A true crisis of the commons: Climate change demands global consensus

It’s been a surreal few months; my (our) world is spinning like a top and seems completely out of control. Nothing seems to make sense anymore. It is a strange time, and I say this particularly for the half-a-century people like me who grew up in the post-colonial era and witnessed a world order that was intensely inequitable but still seemed capable of reform. Maybe it was the age of innocence. But we had hope in the global rule of law, even if it was led by powerful global players; we believed that voices of reason would prevail. The United Nations (UN) had a role — even though the Security Council, then and now, was a body that mirrored an inequitable and unfair global power order — but it still stood with the right, against the wrong. There was something to hold on to; something to believe in. 

As I write this today — forgive me for sounding so dejected — it feels as though the ground has collapsed beneath our feet, and we are lost. Certainly, I cannot comprehend this world order, where countries can take unilateral action to bomb another, regardless of the provocation, and the world stands by, helpless and silent. We hear talk of regime change in another country and brush it off as normal; we ignore large-scale starvation and the massacre of entire peoples. At best, we change the channel because we cannot bear to see it anymore. Our helplessness is complete. 

This attack on Iran is not just about the rightness or wrongness of the United States (US) or Israel, but about the future of a world order built on rules — agreed upon by the community of nations and then enforced through global institutions. In this case, Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), an international agreement against nuclear armaments.  The treaty, which came into force in 1970, is widely viewed as a success, with 191 countries as parties accepting that “the proliferation of nuclear weapons would seriously enhance the danger of nuclear war”. As a signatory, Iran is banned from acquiring nuclear weapons. The Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is mandated to ensure compliance with these rules. Iran was under the IAEA’s safeguard system — in fact, given the geopolitics of the region, it had what is widely regarded as the most stringent inspection regime. 

Under the NPT —and you can argue that this is discriminatory — there are five states recognised as nuclear weapon nations: The US, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, and China. All of them are also permanent members of the UN Security Council. India and Pakistan have declared their nuclear-weapon capability and not signed the NPT, while North Korea has walked out. But what makes this situation even more “surreal” is that Israel, which has called Iran’s nuclear ambitions an existential threat to itself, has never signed the NPT. It is also widely accepted that Israel has a covert nuclear-weapon programme. So, here is one country that is bound by global rules, being attacked by another that openly shuns global rules and institutions. What then does this say for the future of multilateralism or a world order built on order, not disorder? 

In the IAEA report on Iran in May, its director-general flagged concerns of his inspectors on certain issues, including what it describes as the “rapid accumulation of enriched uranium”. But nowhere does the report say it has evidence that Iran possesses nuclear weapons — those which require countries to enrich uranium to 90-95 per cent. The next step should have been to hold discussions with the party involved and, if necessary, take this matter to the UN Security Council. It cannot be to bomb the country’s nuclear power and other sites, to the extent of jeopardising catastrophic leaks. 

In all this, we have to ask: Where does this leave the credibility of the IAEA? How can it play the role of ensuring safeguards are maintained across all countries? If all it takes is to use might and brute power to bomb another, then why should countries bother maintaining the niceties of rule of law? The role of the UN and its secretary general is in tatters — reduced to issuing press releases and advice that nobody listens to. We really need to ask why these institutions are not standing their ground and pushing back. Are they so compromised, or have they given up in the face of the aggressive behaviour of some? This is not the way forward for an interdependent world order. 

I ask this because there is much more at stake here. We know that the threat of climate change is real, and it requires the world to act together. It is a true crisis of the commons — it cannot be solved without the participation of all, and it requires a consensus and trust. A broken world order, with decimated and tarnished global institutions, will not work towards finding a resolution to this and other such global issues. We know that currently might is right, but this macho and belligerent world disorder will not make peace with humans or nature — not one that lasts.

The author is at the Centre for Science and Environment. sunita@cseindia.org. X: @sunitanar