Why the Middle East will weigh heavily on the new US president’s agenda

Analysis Why the Middle East will weigh heavily on the new US president’s agenda
Short Url
Updated 06 November 2024
Follow

Why the Middle East will weigh heavily on the new US president’s agenda

Why the Middle East will weigh heavily on the new US president’s agenda
  • From Iran to Palestine, the incoming US administration will face a slew of daunting policy challenges
  • New leadership will have to balance diplomacy with action if it hopes to prevent further regional escalation

LONDON: America has voted and now the Middle East waits to discover who has won — and, crucially, what that victory will mean for a region with which the US has had a complex relationship ever since President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Saudi Arabia’s King Abdulaziz bin Saud met for historic talks on a US warship in the Suez Canal in 1945.

Whichever way CNN and the other big US channels have called the result of the US presidential election, it could be days, or even weeks, before America’s arcane electoral process reaches its final conclusion and the winner is formally declared.

Although they have ticked the box on their ballot papers alongside their preferred candidate, America’s voters have not actually voted directly for Kamala Harris, Donald Trump or any of the four other runners.

Instead, in proportion to its number of representatives in Congress, each state appoints electors to the Electoral College, the combined membership of which votes for the president and the vice president.

It is rare, but not unknown, for electors to disregard the popular vote. But either way, to become president, a candidate needs the votes of at least 270 of the college’s 538 electors.

Their votes will be counted, and the winner announced, in a joint session of Congress on Jan. 6. The president-elect is then sworn into office on Monday, Jan. 20 — and, as first days at work go, these promise to be intense.




A poll worker waits for voters at a polling station in New York City on Election Day, November 5, 2024. (AFP)

There will be many issues, domestic and foreign, clamoring for the attention of the new president and their team.

But of all the in-trays jostling for attention, it is the one labeled “Middle East” that will weigh most heavily on the Resolute desk in the Oval Office and on the mind of the incoming president.

Depending on how they are handled, the sum of the challenges contained in that in-tray could add up either to an opportunity to achieve something no American president has achieved before, or an invitation to a disastrous, legacy-shredding encounter with some of the world’s most pressing and intractable problems.

Palestine and Israel

In November 2016, then-President-Elect Donald Trump declared: “I would love to be able to be the one that made peace with Israel and the Palestinians.” A lot of “really great people” had told him that “it’s impossible — you can’t do it.”

But he added: “I disagree … I have reason to believe I can do it.”

As recent history attests, he could not do it.

Every US president since Jimmy Carter, who led the Camp David talks that culminated in a peace agreement between Egypt and Israel in 1979, has been drawn inexorably into the maelstrom of Middle East politics — partly through economic and political necessity, but also because of the Nobel-winning allure of going down in history as the greatest peacemaker the world has ever known.




A woman rests with her children as displaced Palestinians flee Beit Lahia in the northern Gaza Strip on November 5, 2024. (AFP)

Not for nothing, however, is the Israel-Palestine issue known in diplomatic circles as “the graveyard of US peacemaking.”

Since Oct. 7, 2023, and Israel’s onslaught on Hamas and other Palestinian militant groups in Gaza and Iran-backed Hezbollah in Lebanon, a crisis long deemed intractable appears to have degenerated even further to a point of no return.

All the talk throughout the election by both of the main candidates, calculated to walk the electoral tightrope between pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian voters, will now be forgotten.

All that matters now is action — careful, considered action, addressing issues including the desperate need for a permanent ceasefire in Gaza and the reopening of the much-cratered pathway to a two-state solution.




Palestinians search through the rubble following Israeli strikes in Nuseirat refugee camp in the central Gaza Strip, on November 1, 2024. (AFP)

Epitomizing the hypocrisy that has so infuriated millions, including the many Arab American voters who have switched their allegiance from the Democrats to the Republicans in this election, the Biden-Harris administration has bemoaned the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent Palestinians while simultaneously supplying Israel with the munitions that killed them.

