Diplomacy

Will the rich countries keep their word this time?

Published

21.11.2022 12:17

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.

Up Next

Iran-US World Cup clash

Don't Miss

Moscow Format pushes for reconciliation

Elif İlhamoğlu

Diplomacy

Greece’s Marinakis says paying Hormuz transit fees beats enduring Red Sea shipping crisis detour

Published

22 hours ago

03/06/2026

Harici.com.tr

Evangelos Marinakis, one of Greece’s leading shipowners, has announced that he is prepared to pay up to $200,000 per transit to keep the Strait of Hormuz open to civilian maritime traffic.

Speaking to the Financial Times, Marinakis stated that paying a transit fee would be a far better option for him than having the strait closed to navigation.

As the chairman of Capital Maritime Group, which controls a fleet of 185 vessels including approximately 35 tankers, Marinakis emphasized that shipowners have been forced to use alternative routes around the Cape of Good Hope for years due to attacks launched by the Houthis in the Red Sea, a detour that has generated substantial additional costs.

The Greek shipowner indicated that paying a transit fee of $100,000 or $200,000, depending on the size of the cargo or the vessel, is far more reasonable than enduring the current logistical challenges. He added that such payments could offset all the losses experienced so far.

Following US strikes on Iran and the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, the Tehran administration had introduced transit fees of up to $2 million for certain vessels transiting the waterway.

In May, Iran announced the establishment of a state agency tasked with managing the Strait of Hormuz. It was stated that the institution in question would provide real-time updates regarding maritime activities in the waterway.

Ebrahim Azizi, the chairman of the Iranian Parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Commission, had noted that only commercial vessels and countries cooperating with Iran would be able to benefit from the facilities provided under this “professional mechanism.”

US President Donald Trump has explicitly opposed the imposition of transit fees in the Strait of Hormuz. In a statement on the matter, Trump said, “We want the strait to be open. We do not want any transit fees to be charged. This is an international waterway.”

On the other hand, the draft text of a planned 60-day ceasefire extension agreement between the parties stipulates that the Strait of Hormuz will remain open without any transit fees being demanded.

According to the draft details reviewed by Axios, the US in return commits to lifting the blockade it has imposed on Iranian ports. The Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, however, announced that the management of the Strait of Hormuz has been excluded from the scope of the agreement with the US, asserting that the issue will be addressed solely by littoral states.

Diplomacy

Pashinyan promises aid to farmers hit by Russian import restrictions

Published

2 days ago

02/06/2026

Harici.com.tr

Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan has pledged compensation for Armenian farmers affected by restrictions on exports to Russia.

According to Sputnik Armenia, Pashinyan made the announcement during an election campaign meeting in the Gegharkunik region.

Speaking at the event, Pashinyan said the subsidies would be designed to offset losses incurred by producers.

The prime minister also acknowledged that some Armenian products had failed to meet required quality standards, adding that such companies would receive support aimed at improving product quality.

Addressing alternative markets for Armenian exports, Pashinyan said several Armenian business delegations were already engaged in negotiations abroad.

He added that Armenia had received offers for the purchase of roses as well as fresh fruits and vegetables.

Pashinyan argued that Armenia’s agricultural output was not particularly large, describing this as an advantage under current circumstances. According to the prime minister, “a respected supermarket chain in Europe” would be capable of selling the entire volume of these products on its own.

Russia’s Federal Service for Veterinary and Phytosanitary Surveillance (Rosselkhoznadzor) imposed temporary restrictions on imports of stone fruits and grapes from Armenia effective July 2.

The ban covers cherries, sour cherries, apricots, plums, peaches and nectarines, among other products.

On the same day, a temporary suspension was also introduced on certification procedures for live fish shipments from Armenia. Russian authorities had previously restricted the entry of flower products originating from Armenia into the Russian market.

In addition, Russia’s Federal Service for Surveillance on Consumer Rights Protection and Human Wellbeing (Rospotrebnadzor) halted the import of all consignments of Jermuk mineral water from Armenia.

In a statement, the agency said levels of bicarbonate, chloride and sulfate ions in the mineral water exceeded established limits and could mislead consumers regarding the product’s medicinal properties.

The Russian regulator argued that the growing number of violations stemmed from the abolition of Armenia’s Agriculture Ministry and the transfer of its responsibilities to the Economy Ministry.

Rosselkhoznadzor further stated that Armenia’s Economy Ministry was experiencing structural problems and was unable to adequately perform the supervisory functions assigned to it.

Diplomacy

Zelenskyy urges US to grant Ukraine license to produce Patriot missiles

Published

3 days ago

01/06/2026

Harici.com.tr

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said he has asked the United States to grant Ukraine a license to manufacture missiles for the Patriot air defence system.

In a post on social media platform X, Zelenskyy argued that current US production of missile defence interceptors is insufficient and could contribute to crises in different parts of the world.

“Producing 60-65 missiles a month is nothing compared with the challenges we face today. This is no secret, and Russia knows it as well,” Zelenskyy wrote. “We need to expand production. As I requested from the previous US administration, I am asking the current administration to grant Ukraine a license to produce Patriot missiles.”

Zelenskyy said US companies possess advanced technologies that are not available in Ukraine, while Kyiv could contribute its extensive battlefield experience in return.

He also argued that granting such a license would benefit not only Ukraine, but also the Middle East and any country Washington chooses to support.

Washington pledges to maintain defence support

Zelenskyy’s remarks came a day after US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said on May 30 that Washington would continue supporting Ukraine’s defence capabilities and ensure military shipments to Kyiv continue.

“We want them to be able to defend themselves, and we will find a way to help them do that,” Hegseth said.

Several days earlier, Yuriy Ihnat, spokesperson for the Ukrainian Air Force, warned that the country’s air defence forces were experiencing a shortage of missiles.

“Due to certain supply problems, we are practically at starvation levels when it comes to missiles today,” Ihnat said.

Concerns persist over air defence missile stocks

In April, Zelenskyy warned that Ukraine’s stockpile of air defence missiles could be exhausted at any moment.

He said that under current conditions, air defence missiles were more critical for Ukraine than the air defence systems themselves.

Highlighting what he described as a critical shortage of Patriot missiles, Zelenskyy said: “We are facing a deficit now that could hardly be worse.”

Concerns that Ukraine could face a severe shortage of US-made air defence missiles had previously been reported by Reuters.

The situation was expected to worsen as the United States and its allies depleted significant portions of their arsenals during tensions with Iran, a point Zelenskyy also underscored.

In a separate statement in January, Zelenskyy said Ukraine lacked sufficient missiles for both US- and European-made air defence systems.

The Ukrainian leader said he had been forced to personally secure every package of missiles from European countries and the United States.