering. Russia’s Vladimir Putin also often skips it, though lately it’s probably because he’s trying to avoid arrest. Last year, of the five people leading the Security Council’s permanent members, only U.S. President Joe Biden showed up...

    And much more in similar vein.

    Like

  38. Curious that this is on Biden’s watch, not Trump’s:

    “UN human rights expert raises concerns about US charges against climate protesters

    Mary Lawlor criticizes US’s failure to respond to concerns after Alex Connon and John Mark Rozendaal charges”

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/dec/04/un-human-rights-expert-cellist-climate-protester

    I don’t know the rights and wrongs of Mary Lawlor’s intervention, and the charges against the protestors, so I make no comment regarding that. However, in the context of the UN’s human rights brief, it’s this paragraph that brought me up short:

    …Lawlor added: “Authorities should be listening to defenders, but they are not. The climate crisis is a human rights crisis, but states aren’t responding as they should. They need to change course and start really listening otherwise they are going to lock us into a future where the rights of huge numbers of people around the world will be at risk.”…

    Is it really her place to say that? And does it imply (as I infer) that she might be less concerned with charges against protestors who the authorities shouldn’t be listening to? Who gets to choose which protestors should be listened to and which should be ignored?

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.