For Trump, regaining the White House would be a second chance at peacemaker immortality and, perhaps, the Nobel Peace Prize he felt he deserved for his 2020 Abraham Accords initiative.

Last time around, Trump did achieve the breakthrough of establishing diplomatic relations between Israel and the UAE and Bahrain. The big prize, which eluded him in 2020, was bringing Saudi Arabia on board. The Kingdom has made it clear that for that to happen, one condition must be fulfilled — the opening of a meaningful path to Palestinian statehood. This, therefore, could well be on the to-do list of a Trump administration in 2025.

For Harris, the presidency would be a chance to step out from under the shadow of the Biden administration, which has so spectacularly failed to restrain Israel, its client state, and in the process has only deepened the crisis in the Middle East and undermined trust in the US in the region.

The West Bank

If America has equivocated over events in Palestine and Lebanon, the Biden administration has not turned a blind eye to the provocative, destabilizing activities of extremist Jewish settler groups in the West Bank.

In February, the White House issued an executive order imposing sanctions on “persons undermining peace, security, and stability in the West Bank.” The order, signed by President Joe Biden, condemned the “high levels of extremist settler violence, forced displacement of people and villages, and property destruction,” which had “reached intolerable levels” and constituted “a serious threat to the peace, security, and stability of the West Bank and Gaza, Israel, and the broader Middle East region.”




A wounded Palestinian man arrives for treatment for injuries sustained in clashes with Israeli settlers in the village of Mughayir, at a hospital in Ramallah in the occupied West Bank on April 12, 2024. (AFP)

So far, the US, reluctant to act against members of an ally’s government, has stopped short of sanctioning Israel’s far-right ministers Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben Gvir, the chief settler rabble-rousers in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s cabinet.

Whether Harris would continue with, or even strengthen the sanctions policy, remains to be seen, but the settlers believe that Trump would let them off the hook. “If Trump takes the election, there will be no sanctions,” Israel Ganz, chairman of one of the main settler groups, told Reuters last week.

“If Trump loses the election, we will in the state of Israel … have a problem with sanctions that the government over here has to deal with.”

It was, after all, Trump who recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, undoing decades of US foreign policy, and moved the US Embassy there from Tel Aviv.

Whoever wins, if they are truly interested in peace in the region, they will need to exert pressure on Netanyahu to bring the extremist right-wingers in his government to heel. It was Ben Gvir’s repeated incursions into the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound that Hamas cited as the main provocation that triggered its Oct. 7 attack on Israel last year.

Iran

Iran has been a thorn in the side of every US administration since the 1979 revolution, the roots of which can be traced back ultimately to the CIA-engineered overthrow of democratically elected Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953.

The next US president faces two key, interrelated choices, both of which have far-reaching consequences. The first is how to deal with Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian, a heart surgeon who was elected in July and, so far, has given every appearance of being someone who is prepared to negotiate and compromise with the West and its regional allies.

In the hope of lifting the sanctions that have so badly hurt his countrymen, if not their leaders, Pezeshkian has offered to open fresh negotiations with the US over Iran’s nuclear program.

According to a recent Arab News/YouGov poll ahead of the presidential election, this would be appealing to many Arab Americans.

Asked how the incoming US administration should tackle the influence of Iran and its affiliated militant groups in the region, 41 percent said it should resort to diplomacy and incentives, with only 32 percent supporting a more aggressive stance and a harsher sanctions regime.

Here, a Harris victory might pave the way to progress. The Biden presidency has seen some sanctions lifted and moves made toward reopening the Iran nuclear deal, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

In a move that infuriated supporters of Israel but brought some relief to a region that appeared to be teetering on the brink of all-out war, in October the Biden administration publicly warned Israel that it would not support a strike on Iranian nuclear facilities in retaliation for Tehran’s drone and missile attack on Israel.

