Phil Ireland @philireland - Tumblr Blog

Posts

This time six years ago I found myself in the company of other campaigners and politicians (including Kevin Rudd) from around the world in the depths of despair after the calamitous Copenhagen climate negotiations.

Six years ago I found myself in the company of other campaigners and politicians (including Kevin Rudd) from around the world. They were in the depths of despair after the calamitous Copenhagen climate negotiations. The failure of Copenhagen challenged our confidence in the post World War II multilateral system.

What a difference six years makes. What just happened in Paris goes far beyond climate change and perhaps heralds a new era of diplomacy. It shows us the capacity of a strong multilateral system to tackle the most global and seemingly intractable of problems.

As children of the 1980s and 1990s, myself and many of my peers were presented with a world seemingly following an inevitable trajectory towards multilateral governance through the United Nations and other forums of international diplomacy. It was an exciting time. The Berlin Wall came down. Liberal democracies spread far and wide. The Montreal Protocol showed that the world could work together to protect the global commons (in that case by eliminating CFCs and protecting the ozone layer) and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was formed.

The 1990s engendered a belief that the world was becoming more peaceful, more sustainable, more free and more connected. The past 15 years have challenged these assumptions to their very core. Everywhere you look, multilateralism and the ability of nations to work together for the betterment of all people seemed to be falling apart. Countries entered into wars like those in Iraq and Afghanistan; shared resources like the oceans and atmosphere have become more polluted; dictators have committed atrocities against their own civilians with impunity; and global military spending was on the increase. Alongside this, the seemingly endless chain of climate negotiations have borne no fruit.

Since the Kyoto Protocol of 1997, the UNFCCC (representing every UN member state) has failed to produce a comprehensive legally binding agreement to reduce global emissions. Year after year, negotiators have gathered with little to show for their toil. Meanwhile, global greenhouse gas emissions have been rising, the Earth is getting warmer and we have begun to feel the impact of frequent severe weather events.

The Paris agreement has ended the drought of multilateral action on climate change.

It's meaning and impact will no doubt be debated in the coming days and months. It is imperfect and should be strengthened with time. But don't underestimate the significance of this event for the trajectory of the multilateral system and humanity.

All nations have agreed to a comprehensive agreement to dramatically reduce greenhouse gases, the bi-product of most agriculture, industrial production and transport. That's almost 200 individual nation states.

The climate negotiations in Paris stretched humanity's experience of diplomacy. Multiple levels of decision makers worked around the clock in the pursuit of a truly remarkable outcome. Informal, formal and semi-formal discussions were facilitated across Paris and throughout the world. On at least one occasion Barack Obama phoned his counterpart Xi Jinping in China to address an aspect of the negotiation.

At a time when regional tensions are escalating, the horror of the war in Syria seems unending and the global commons are on the brink of collapse – the facilitated negotiation of Paris shows us what is possible. It shows us that the most diverse nations can come together on the most seemingly intractable of issues and agree on a common, peaceful pathway forward.

The significance of the Paris agreement goes well beyond climate change. It shows us that multilateralism is alive and well, and that it can navigate a path through the stormiest of weathers. Climate negotiations in Paris were just one moment in time, but it should give us hope in humanity's abilities to address the collective challenges that lie ahead.

Phil Ireland is managing director of the Online Progressive Engagement Network. Twitter: @Phil_Ireland

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/paris-climate-agreement-could-herald-a-new-era-for-diplomacy-20151216-glp9me.html#ixzz4As6U0LGb

@smh on Twitter

sydneymorningherald on Facebook

Community organising training with local activists from across the UK. So encouraging. I am utterly convinced that this is key to the precipitation of progressive social change. (at Friendship House)

I'm excited to be working with amazing campaigners at 38 degrees defending critical public services in the UK. This full page ad has been entirely funded by our members, 240000 of whom have signed our petition.

It ain't winter yet my ever pessimistic londonites!!! #winteriscoming #london

#london #winteriscoming

Working from a cafe in the old city of Nicosa while visiting Mike Collin's new Cyprus solar field. This city is over 1000 years old and has been sieges on multiple occasions. Even now, it is split in two as a result if Turkey's 1974 invasion. Just down the road is the contested 'greenline'.

UK @campaigncamp bootcamp 4 MASSIVE days in. Great to be here! (at Debden House Campsite)

Moments that change the course of history

Have you ever had a moment in your life when you were faced with a seemingly small decision, yet it has dramatically changed the course of your life? Or what about an arbitrary event that you couldn’t possibly have forseen that set you on a radically different trajectory? I often reflect on how, with the gift of hindsight, I would make different decisions… or respond differently to unexpected events.

History is filled with moments such as these. Seemingly random events that have shifted the course of history and changed the lives of millions.

