Connect with us

Diplomacy

Will the rich countries keep their word this time?

Published

on

The United Nations (UN) Climate Change Conference (COP27), held in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt, ended yesterday morning.

At the end of the summit, COP27 President and Egyptian Foreign Minister Samih Shukri, announced at the press conference that the coordination process has begun for the transfer of the presidency of next year’s COP28 to the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

Shukri also announced that an agreement was reached at the conference to create a fund dedicated to the losses and damages caused by climate change in poor countries.

While poor and developing countries have been demanding this fund and a payment schedule for nearly 30 years, rich countries such as the United States and European Union (EU) members, which alone have the most responsibility for global and historical greenhouse gas emissions, have stood up to the agenda of creating funds and played for time.

The climate crisis is felt the most by the countries least to blame, so compensation is central to climate justice demands.

The fact that the countries and societies, which contributed the least to the greenhouse gases that warm the planet, suffered the most and were least equipped to cope with death and destruction was once again raised at this summit. One of the most important success criteria of the summit was the decisions expected to be taken in this regard.

The West is on at China

While the United States and EU countries are blocking the idea because they fear they may face huge payments and be held legally liable for historic greenhouse gas emissions, they also do not want the fund to go to states on the United Nations list of developing countries, such as China.

The EU then proposed to “set up a special fund for covering loss and damage in the most vulnerable countries, funded from a broad donor base.” Under this proposal, the loss and damage fund will be contributed not only by the wealthiest nations that have contributed the most to historic emissions, such as the United States and European countries, but also by emerging economies, such as China, whose emissions have risen in modern times.

However, in previous proposals, China was on the side of benefiting from the fund, not contributing to the fund. Beijing advocates the principle of “common but differentiated responsibility” in this regard. China has no liability for loss and damage, Beijing says, while arguing that they are already helping and are willing to help developing countries to increase their capacity to adapt through South-South Cooperation. Beijing denies the pressure of Western countries in this regard.

Therefore, this issue stands out as one of the important debates between China and the U.S. at climate summits.

Scope of the agreement remains unclear

Despite these debates, about 200 delegates in COP 27 reached agreement on the establishment of a loss and damage fund. However, there are serious questions about the scope of the agreement and whether it will be implemented.

Under the agreement, a transitional committee involving representatives of 24 different countries, will work over the next year to determine the form of the fund, which countries will contribute and where the money should go. The committee is expected to hold its first meeting before March 2023. The operational details of the fund will be determined at next year’s COP28 in Dubai. Apart from this general framework, many details remain unclear.

Officials have warned that the agreement on loss and damage is part of a broader agreement that is still under negotiation.

Rich countries, meanwhile, are demanding stronger commitments from developing countries to reduce emissions over the next decade to meet the climate targets of the Paris agreement, which calls on governments to limit global warming to well below 2°C and preferably 1.5°C.

According to the Global Times, formal talks between Beijing and Washington, and even face-to-face discussion, will take place after COP27 is concluded.

It may not be put into practice

Although poor countries are pleased that a decision on the fund has finally been taken, many are concerned about whether the decisions taken will translate into meaningful action. As a matter of fact, these concerns have a point. In 2009, developed countries committed to giving developing countries $100 billion annually by 2020 to help them reduce emissions and adapt to climate change. However, this commitment was not fulfilled and was constantly postponed.

Experts also point out that the details of how to implement the mechanism in line with the decision taken and how to quantify the damage caused by the climate crisis are not clear, stressing that this will make the mechanism difficult to operate and leave room for rich countries to maneuver.

It is unrealistic to expect the United States, historically the largest emitter of greenhouse gases, to lead efforts to provide climate finance for the developing world, which has blocked proposals for loss and damage to date. Considering that the U.S. budget for the fund should be approved by Congress, it may not even be possible for Washington to put money into the fund, let alone lead the way.

‘The empty promises of the West’ 

Criticizing the Western world for their indifference to the agenda of loss and damage, Scottish Prime Minister Nicola Sturgeon stressed that this is a fundamental question of climate justice and that the “rich world” has a responsibility here.

Despite the deteriorating effects of the climate crisis, the West, and especially the EU, has forsaken its responsibility with “empty promises and sweet nothings,” Sturgeon said.

From ‘phased out’ to ‘phased down’

On the other hand, after the COP26, when the ‘phase-out of coal’ was first mentioned, demands for the commitment to encompass all fossil fuels this year were not accepted. The demand for “phasing out of all fossil fuels” was not included in the final text.

Furthermore, the reference to “low-emission and renewable energy” in the text was interpreted as an element that could lead to the development of more sources of natural gas (as it produces less emissions than coal).