Under a Trump administration, however, progress with Iran would seem unlikely. It was Trump who in 2020 ordered the assassination of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps commander, Qassem Soleimani, and who in 2018 unilaterally pulled the US out of the JCPOA to the dismay of the other signatories, Iran and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. It is difficult to see how he could revisit that decision.

The Houthis

In many ways, coming to an understanding with Iran could be the greatest contribution any US president could make to peace in the region, especially if that led to a defanging of Iran’s proxies, which have caused so much disruption in the Middle East.

The previous Trump administration backed Saudi Arabia’s war against the Houthi rebels in Yemen and designated the group as a foreign terrorist organization. In 2021, however, Biden reversed that decision and withdrew US support for the military interventions of the Coalition to Restore Legitimacy in Yemen against the rebels, who overthrew Yemen’s internationally recognized government, sparking the civil war, in 2015.




Houthi supporters attend an anti-Israel rally in solidarity with Gaza and Lebanon in the Houthi-controlled capital Sanaa on November 1, 2024. (AFP)

Since then, however, Houthi attacks on shipping in the Red Sea, and drone and missile assaults on Saudi Arabia, have opened Western eyes to the true nature of the rebel group, to the extent that in October Biden authorized the bombing of Houthi weapons stores by B2 stealth bombers.

For either candidate as president, apart from securing the all-important commercial navigation of the Red Sea, dealing with the Houthis offers the opportunity to mend bridges with Arab partners in the region (only Bahrain joined America’s Operation Prosperity Guardian, a naval mission to protect shipping).

But it is Trump, rather than the Biden-era tainted Harris, who is expected to come down hardest on the Houthis.

Hezbollah

Trump’s grasp of events in the Middle East has at times appeared tenuous. In a speech in October, for example, he boiled down the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon to “two kids fighting in the schoolyard.” As president, though, there seems little doubt that he would, once again, be Israel’s man in the White House.

In a recent call with Netanyahu, he appeared briefly to forget the importance of wooing the all-important Arab American swing-state votes and told the Israeli prime minister to “do what you have to do,” even as innocent civilians were dying at the hands of Israeli troops in Lebanon.

Of course, no American government is going to defend Hezbollah or any of Iran’s proxies. But when Hezbollah’s leader, Hassan Nasrallah, was targeted in an Israeli airstrike in September, Harris released a statement that outlined a preference for diplomacy over continuing conflict.




Demonstrators celebrate during a rally outside the British Embassy in Tehran on October 1, 2024, after Iran fired a barrage of missiles into Israel in response to the killing of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah. (AFP)

She had, she said, “an unwavering commitment to the security of Israel” and would “always support Israel’s right to defend itself against Iran and Iran-backed terrorist groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis.”

But, she added, “I do not want to see conflict in the Middle East escalate into a broader regional war. We have been working on a diplomatic solution along the Israel-Lebanon border so that people can safely return home on both sides of that border. Diplomacy remains the best path forward to protect civilians and achieve lasting stability in the region.”

The US presence in the Middle East

One of the findings of the recent Arab News/YouGov poll of Arab Americans ahead of the election was that a sizable majority (52 percent) believed the US should either maintain its military presence in the Middle East (25 percent), or actually increase it (27 percent).

This will be one of the big issues facing the next president, whose administration’s ethos could be one of increasing isolationism or engagement.

America still has 2,500 troops in Iraq, for example, where talks are underway that could see all US and US-led coalition personnel withdrawn from the country by the end of 2026 — 23 years since the invasion of Iraq in 2003.




A vehicle part of a US military convoy drives in Arbil, the capital of the autonomous Kurdish region of northern Iraq, on September 17, 2024. (AFP)

In April, Biden and Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia Al-Sudani issued a joint statement affirming the intention to withdraw US troops, who now act mainly as advisers, and transition to a “bilateral security partnership.”