I often find myself thinking about these moments in history and our capacity to shape a future amidst this perceived randomness. It seems like the world may be in the midst of experiencing some of these moments. Think of the devastating downing of MH17 for example and the situation it has fueled between Russia and other countries. It’s likely that this was a grievous error by a few people who were targeting a different plane (not to excuse this action). How this event will impact the coming years and decades cannot be known, but there is no doubt that the event, and subsequent national reactions will have ripples for years to come.

Rather than naively comment here on how I think the world should respond to this and other imminent crises, I want to reflect on similar moments in history. Moments when individuals and collectives had to make decisions in response to unexpected events. In recent weeks, following MH17, a lot has been written about the series of small events that lead to WW1 and WW2. As a progressive particularly interested in political history, I want to reflect on a few examples of where unexpected events have shifted the historical trajectory.

One of the years that sticks out to me is 1968. US Democratic Presidential candidate Bobby Kennedy was assasinated on the eve of a very likely electoral victory. Bobby was presenting a new vision for America, one that would have seen it rapidly decrease involvement in Vietnam, address domestic poverty and help charter a path for a less divided America. Instead, the unlikely Republican candidate won. Richard Nixon and his team (namely Henry Kissinger) deepened America’s involvement in Vietnam which had diabolical consequences. In addition to the young soldiers, many of whom were compulsorily conscripted, who were killed in a foreign land, the US conducted a barbaric and indiscriminate bombing campaign. During the Vietnam war the US dropped more bombs (including cluster bombs and napalm) on Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos than were dropped during all of WW2. The impact of these bombing raids are still being felt today. How would this history be different if Bobby had not been killed? If the secret service could have stopped the attack or the assassin's community could have supported him on a different path.

I also think of 1980. This is the year that President Carter lost his election to a Hollywood actor turned politician, Ronald Reagan. Many more learned people than I have written on the causes for President Carter’s downfall, however, there is no doubt two of the major contributors were the unexpected Iranian hostage crisis and the unexpected response of the religious base to the proposals around women’s rights. After Carter lost the 1980 election Ronald Reagan oversaw the largest increase in US defense spending, the partial dismantling of the welfare state and an unprecedented increase in homelessness (for the record… I attribute very little of the end of the Cold War to Reagan).

More recently I think of a press conference where Secretary of State John Kerry said off the cuff that they would negotiate with President Assad if they gave up all their chemical weapons. This off the cuff suggestion was taken seriously and led to months and months of negotiations and a slow process of handing over and destroying chemical weapons. This series of events distracted the world from the atrocities that were (and still are) being committed by Assad against his own people and the plea of a peaceful majority for a democratically elected government. It’s possible that this delay has contributed to the subsequent rise of the violent extremest group ISIS and growing instability in the whole region.

In any of these examples it is difficult to attribute direct causality. However, it is clear that unexpected events, and our responses to them, can chart radically different pathways. There are, of course, many different, and potentially more positive, results from the unexpected shifts I outlined above.

Something I often wonder about is our power and agency in the moment. How much do unexpected events shape the course of history or is it just as much our response to them? I’m inclined to believe that the course of history is far less arbitrary than it seems. That in each moment, there are responses that individuals and collectives can make that can avert a downward spiral into unforeseen negative consequences. Humans have enormous capacity to respond to unexpected shifts. The crossroads of the coming weeks and months will no doubt test our resolve for peace and human flourishing.

#Development #MH17 #History #Politics #America #Syria #Phil Ireland

The new wave of campaigners is coming....

I recently had the opportunity to attend Campaign Bootcamp in Germany. What I witnessed was an amazing encouragement at a time of great challenge for the world.

Campaign bootcamp is a training program that was set up in 2013 in recognition of the lack of capacity building for young campaigners outside professional contexts. They state: “We set Bootcamp up because we were frustrated at how hard it was for young campaigners to learn what it takes to win campaigns that matter. We noticed that most campaigners didn't get training until they'd been working as campaigners for years, and even then a lot of the training wasn't what they needed. We thought there must be a better way.” Campaign Bootcamp currently runs week long trainings in the UK and Germany (I hope they expand soon!) with tens of budding campaigners.

I had the privilege of attending the first session in Germany as a presenter and workshop facilitator. It was amazing to see so many people give up their time to learn how to campaign effectively on the campaigns that matter to them. In the room we had people passionate about the environment, disability services, development, climate change, inequality and so much more.

What is most exciting to me about this initiative is that it is responding to (and cultivating) a new generation of people that want to be campaigners. When I was growing up people wanted to doctors, builders, teachers and so on. Whilst all these roles are important, no one talked about being a “campaigner”… it wasn’t a thing. But now it is. I’ve met so many young people who say they want to be a campaigner for their vocation. And this is what we need.

