Azerbaijan COP29: Reimagine climate diplomacy

Azerbaijan is hosting 29th Conference of Parties (COP) of UNFCCC. The COP is the biggest gathering on climate change. Diplomats from around the world gather and deliberate on climate change, its causes and consequences, and how to tackle it. They are assisted by top-class scientists, researchers, experts, and activists. Countries send their sharp minds to debate future of climate change and the world and secure national interests.

Unfortunately, the COP has been turned into a debating club and passing the buck. Global leaders consider it an opportunity to deliver philosophical speeches and demonstrate their verbal commitment to tackling climate change and their love for humanity and planet Earth.

They make efforts to portray themselves as champions of climate change. On the other hand, non-government organisations (NGOs) and think tanks join the COP as representatives of society, common citizens and voices for justice. Regrettably, majority of them strive to cash the occasion for new funding opportunities by presenting themselves as the icon of research, policy advice and torchbearers of climate change fight.

People have been watching this practice for the last 29 years. They expect the COP to deliver, but are still awaiting a concrete, action-supported roadmap. During the last 29 years, COPs have produced a plethora of documents and agreements, including Kyoto Protocol, Bali Action Plan, Copenhagen Financial commitments, and Paris Agreement. These documents were drafted after lengthy negotiations and give-and-take, but they did not produce required outputs or actions.

The powerful countries do not fulfil their commitments. They can freely withdraw from the commitments made at the COP. The worst examples of this behaviour come from most powerful countries, the Aneex-1 countries of Kyoto Protocol, and fossil fuel-dependent economies. Besides, developed countries did not fulfil their financial commitments made in Copenhagen.

Simultaneously, world is still waiting for developed countries to comply with their commitments under Kyoto Protocol. However, the worst part of the story is that powerful countries use the COP to divert attention, shift responsibility and create opportunities for their business groups and multinational companies.

There are many examples, but the most prominent example comes from the COP26. United Kingdom and its partners from developed world quite smartly tried to shift the debate from their commitments of $100 billion to private financing. On the COP-26, the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero was presented as a new window of opportunity for financing.

It is a consortium of private and investment companies that are supposed to pool resources for lending. Mark Carney, UN Special Envoy for Climate Action and Finance and UK Prime Minister Johnson’s Finance Adviser for the COP-26, claimed total assets of companies committed for net zero are around $130 trillion.

However, it is private money available for investment and lending, and it has no comparison with commitment of $100 billion, and historical responsibility of the West and developed world. The private sector is pooling resources further to exploit the world in the name of climate change. Therefore, this is considered an excellent tactic to shed off on their historical responsibility and create business opportunities for their own companies.

Against this backdrop, people are losing hope in COP, more precisely in diplomacy, to tackle climate change. They feel diplomacy has failed the world. The number of COP, COP-29, speaks for itself and the gravity of the problem. It clearly indicates diplomacy has failed to provide a sustainable solution during the last 29 years.

There can be many reasons for the COP’s failure to deliver, but the major one is existing model of diplomacy. This model revolves around Lord Palmerston’s saying: “We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual. It is our duty to follow those interests”. This mindset has damaged the cause of climate change. It encourages diplomats to secure national interests or the best deal for their country, no matter what the cost. We are observing this phenomenon at every COP where countries fight hard to secure national interests, not solve the climate change issue.

The most alarming fact is that when governments and diplomats failed to deliver, they started to deploy civil society organisations, NGOs and think tanks. Instead of resisting, many of them happily take on the agenda of governments and donors. Multinational companies and rich countries also hired think tanks and NGOs from developing countries to pursue developed countries’ agenda.

The local organisations were tasked to shame their governments, compel them to take responsibility for climate actions and forget about historical responsibility. It is a clever tactic to divert debate from historical responsibility to shaming the domestic governments. The policy worked and provided much-needed breathing space to developed countries.

In this context, developing, poor and the most vulnerable countries are looking for alternatives. They are looking for instruments that can focus on humanity and planet Earth. They are asking for a different type of diplomacy, which can help solve the above-mentioned problems. Hence, the diplomatic community will have to rethink and reimagine diplomacy.

First, they must realise the failed model of climate diplomacy based on Lord Palmerston’s saying needs to be changed or refined. The interest-based diplomacy must be replaced with empathy-based diplomacy (devised and practiced by early Muslims). This will help pave the way for world unity in the fight against climate change.

Second, the structure of the COP and governance system, especially decision-making and implementation process, needs to be refined. It is suggested decisions should be made according to democratic rules, not consensus. The consensus-based approach has weakened the COP, as every country has veto power. Any country can sabotage the whole process and bring it back to square zero. Third, it should focus on climate justice and act accordingly. Fourth, the COP should devise mechanisms to include people’s voices directly from the ground, and technology can help with this.

In conclusion, the world must understand climate change does not respect boundaries and status of countries. The problem is too big and too complicated for any country to face it alone, let alone tackle it.

Thus, the present model of diplomacy based on mindset of “my country first” will not help world. Rather, it is the perfect recipe for disaster. Therefore, we must look at empathy-based diplomacy and cooperation without any prejudices. These actions are direly needed to hand over a healthy and vibrant planet to future generations. It is our responsibility, not charity.

Azerbaijan should avoid the failed diplomacy model and run-of-the-mill solutions like creating new finance or technology groups. It should think outside the box and present new ideas, rather than practical actions that focus on the planet and humanity. Otherwise, Azerbaijan COP will suffer the same fate as the previous 28 COPs.