Trump, on the other hand, could go much further, and as president has a record of disengaging America from military commitments. In 2019, to the alarm of regional allies, he unilaterally ordered the sudden withdrawal of the stabilizing US military presence in northeastern Syria, and in 2020 withdrew hundreds of US troops who were supporting local forces battling against Al-Shabaab and Daesh militants in Somalia.

In the wake of his election defeat that year, he ordered the rapid withdrawal of all US troops from Afghanistan. The order was not carried out, but in September 2021, the Biden administration followed suit, ending America’s 20-year war and leading to the collapse of the Afghan National Security Forces and the takeover of the country by the Taliban.

 


Singapore hangs 4th person in 3 weeks

Singapore hangs 4th person in 3 weeks
Updated 15 sec ago
Follow

Singapore hangs 4th person in 3 weeks

Singapore hangs 4th person in 3 weeks
  • The United Nations and rights groups say capital punishment has no proven deterrent effect
  • Masoud Rahimi Mehrzad, a Singaporean citizen born in the city-state to a Singaporean mother and an Iranian father, was convicted in 2013 for drug trafficking

Singapore: Singapore hanged a 35-year-old Singaporean-Iranian man for drug trafficking on Friday, its fourth in less than a month, despite appeals from Tehran to "reconsider" his execution.
The United Nations and rights groups say capital punishment has no proven deterrent effect and have called for it to be abolished, but Singaporean officials insist it has helped make the country one of Asia's safest.
Masoud Rahimi Mehrzad, a Singaporean citizen born in the city-state to a Singaporean mother and an Iranian father, was convicted in 2013 for drug trafficking.
Appeals against his conviction and sentence, as well as petitions for clemency from the president, had been dismissed. After he was informed of his impending hanging, Masoud filed an 11th-hour appeal to stay his execution, which was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on Thursday.
Calling him "an Iranian citizen", Iran's foreign minister Abbas Araghchi also appealed to his Singaporean counterpart Vivian Balakrishnan on Thursday to halt the execution.
"Araghchi expressed Iran's respect for Singapore's legal framework but appealed to Singaporean authorities to reconsider the execution of Masoud Rahimi, emphasizing humanitarian considerations," Iran's foreign ministry said on X.
However, Singapore's Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) announced "the capital sentence of death imposed on Masoud Rahimi bin Mehrzad... was carried out on 29 November 2024".
"Masoud... was convicted of having in his possession for the purpose of trafficking, not less than 31.14 grams (1.1 ounces) of diamorphine, or pure heroin," CNB said.
Under the country's tough drug laws, the death penalty applies for any amount above a 15-gram threshold for heroin.
It added that "capital punishment is imposed only for the most serious crimes, such as the trafficking of significant quantities of drugs which cause very serious harm".
His execution was the fourth in three weeks in Singapore.
Rosman Abdullah, 55, was hanged on November 22 and two men -- a 39-year-old Malaysian and a 53-year-old Singaporean -- were hanged on November 15 all for drug offences.
So far this year, there have been nine executions by the Singaporean government -- eight for drug trafficking and one for murder.
According to an AFP tally, Singapore has hanged 25 people since it resumed carrying out the death penalty in March 2022 after a two-year halt during the Covid-19 pandemic.
The UN this month reiterated its call on Singapore to review its position on capital punishment.


Macron offers first glimpse of post-fire Notre Dame

Macron offers first glimpse of post-fire Notre Dame
Updated 1 min 40 sec ago
Follow

Macron offers first glimpse of post-fire Notre Dame

Macron offers first glimpse of post-fire Notre Dame
  • France is to offer the world a first look inside the restored Notre Dame cathedral in Paris on Friday

PARIS: France is to offer the world a first look inside the restored Notre Dame cathedral in Paris on Friday, over five years after the fire that ravaged the interior of the heritage landmark and toppled its spire.
Eight days ahead of the December 7 reopening of the cathedral, President Emmanuel Macron will conduct an inspection, broadcast live on television, which will provide the first official insight into how the 850-year-old edifice now looks inside.
Notre Dame will welcome back visitors and worshippers over the December 7-8 weekend after a sometimes challenging restoration to return to its former glory the great Paris cathedral badly damaged by the April 19, 2019 fire.
Macron at the time set the ambitious goal to rebuild Notre Dame within five years and make it “even more beautiful” than before, a target that the French authorities say has been met.
Some 250 companies and hundreds of experts were mobilized for a restoration costing hundreds of millions of euros in what was dubbed the “building site of the century.”
All 2,000 people who contributed to the work have been invited to Friday’s event, of whom at least 1,300 are expected to attend.
“This final site visit is an opportunity to thank them in particular — from wood craftsmen to those of metal and stone, from scaffolders to roofers, from bell makers to art restorers, from gilders to masons and sculptors, from carpenters to organ builders, from architects, archaeologists, engineers and planners to logistical or administrative functions,” stated Macron ahead of the visit.
Accompanied by his wife Brigitte, Macron is expected from 0930 GMT to inspect the key areas of the cathedral including the nave, choir and chapel and discuss the restoration in person with the workers.
The restoration cost a total of nearly 700 million euros (more than $750 million at today’s rate).
It was financed from the 846 million euros in donations that poured in from 150 countries in an unprecedented surge of solidarity.



The 19th-century gothic spire has now been resurrected with an exact copy of the original, the stained windows have regained their color, the walls shining after fire stains cleaned and a restored organ ready to thunder out again.
Unseen to visitors is a new mechanism to protect against any future fires, a discreet system of pipes ready to release millions of water droplets in case of a new disaster.
Notre Dame, which welcomed 12 million visitors in 2017, expects to receive an even higher figure of “14 to 15 million” after the reopening, according to the church authorities.
French ministers have also floated the idea of charging tourists an entrance fee to the site but the Paris diocese has said free admission was an important principle to maintain.
Archbishop of Paris Laurent Ulrich told AFP last month that Macron will on Saturday, December 7 give an address inside Notre Dame to mark the reopening.
It is extremely unusual for a political leader to be allowed to address the faithful inside a Catholic religious building. France is by its constitution a secular country with a strict division between church and state.
World leaders are expected to join but the guest list has yet to be unveiled.
The next day, Sunday December 8, will see the first mass and consecration of the new altar, he added.
Macron in December said he had invited Pope Francis to the reopening of the cathedral but the head of the Catholic church announced in September, to the surprise of some observers, that he would not be coming.
Instead, the pontiff is on the subsequent weekend making a landmark visit to the French island of Corsica.
The French Catholic church has in recent years been rocked by a succession of sexual abuse allegations against clerics, including most recently the monk known as Abbe Pierre who became a household name for his aid to the destitute.
Over five years on, the investigation into what caused the fire is ongoing, with initial findings backing an accidental cause such as a short circuit, a welder’s torch or a cigarette.


UN talks struggle for breakthrough on plastics treaty as deadline looms

UN talks struggle for breakthrough on plastics treaty as deadline looms
Updated 18 min 32 sec ago
Follow

UN talks struggle for breakthrough on plastics treaty as deadline looms

UN talks struggle for breakthrough on plastics treaty as deadline looms
  • South Korea is hosting delegates from about 175 countries at the fifth and final meeting of the UN Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee
  • Nations which produce petrochemicals, such as Saudi Arabia, oppose efforts to cap plastic production