Following the sanctions against Russia, the European Union’s retreat from its goals due to the ongoing energy crisis has also attracted criticism within this context. Last year at COP26, discourses and commitments about “phasing out” coal were replaced by “phasing down” this year.

Parade of fossil fuel lobbyists

One of the most prominent criticisms of COP27 was the intense participation of fossil fuel lobbyists. Powerful fossil fuel companies swarmed the summit. 636 people linked to the oil and gas industry reportedly attended the summit.

The sponsorship of COP27 by Coca-Cola, which produces about 120 billion waste plastic bottles every year and uses fossil fuels in the process, was discussed widely on social media.

Diplomacy

Vance leads indirect push for US-Iran ceasefire and nuclear talks

Published

on

US Vice-President JD Vance has been personally involved over the past two weeks in indirect talks with Iran aimed at securing a fresh ceasefire and restarting nuclear negotiations.

According to Axios, Vance’s intense engagement indicates that he has taken it upon himself to extract the US from the conflict, which he views as responsible for the Republican Party’s shocking losses in this week’s elections.

This elevates the latest round of indirect talks to the highest echelons of the administration.

US officials and regional sources state that Trump is currently willing to let diplomatic efforts run their course to see whether any agreement is achievable.

Asked by reporters on Friday what his message was to Iran, Trump said, “We are talking to them.”

According to sources with direct knowledge of the matter, Vance speaks almost daily with Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani, Pakistan’s Chief of Army Staff Field Marshal Asim Munir, and other mediators regarding the negotiations with Iran.

White House envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, President Trump’s adviser and son-in-law, are also involved in the process.

Sources say Vance and the Qatari and Pakistani mediators have been discussing the possibility of holding a working-level technical meeting between the US and Iran in the coming days, though this has not yet materialized.

Before the war began in late February, Vance was among the most sceptical voices in Trump’s inner circle on the issue, advocating instead for a diplomatic solution.

In April, he led the US negotiating delegation at the Iran summit held in Islamabad and was personally involved in the talks that yielded a memorandum of understanding (MOU) signed between the US and Iran in June.

Vance subsequently headed the US delegation during a series of direct talks with Iran in Switzerland.

Two weeks ago, Vance sent a letter to Mohsen Rezaei, Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, proposing that direct negotiations resume.

Rezaei is one of the closest advisers to Iran’s Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei.

Iranian officials noted that Vance’s letter generated positive momentum toward restarting talks.

On Wednesday, Vance said the war was the primary reason for the Republicans’ repudiation at the polls.

Sources involved in mediation efforts report that while progress is being made, the process is moving very slowly.

On Friday evening, the prime minister of Qatar said, “Over the past few weeks, we worked with our colleagues in the US administration who have a sincere intention to contain the situation and de-escalate. Thanks to them and the voices of reason in Tehran, we prevented the situation from spinning out of control.”

The prime minister added that discussions with the Trump administration continued following the midterm elections, though they were not as active as in previous days “because there are other matters.”

Nevertheless, he noted that the US intention to find a diplomatic resolution “remains ongoing” and emphasized that an agreement is possible.

On Friday morning, Trump and the Emir of Qatar discussed Qatari efforts to bridge differences between the US and Iran as part of an accord.

According to a statement from his office, Sheikh Tamim emphasized the necessity of “pursuing dialogue and diplomatic channels to resolve differences, prevent the region from facing further escalation, and ensure freedom of maritime navigation as well as the security of energy supplies.”

Separately, Trump confirmed on Friday that the US military conducted a strike on an anti-aircraft missile launcher on Qeshm Island in the Strait of Hormuz after it fired a missile at a US fighter jet.

Continue Reading

Diplomacy

Ukraine faces demographic collapse as fertility rates slide

Published

on

British magazine The Economist reported that mobilization, conflict casualties, and pervasive uncertainty have left Ukraine confronting the threat of demographic collapse.

According to data cited by the magazine, Ukraine’s fertility rate has declined from 1.2 children per woman in 2020 to between 0.8 and 0.9.

This rate marks a lower level than that of any major nation except South Korea.

In the first half of 2026, the number of deaths in Ukraine surpassed the number of newborn babies threefold.

The report noted that ever since independence was gained in 1991, the number of births in the country has lagged behind the number of deaths every year.

The Economist emphasized that the demographic collapse driven by the ongoing fighting constitutes an “existential threat.”

The magazine identified mass refugee migration as the principal driver of the population loss.

More than 5 million Ukrainians reside abroad, predominantly in Europe.

The proportion of those wishing to return among those who left the country is also steadily shrinking.

According to data from the Centre for Economic Strategy (CES), the share of those seeking to return dropped from 74% in 2022 to 43%.

