By Peter Wittig, Permanent Representative of Germany to the United Nations (UN)

Over one year ago the Pacific Small Islands states urged the Security Council to consider the security implications of climate change. They appealed to the Security Council to fulfil its mandate for the maintenance of international peace and security.

The reason why these countries urged the Security Council to act is clear: Already today they suffer from the security implications of climate change. They have to deal with rising sea levels, loss of land and increasing scarcity of resources. The governments of these countries have to resettle their people and they have to assure that the distribution of basic commodities doesn’t turn into violent fights for survival. For them the security dimension of climate change is crystal clear, it is their daily challenge.

The situation of the Small Island States is a compelling reason in and of itself to discuss today’s matter in the Security Council. At this point it might be useful to remember that the United Nations have always drawn their unique legitimacy from the equality of states: big or small, rich or poor – each state has the same right for its existential fears and threats to be addressed.

There is, however, even more reason for the Council to debate the security dimension of climate change: Because what happens to some small island states today might well happen to other countries tomorrow. Most national security establishments consider the threat of global warming as one of the biggest challenges of the 21st century.

If we take a look at the conflicts on the agenda of the Council, we will easily see that quite a few of these conflicts are, already today, driven by desertification, lack of water and increased transborder migration. We have no doubt that the environmental degradation due to climate change very often acts as a driver of conflict. We all know that conflicts of this sort do not remain isolated within a single country, but on the contrary tend to destabilize whole regions. We should also keep in mind that not all states and societies have the same capacity to adapt to the dramatic changes in their environment.

The mandate of the Security Council is the maintenance of international peace and security. We are convinced that it is the Council’s duty to act with foresight and to do its best to prevent crises before they become acute. We therefore welcome that the Council has successfully debated structural aspects of conflicts before, such as the interrelatedness of development or HIV/AIDS with security.

I would like to reiterate that Germany has a keen interest in a Security Council that rises beyond the day-to-day management of acute crisis but takes into consideration the underlying causes of conflict. The strong interest of the membership in today’s debate makes one thing clear, namely, that the members want to see this topic on the agenda of the Council.

This forum is a shortened version of the statement made on behalf of the Federal Republic of Germany at the UN Security Council debate on the implications of climate change on 20 July 2011.

For a concept note for the debate, please see here.

For further information on Germany’s contribution to the debate on climate change and international security, please see here.

Published in: ECC-Newsletter, 4/2011