BUSAN, South Korea: The chairman of talks aiming for an international treaty to rein in pollution from plastics issued a document on Friday outlining measures that could furnish the basis of a pact, in an attempt to spur discussions as a Dec. 1 deadline approaches.
South Korea is hosting delegates from about 175 countries at the fifth and final meeting of the UN Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-5) to agree globally binding rules on plastics, but this week's talks had moved at glacial pace.
The document, issued by committee chair Luis Vayas Valdivieso and viewed by Reuters, featured ideas such as a global list of plastic products to be managed and a financial mechanism to help fund developing countries act on the treaty.
"The high and rapidly increasing levels of plastic pollution ... represent a serious environmental and human health problem," the document said.
It mentioned, but did not confirm, some of the most divisive tasks, such as whether the treaty will set a global target to cut output of primary plastic polymers or skip it altogether, and left undecided how rich nations would contribute to a fund.
"A global target to reduce plastic production is in (the document)," said Graham Forbes, who led the Greenpeace delegation to the talks.
"Keeping this in the final treaty text must be a redline for any country serious about ending plastic pollution."
The International Council of Chemical Associations (ICCA) representing makers of plastic, backs governments' efforts to finalise the deal, said its spokesperson, Stewart Harris, adding that the body wanted to hasten a circular economy for plastics.
Nations which produce petrochemicals, such as Saudi Arabia, oppose efforts to cap plastic production, despite the protests of low- and middle-income nations that bear the brunt of plastic pollution.
While supporting an international treaty, the petrochemical industry has also been vocal in urging governments to avoid setting mandatory plastic production caps in favour of efforts to reduce plastic waste, such as recycling.
The chairman's move came after several participants had expressed frustration at the slow pace of the talks, amid disagreements over procedure, multiple proposals and some efforts to return to ground covered in the past.


International court to begin hearings that may shape global climate litigation

International court to begin hearings that may shape global climate litigation
Updated 32 min 58 sec ago
Follow

International court to begin hearings that may shape global climate litigation

International court to begin hearings that may shape global climate litigation
  • Court to give opinion on legal obligations around climate
  • ICJ opinion is non-binding but likely to influence litigation
THE HAGUE: The United Nations’ top court next week begins hearings on the legal obligation of countries to fight climate change and the consequences for states of contributing to global warming, the outcome of which could influence litigation worldwide.
While the advisory opinions of the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) are non-binding, they are legally and politically significant. Experts say the ICJ’s eventual opinion on climate change will likely be cited in climate change-driven lawsuits in courts from Europe to Latin America and beyond.
The hearings begin a week after developing nations denounced as woefully inadequate an agreement reached at the COP29 summit for countries to provide $300 billion in annual climate finance by 2035 to help poorer nations cope with climate change.
Ralph Regenvanu, Vanuatu’s special envoy for climate change and the environment, said it was imperative fossil fuels be phased out and more money provided to poorer nations bearing the brunt of climate change, such as his Pacific island nation.
“We’re not seeing that in the outcome of the COPs,” Regenvanu told Reuters.
“We are hoping (the ICJ) can provide a new avenue to break through the inertia we experience when trying to talk about climate justice,” he added.
Fiji’s Attorney General Graham Leung called the hearings a historic opportunity for small island developing states in their quest for climate change justice.
CLIMATE LITIGATION
Climate litigation is on the rise.
Earlier this year, Europe’s top human rights court ruled that the Swiss government had violated the rights of its citizens by failing to do enough to combat climate change. But it also rejected two other cases, pointing to the complexities of the growing wave of climate litigation.
Vanuatu, one of the small developing nations that pushed for an ICJ advisory opinion, says it disproportionately suffers the effects of climate change as a result of increasingly intense storms and rising sea levels.
Vanuatu will be the first of 98 countries and twelve international organizations to present arguments to the ICJ, also known as the World Court. It is the United Nations’ highest court for resolving international disputes between states and can be tasked by the UN General Assembly to give advisory opinions.
In 2023, the assembly asked it for a formal opinion on questions including the legal obligations of states to protect the climate system and whether large states that contribute to greenhouse gas emissions may be liable for damages, in particular to small island nations.
“As COP29 failed to provide a clear direction for climate justice and ambition, any developments from the ICJ will now only become more weighty,” said Lea Main-Klingst, a lawyer with ClientEarth.
Aside from small island states and numerous Western and developing countries, the court will also hear from the world’s top two emitters of greenhouse gases, the United States and China. Oil producer group OPEC will also give its views.
The hearings will start at 10 a.m. (0900 GMT) local time on Monday and run until Dec. 13. The court’s opinion will be delivered in 2025.

