Some key takeaways from the Petersberg Climate Dialogue (GS Paper 3, Environment)
Why in news?
- Recently, the Petersberg Dialogue on Climate Change was held in Berlin from May 2-3, 2023.
Details:
- It was hosted by Germany and the United Arab Emirates, which is hosting the 28th Conference of Parties (COP28) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
- Ministers from 40 countries attended the conference to discuss the way forward towards COP28.
UN message:
- United Nations Secretary-General emphasised the need for “cleaning-up economies; breaking fossil fuel addiction and driving decarbonisation in every sector” to achieve a 1.5 degree global warming pathway.
- He also reiterated his earlier call for an Acceleration Agenda, where “all countries hit fast-forward on their Net Zero deadlines”.
- The Agenda calls for coal phaseout by 2030 in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries, and by 2040 in all others, as well as achieving Net Zero electricity generation and decarbonising major sectors.
Key Highlights from the summit:
Global renewables target
- German Foreign Minister said that in order to limit global warming to 1.5°C, the world needs to make sharp cuts in their greenhouse gas emissions. She also initiated discussions around a potential global target for renewables at the next climate conference.
- G7 have set concrete targets for expanding wind and solar energy. The G7 consists of Germany, France, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, Canada and the United States.
Fossil fuels: Phaseout production or reduce emissions?
- COP28 President-Designate Sultan Ahmed Al Jaber called on meeting participants to ramp up renewable energy capacity building.
- He called for a tripling of renewable energy capacity by 2030 followed by a doubling in 2040, but his address focused on reducing fossil fuel ‘emissions’.
On track for $100 billion climate finance
- The developed countries are “on good track” to deliver the $100 billion per year they had promised to mobilise by 2020 during the COP15 in 2009.
- A recent estimate pegs climate finance needs at $1 trillion per year by 2030 for emerging markets alone. This means that climate finance needs are more than 10 times the amount that developed countries have been able to mobilise, 14 years after committing to the $100 billion figure.
- Although the $100 billion pledge might have been met in 2023, the needs have now escalated. This underlines the urgent need for financial reparations.
Global Stocktake:
- 2023 is the year for the Global Stocktake, which is essentially a periodic review of global climate action which aims to assess whether current efforts will enable to reach the objectives set out in the Paris Agreement.
- This is the first Global Stocktake year since the Paris Agreement was signed in 2015 and the report has been underway for the past two years. It is set to be released in September of 2023.
- The outcome of the first Global Stocktake should seek to convey a message on sustainable lifestyles as well as sustainable consumption to inform the next round of Nationally Determined Contributions and enhanced international cooperation.
On the Washington Declaration
(GS Paper 2, International Relation)
Why in news?
- Recently, South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol arrived in the U.S. to commemorate the 70th anniversary of U.S.-South Korea bilateral relations.
- A highlight of the visit was the signing of the “Washington Declaration” as a nuclear deterrence strategy.
What prompted the U.S. visit?
- The successful launch of North Korea’s Hwasong-8 solid-fuel intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), a vital component for nuclear weapons delivery, seems to have triggered the U.S. visit of the South Korean President.
- He aimed to advance the strategic partnership, drawing an alliance over an extended nuclear deterrence plan against the regional aggression of North Korea.
What does the Washington Declaration say?
According to the declaration,
- an American nuclear ballistic submarine would be deployed in the Korean peninsula;
- a nuclear consultative group would be formed to formulate principles of joint response tactics;
- South Korea would receive Intel from the U.S. regarding nuclear advancements; and
- The U.S. will strengthen South Korea’s nuclear deterrence capabilities through joint military training programs and an annual intergovernmental simulation.
Deterrence:
- The declaration reaffirmed the non-proliferation Treaty implying that South Korea would not venture into the creation of its own independent nuclear capabilities and would instead focus on deterrence measures through an alliance-based approach.
- It also mandates the U.S. President as the only ‘sole authority’ to use the nuclear arsenal of the U.S. in the event of a nuclear confrontation.
- While the existence of the agreement is based on the security needs of South Korea, the policy reflects big power politics where the interests of the larger power (U.S.) takes precedence.