The challenges that the world is facing are immense. We require no less than a wave of new campaigners and activists that are willing to challenge, confront and change unjust systems. To me, Campaign Bootcamp seems like one of those places that will go down in campaigning history as a critical site of this shift.

Hats off to the staff of Campaign Bootcamp Germany, but even more so the participants. I was amazed by the passion, skill and creativity shown by this group of emerging leaders. I'm looking forward to hearing of many victories.

#campaign bootcamp #campaigning #phil ireland #germany #purpose

I just arrived in Bonn, Germany for the annual board retreat of the Global Call for Climate Action (aka tck tck tck). Looking forward catching up with old friends and planning a robust year of action - we've got no time to waste! (at Bonn Lannesdorf)

Working from a cafe in Brussels.... Not really how I thought I would be spending my day.

A Crisis of Our Times

There. I said it. The United Nations is in crisis. There is a crisis of confidence. A crisis of capacity. And a crisis of constitution.

The United Nations in New York City is its global headquarters. It’s where the security council meets. Where the general assembly meets. And where all the important people of the UN (such as the Secretary General) work on a day to day basis.

I visited the UN the other day. After studying this incredible institution for more than a decade, I finally set foot on its hallowed ground. After braving the hour long queues for the Empire state building and the the American Museam of Natural History I decided to brave the Saturday afternoon queues to the visitor center of this global institution.

Me and 7 other people.

That’s right. A grand total of 7 other people had decided to visit the United Nations this Saturday afternoon.

As I journeyed with this overwhelming crowd into the visitor center we were all struck by one of its main displays. A scaled Lego replica of the headquarters. Yes. A lego replica of the building we were in.

Without delving too deep into the rich metaphors that pervade this tale, it does actually reflect something very serious. While visiting the center I was struck by the United Nation’s seemingly uncontrolled descent into obsolescence.

It hasn’t been a good year for the UN.

At the top of the list of concerns is Syria. The UN system has failed to facilitate the cessation of extreme violence of a nation state against its own people. From chemical weapons attacks in suburban areas to barrel bombs on primary schools, the horror is unequivocal.

On top of this, UN agencies have been largely unable to deliver urgently needed food, water and medicines across Syrian boarders. The reasons for this life-destroying inaction are multiple, complex…. and entirely inadequate (for more info on this check out The Syria Campaign).

In recent months I’ve been working with The Syria Campaign. One of our major campaigns is to get the UN to get moving, and provide much needed aid to the people of Syria. You can check it out at www.thesyriacampaign.org Please join us and add your voice to thousands of others crying out for solutions to this unfolding crisis.

#United nations #development #syria #phil ireland #New York #crisis #undelivered

My walk home from work this month - 5th avenue and Empire State Building. (at Flatiron District, NYC)

Flashpoints on the road to global sustainable development goals

In my last blog I explored the coming paradigm shift in aid and development. Negotiations have commenced around what a post-2015 (after the MDGs) development framework will look like. At the forefront of this debate is the question of whether there should be new global development and sustainability goals (SDGs) that are applicable to all countries. I argued that this potential shift is of monumental significance and has the potential to shape a new era of global development relations. As with all things of this magnitude, it is not without its significant hurdles and flash points. In this blog I’ll outline several of these flash points.

Anyone who is familiar with the Climate Change negotiations over the past five years is aware of just how vexed international negotiations can become. From the much lauded failure of Copenhagen to the ongoing ground hog day of climate negotiations around the world, the world (not the UN) has failed to design an international framework to adequately reduce emissions (as of yet… there is still hope!). It is critical that the SDG’s do not follow the same path way.

So what are the key questions that global negotiators and their nation state masters will have to face?

Firstly, there is the question of what the goals actually are. What sounds like quite a simple proposition, is actually incredibly complex in practice. The design of the eight MDGs was subject to great controversy. Since their advent there has been a range of counter proposals that sought to include what the MDGs missed (such as Agenda 21). When contemplating new goals for all countries, this adds another layer of complexity. For example, for the environmental ceiling do you set goals for greenhouse gases and CFCs? if so which ones?… do you set goals for waste? land set aside for national parks? or marine parks? … what about biodiversity goals? or limiting species extinction? This list could go on.

Secondly, how do you set these goals for each country. Do you divide them up equally so that every country has the same goals? and are these goals based on per capita metrics? total land mass? GDP? or perhaps they should be based on some measure of capacity and historical responsibility for the issue they are trying to address? with each of these scenarios there are potential winners and losers. For example, China and India are generally winners when goals are spread across per capita and small poor countries are generally beneficiaries of historical responsibility metrics.