Top UN court to open unprecedented climate hearings next week

Top UN court to open unprecedented climate hearings next week
Updated 29 November 2024
Follow

Top UN court to open unprecedented climate hearings next week

Top UN court to open unprecedented climate hearings next week
  • Representatives from more than 100 countries, organizations will make submissions before the International Court of Justice
  • Activists hope the legal opinion from the ICJ judges will have far-reaching consequences in the fight against climate change

THE HAGUE: The world’s top court will next week start unprecedented hearings aimed at finding a “legal blueprint” for how countries should protect the environment from damaging greenhouse gases — and what the consequences are if they do not.
From Monday, lawyers and representatives from more than 100 countries and organizations will make submissions before the International Court of Justice in The Hague — the highest number ever.
Activists hope the legal opinion from the ICJ judges will have far-reaching consequences in the fight against climate change.
But others fear the UN-backed request for a non-binding advisory opinion will have limited impact — and it could take the UN’s top court months, or even years, to deliver.
The hearings at the Peace Palace come days after a bitterly negotiated climate deal at the COP29 summit in Azerbaijan, which said developed countries must provide at least $300 billion a year by 2035 for climate finance.
Poorer countries have slammed the pledge from wealthy polluters as insultingly low and the final deal failed to mention a global pledge to move away from planet-heating fossil fuels.
The UN General Assembly last year adopted a resolution in which it referred two key questions to the ICJ judges.
First, what obligations did states have under international law to protect the Earth’s climate system from greenhouse gas emissions?
Second, what are the legal consequences under these obligations, where states, “by their acts and omissions, have caused significant harm to the climate system and other parts of the environment?“
The second question was also linked to the legal responsibilities of states for harm caused to small, more vulnerable countries and their populations.
This applied especially to countries under threat from rising sea levels and harsher weather patterns in places like the Pacific Ocean.
“Climate change for us is not a distant threat,” said Vishal Prasad, director of the Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change (PISFCC) group.
“It is reshaping our lives right now. Our islands are at risk. Our communities face disruptive change at a rate and scale that generations before us have not known,” Prasad told journalists a few days before the start of the hearings.
Launching a campaign in 2019 to bring the climate issue to the ICJ, Prasad’s group of 27 students spearheaded consensus among Pacific island nations including his own native Fiji, before it was taken to the UN.
Last year, the General Assembly unanimously adopted the resolution to ask the ICJ for an advisory opinion.
Joie Chowdhury, a senior lawyer at the US and Swiss-based Center for International Environmental Law, said climate advocates did not expect the ICJ’s opinion “to provide very specific answers.”
Instead, she predicted the court would provide “a legal blueprint in a way, on which more specific questions can be decided,” she said.
The judges’ opinion, which she expected sometime next year, “will inform climate litigation on domestic, national and international levels.”
“One of the questions that is really important, as all of the legal questions hinge on it, is what is the conduct that is unlawful,” said Chowdhury.
“That is very central to these proceedings,” she said.
Some of the world’s largest carbon polluters — including the world’s top three greenhouse gas emitters, China, the United States and India — will be among some 98 countries and 12 organizations and groups expected to make submissions.
On Monday, proceedings will open with a statement from Vanuatu and the Melanesian Spearhead Group which also represents the vulnerable island states of Fiji, Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands as well as Indonesia and East Timor.
At the end of the two-week hearings, organizations including the EU and the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries are to give their statements.
“With this advisory opinion, we are not only here to talk about what we fear losing,” the PISFCC’s Prasad said.
“We’re here to talk about what we can protect and what we can build if we stand together,” he said.