Why is the U.S. not keen on S.Korea having a nuclear arsenal?
- South Korea’s nuclear development programme supported by former president Park Chung Hee was hindered due to U.S. pressure. In the 1990s, the U.S. withdrew one hundred nuclear weapons from South Korea as part of their “Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty”.
- The U.S. made an erroneous assumption that it could deter the weapons production of North Korea by extracting South Korea’s nuclear capacity.
- The Nuclear Posture Review 2022 reflects a shift in the U.S. narrative where it is now concerned about the progressing nuclear capacities of North Korea.
- The report states that North Korea creates “deterrence dilemmas for the United States and its Allies and partners,” and that “a crisis or conflict on the Korean Peninsula could involve a number of nuclear-armed actors, raising the risk of broader conflict.”
- And finally, the U.S. wants to control global nuclear arms production. It has been reluctant to allow South Korea to develop their own nuclear arsenal as it would hinder the prolonged efforts of controlling nuclear production in the world.
- The assurance that the U.S. and its nuclear weapons would protect its allies by being responsible for maintaining stability in the region aligns with the larger goal of non-proliferation.
What is behind Manipur’s widespread unrest?
(GS Paper 2, Polity and Governance)
Why in news?
- Manipur has been restive since February when the BJP-led government launched an eviction drive seen as targeting a specific tribal group.
- The drive led to protests but not on the scale of the one on May 3 triggered by the Manipur High Court’s direction to the State to pursue a 10-year-old recommendation to grant Scheduled Tribe (ST) status to the non-tribal Meitei community.
What is Manipur’s ethnic composition?
- The Imphal valley, which comprises about 10% of Manipur’s landmass, is dominated by the non-tribal Meitei who account for more than 64% of the population of the State and yields 40 of the State’s 60 MLAs. The hills comprising 90% of the geographical area are inhabited by more than 35% recognised tribes but send only 20 MLAs to the Assembly.
- While a majority of the Meiteis are Hindus followed by Muslims, the 33 recognised tribes, broadly classified into ‘Any Naga tribes’ and ‘Any Kuki tribes’ are largely Christians.
What is the Meitei argument?
- Hearing a petition by eight people representing the Meetei (Meitei) Tribe Union, the Manipur High Court on April 19 directed the State government to submit, a 10-year-old recommendation to the Union Tribal Affairs Ministry for the inclusion of the Meitei community in the ST list.
- The court referred to the Ministry’s letter in May 2013 to the Manipur government seeking specific recommendation along with the latest socio-economic survey and ethnographic report.
- The letter followed a representation submitted by the Scheduled Tribe Demand Committee of Manipur (STDCM), which began demanding ST status for the Meiteis in 2012.
- The petitioners told the High Court that the Meiteis were recognised as a tribe before the merger of the State with the Union of India in 1949. They argued that the ST status is needed to “preserve” the community and “save the ancestral land, tradition, culture, and language” of the Meiteis.
Why are tribal groups against ST status for Meiteis?
- The Meiteis have a demographic and political advantage besides being more advanced than them academically and in other aspects. They feel the ST status to the Meiteis would lead to loss of job opportunities and allow them to acquire land in the hills and push the tribals out.
- Groups such as the All Tribal Students’ Union of Manipur point out that the language of the Meitei people is included in the Eighth Schedule of the Constitution and many of them have access to benefits associated with the SC, OBC or EWS status.
What led to the unrest?
- Pro-government groups in Manipur claim some tribal groups with vested interests are trying to scuttle Chief Minister Nongthombam Biren Singh’s crusade against drugs.
- The anti-drug drive began with destroying poppy fields and the theory that “illegal settlers” from Myanmar are behind clearing forests and government lands to grow opium and cannabis.
- The first violent protest on March 10 was against the eviction of the residents of a Kuki village. This made the State government withdraw from the suspension of operations with two Kuki extremist groups accused of inciting the protesters.
- The large-scale arson and violence claiming the life of at least one person on May 3 and 4 followed a “tribal solidarity rally” against the reported move to include the Meiteis in the ST list.