Thirdly, how to you measure compliance? That is, how do you ensure that countries are actually doing what they say they are doing. Strangely, in recent years one of the key debates in the climate negotiations has been around how countries measure their emission reductions, report on their emission reductions and how these claims are verified. China has long objected to international inspectors coming in to ‘check their books’ on claimed emission reductions while the US has insisted that independent verification is an absolute necessity. In addition, many poorer (via GDP measurements) countries don’t have public institutions or scientific bodies that measure things like greenhouse emissions (which is actually surprisingly complex to do), water use or deforestation.

Fourthly (and certainly not least), are the goals legally binding? and if so, what are the consequences for failing to meet your targets? Legal responsibility to international bodies in one of the most difficult areas of humanity's newly birthed internationalism. One of the much lauded flaws of the Kyoto Protocol is that there are few (if any) legal consequences of not meeting your greenhouse gas reduction target. The classic example of this is Canada, who are WAY short of meeting their target, kind of proud of it, and insist that there will be no consequences. The International Criminal Court (ICC) is another excellent example. Around 40 countries (including China, India, Russia and the US) have not ratified the convention and thus have very limited accountability to it. With such significant global commons such as air and water, it is becoming increasingly untenable that nation states would be accountable only to their own populations, rather than all people that rely upon those commons. Unfortunately though, large nation states do not like to be accountable to international bodies. Any devolution of their perceived sovereignty is generally opposed. Just a little hurdle there.

I suppose I should end on something positive.. a ray of hope. Sometimes this is hard to muster…. but I genuinely believe that fair resolution of these issues is possible. Some significant global efforts have been effective (such as the reduction in CFCs and the Ozone hole… and the reduction of nuclear arms). To form and impliment effective SDGs we will need new movements, and new types of movements, that ultimately reform the national state and our international system of governance. More on that another time….

#climate change #MDGs #Sustainable development goals #development #aid #climatechange

Nationalism and capitalism..... Comfortably side by side in NYC. (Empire State building under cloud in the distance) (at Fifth Avenue, Manhattan)

Spring storms over London (at ActionAid UK)

The coming paradigm shift in aid and development

The year 2015 officially brings the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) to an end. Many of my first experiences as an activist and campaigner was championing increases in aid spending to support these goals. Like many people, the MDGs shaped the way I viewed aid, poverty and the world. As this chapter of aid and development comes to an end, we are on the cusp of something radically different. Something that has the potential to reframe how peoples and nations view each other.

The MDGs were established in 2000 as a new global approach to aid and development. They consist of eight discrete goals that were, by and large, targeted at so called ‘developing’ countries. Among these goals were the eradication of hunger, the achievement of universal primary education and improvement in maternal health.

There has been mixed results in the achievement of the MDGs. Some countries have reached their targets for all the goals while some others haven’t reached any. There is no doubt that the MDGs had a positive impact upon aid and development activities in some instances. They focused aid efforts and made them more accountable to measurable goals. There have also been many critiques of the MDGs.

The most common critique of the MDGs is they they leave a lot of important stuff out. For example, there is no mention of agriculture (in which the majority of the world’s poor work) and there are no measures for inequality within countries. My primary critique (and the critique of many others) is that the MDGs continue to perpetuate the idea of ‘developed’ and ‘developing’ nations and fail to put any onus on ‘developed’ countries to change.

Without going into a lot of depth on this critique (whole Ph.Ds are written on this subject!) there are a few key points to note. The MDG model of aid and development reinforces a hierarchy of aid donors and aid recipients. Some theorists argue that this model maintains some of the attitudes and practices of colonialism. The causes of poverty are complex and interconnected. The state of many ‘developing’ countries cannot be separated from this history and modern day practices of many ‘developed’ countries. For example, ‘developed’ countries have (and many continue to) contributed to climate change which is harming the poor in many ‘developing’ countries (such as through rising sea levels, increased storm intensity and drought in some places).

In the post-2015 era we have an opportunity to set a new agenda and create a more even playing field. Yes, there should be common goals for basic needs such as education and healthcare, but there also need to be common goals for things like atmospheric pollution, overconsumption and waste. Another way this is sometimes talked about is through the need for social floors and environmental ceilings. All countries have areas they need improvement in. And all countries should be held accountable, keeping respective capacities in mind.

As with all changes of this magnitude, it will not come easily. Global negotiations for these new goals (sometimes referred to as global sustainable development goals) are very complex and highly political. We are facing a major paradigm shift that many established powers are not comfortable with. We live in interesting times indeed!

Over the next month I’ll continue to explore post 2015 development thinking and consider some of the key debates and questions. Don’t underestimate the significance of the risks and opportunities and risks of this shift.

#development #climate change #aid #phil ireland #MDG #Mellenium Development Goals #2015

1 of 215 wind turbines on one site powering over 300,000 homes in Glasgow. Scotland's renewable energy target is 100% by 2020. Australia's is 20%. We can do better.

Trending Blogs

Recently Viewed Blogs

Phil Ireland