The fact that the majority of refugees consist of Ukrainian children and women under the age of 44 further aggravates the demographic picture.

The Kyiv government decided to exempt men under the age of 25 from mobilization to alleviate the demographic decline.

The magazine reported, however, that many young people have fled the country, while those who remain do not plan to start families.

Projections cited in the report indicate that even if hostilities cease in the coming years, Ukraine can, at best, expect merely a deceleration of depopulation.

Olga Duhnich, an expert at the Ukraine-based think tank Frontier Institute, stated that the generation born in the 1990s and 2000s is the least populous in Ukraine’s modern history, meaning the country cannot expect a post-conflict baby boom.

The United Nations (UN) projects that Ukraine’s population will decline by 0.7% to 0.9% each year over the next two decades.

Under this projection, Ukraine’s population will fall to approximately 25 million by 2040.

If hostilities drag on, people are expected to abandon plans to have children, deepening the crisis even further.

Beyond exempting men under 25 from mobilization, the Kyiv government is rolling out various support packages to boost birth rates.

Under legislation enacted in the country, parents who have children receive a direct payment of 50,000 hryvnias (around $1,100).

Parents are also paid 7,000 hryvnias each month during the first year.

Other state programmes subsidize childcare costs, while Ukrainian soldiers are granted free freezing of egg and sperm cells.

Ukrainian Minister of Social Policy Denis Ulyutin said in May to the Livyi Bereh media outlet that roughly 22 to 25 million people lived in government-controlled territories.

Ulyutin characterized the prevailing picture by saying: “This is a catastrophe.”

Ella Libanova, Director of the Institute for Demography and Quality of Life Research, estimated the population at 29 million during the same period.

Libanova attributed the steep fall from a population of 30 million in 2025 to high death rates and the demographic crisis.

In a statement in October, Libanova announced that Ukraine’s population had slipped to 28.5 million.

Institute Director Libanova said: “The population is already at 28.5 million; we lost half a million people. We lost them, but thankfully this was still caused by migration rather than casualties.”

Continue Reading

Diplomacy

Armenian opposition urged to form joint front against constitution

Published

on

Narek Karapetyan, a lawmaker and head of the Strong Armenia faction in the Armenian parliament, has urged opposition parties to unite around four core principles set out in a joint declaration.

The key points of the declaration include resisting territorial concessions and blocking the adoption of a new constitution, which the opposition has termed the “Aliyev constitution”.

According to a report by Aysor.am, Narek Karapetyan stated that the opposition meeting was originally planned to be led by his uncle, businessman and Strong Armenia movement leader Samvel Karapetyan.

“We initiated the meeting, but the authorities took preemptive steps to prevent Samvel Karapetyan from launching the national unification process,” Narek Karapetyan said.

Noting that, despite these events, opposition representatives convened and signed a joint declaration based on four agreed articles, Narek Karapetyan invited other opposition forces and members of the public to join the alliance.

“We will not allow them to implement the Aliyev constitution in Armenia. We must unite,” Karapetyan said.

Ahead of these developments, Armenian National Security Service personnel detained Strong Armenia Party leader Samvel Karapetyan following a search of his home.

The party’s press secretary, Agavni Sukiasyan, announced that on the morning of the same day, the Investigative Committee of Armenia searched the homes of both Samvel Karapetyan and Narek Karapetyan.

In a report citing the Investigative Committee, Armenpress stated that Samvel Karapetyan was detained as part of a case involving allegations of causing large-scale financial damage to the Electric Networks of Armenia (ENA) company, embezzling entrusted property, and money laundering.

According to committee figures, the total damage inflicted on the company exceeds $179 million.

Narek Karapetyan’s home was also searched at the end of July as part of a criminal case.

On 22 July, Armenia’s Central Electoral Commission approved the Prosecutor General’s request to strip Narek Karapetyan of his parliamentary immunity, and Karapetyan was charged with large-scale money laundering.

According to information reported by Sputnik Armenia, the investigation is linked to charges brought against Strong Armenia supporter Aleksan Aleksanyan.

Investigative authorities allege that Aleksanyan received approximately $4.4 million and €230,000 from the Karapetyan-owned Tashir Foundation under the guise of gifts and loans.

Several criminal cases had previously been opened against Samvel Karapetyan.

In 2025, Karapetyan was charged with publicly calling for the violent seizure of power after backing the Armenian Apostolic Church, which had been criticized by Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan.

In January, legal proceedings were also launched against Karapetyan on charges of large-scale tax evasion and money laundering.

Separately, in early July 2025, the Armenian parliament approved a bill enabling the nationalization of the Electric Networks of Armenia company.

In March, Armenia’s Constitutional Court ruled that the nationalization process in question complied with the law.

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey