 A clean environment is a human right. Don't you know that? This is Think Tech and we're talking about global connections today with our old friend Dr. Rupamati Khandekar who is associated with the United Nations and we're talking about the United Nations today. And I want to just say that when I was a kid growing up in New York in the late 40s the United Nations was everything. Every school kid in the city went to the United Nations. More than once we stood there in the General Assembly in the Security Council room. We walked the halls. We visited all their various agencies and we loved the United Nations. They were the statement of the Marshall Plan. They were the statement of a better world to come. That's what they told us. It hasn't worked out quite that way. But Rupamati Khandekar had been following it. She lives in New York. She's broadcasting to us in New York now. And she can tell us a lot about the United Nations because she'd written books about it and various other related issues about global peace and harmony. So Rupamati, welcome back to the show. We always like to see you here. Aloha Jay and it's my honor and pleasure to be on the show again with you. And this time we talk about the United Nations. So it's more than home the United Nations. It's a place of it's a sacred place to the outside world. But when you see it, you understand that so many issues about the world are discussed over here that we fall short of perspectives. And this gives us more chance to understand these issues from the halls of the UN. Oh, yes, absolutely. Absolutely. So it came to the fore in the case of Ukraine where we found the United Nations Security Council really couldn't do much about it because the Russian Federation was sitting on the Security Council and they would veto any move to stop the invasion. And China was their buddy and China would do the same. And then there were countries that didn't want to participate in the sanctions, including your favorite India, because they had interdependent relationships with Russia and China. But the lesson, which was a bit of a cold water shock, is the United Nations could not do anything to deal with Ukraine. And it's a black eye for it forever and ever. And you hope that that can be corrected. But as long as Russia and China are renegade, that's what we're going to have. And now we get to the question of environment. Joe Biden spent a lot of political capital finally getting his environmental funding through Congress, through the Senate anyway, the other day as part of his inflation reduction package. And several hundred billion dollars is going to deal with environmental issues. So that's good to hear. And I suppose there'll be some global leadership and other countries look around and the United Nations look around and see that Biden is able to wrestle down seven or eight hundred billion dollars for environment. That's really terrific. But the question is, where does the United Nations take that? And the news that I'd like to discuss with you today is the last part of July, United Nations passed a resolution specifying, declaring that a clean environment was a human right to everybody in the world. I don't know why it took all this time to come to that conclusion. I would have concluded that back in the 40s, when I was a tiny little kid. Okay, they finally said it. What does it mean that they said it? Correct, correct, correct. Now the United Nations boasts of being the sole international organization with having the entire world as its members. But does it work that way? No, because we have power politics of 1945 still raining the top decision making structure of the United Nations. So like you said, Jay, a few days back to make a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, a human right was passed. But this is a result of 50 years of hard work. When 1972, Stockholm resolution was passed by five countries, which was Costa Rica, Morocco, Syria, Slovenia, Switzerland, Maldives, these five countries came up with this that to face the triple threat of climate change, of pollution and change in biodiversity. Let's make clean, healthy and sustainable environment a human right. Now, like you said, you would have done this in the blink of an eye in 1940. But it's taken them 50 years to get to this point. So you can imagine the decision making process is not only bureaucratic, it is a stall process. So now there is a lot of euphoria about this being passed, this being made a human right. But do we have a legally binding structure? We do not have a legally binding structure. It's a moral responsibility that is thrust upon the people who sign it to make environment into a human right. And this has happened in the case of to make water the right, the access to clean, drinking water and sanitation accessible to all in 2010. JVI in 2022, is it happening at that pace? It is not. We still have billions of people waiting for clean water. We still have billions of people dependent on the rain. My country itself is the monsoon fed Himalayan river dependent country. You have Europe dependent on the water which is flowing in the rivers, the mighty rivers of Europe. And if you see in the recent reports, Netherlands, which used to be the wettest country, no problem of water, suddenly has a water shortage. The Rhine river in Germany is running dry. We have forest fires in Portugal, Spain, unheard of a few days back. This is climate change hitting each one, each country in our faces because nobody is immune to this. Like we always discuss JVI and I have always had the good chance to discuss common goods and common issues, which affect everybody, do not make discrimination between any individual or any country. We have levellers which we discuss. So climate change is also one of the good issues that we are going to discuss. And United Nations has the infrastructure but not the decision making power to enforce it. Now, because Biden has put in so much of money into a stall during President Trump's reign, like you said, he threw us back decades in climate change. We have a push, so we should use it forward. Now, how much they take out of this and how much they use it to the advantage of the infrastructure of the United Nations, it has to be quick. And that's the reason why we should go ahead with this. Well, you know, suppose I made you queen of the universe. I always wanted to do that. So we're mighty queen of the universe. So what would you do now? Now that there's a certain amount of momentum at the United Nations because of this resolution, it did pass. What would you do to implement it? I mean, first of all, there's got to be money. You know, Donald Trump withdrew funding from the United Nations. I don't know if it ever recovered from that. I don't know how its funding prospects are right now. It's not like United Nations is awash in money. And this resolution to be implemented takes money. So I make you the queen. What do you do starting this afternoon? Okay. So I've been promoted from queen of the world to queen of the universe. I like it. But now that we have this climate change, money in our hands, you see getting these basic protection measures for environment should go into the legal frameworks of the countries in the constitutions in not applicable for the international law, but at least applicable to the laws of the government or of the country. Like how Mexico had helped the people get access to water or how India has put protection of environment as a directive principle of state policy. It's the center's direction to the states to protect the environment and to bring in this. Right now, we can't force individuals. But you see, in a nutshell, what this resolution has done for us is it has given people the power to demand that this is my right. And when we have this much of funding, we have to ensure that industries, what do you say, governments which are promoting these climate harming mechanisms are reigning. And you see when we have abstentions. Now, why do we have such abstentions, Jay? Oh, I want to talk to you about the abstentions. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes, we should. We should. There is a lot of flak before this was being implemented. Like we said, the stretch is not of a few days or few months. It is of 50 years, five decades that this has been bought into paper to bring it into action is near to impossible because we have the veto powers. And two of the veto powers are rogue. The Russia and China ones, they do not give the veto powers as and when we want to. And America also will withhold the power if it stops industrial progress. So each country becomes selfish when it comes to even impact on climate change. If it's not going to happen to me directly, let me first progress. That's very troublesome. I am sure they all have their own reasons. I want to go down the list with you about who. This CBI, that is, you know, you have, what do you that? It's common, but a differentiated responsibility that the countries have taken up. You know what does that mean? Like you and I have to care for the climate. But the degree to which we have to care is differentiated. That is the main, main, main crunch or hurdle, or you say, which is going to be the biggest barrier for climate change implementation. Developing countries are saying we did not have a big hand in creating this climate change. So the countries who develop, who build the big heavy industries, let them stop first. And then we will stop. But the developed countries are saying, why should we stop our progress? The developing developing countries should stop their process and take care of environmental standards. So there is a imbalance, which is causing a lot of friction in climate change implementation. This CBDR is very important, Jay. What does that stand for? You're common, but differentiated responsibility. Common, but it is responsible. Have you covered this in your books? Let's look at your books. We have the coverings of both of them. And you can tell us about your books about the United Nations. There's one. What is that book talk about? This is about the reform of the United Nations, that the United Nations was formed on power politics of 1945. It does not reflect the global dynamics of the contemporary world. We do not have any representation of the current global order. It is 1945. The victors of the world war have the power reins in their hands and they have veto power. So you take the decision making up to the hierarchy, but the top of them five, even one of them abstains, the decision making is thrown out of balance. So this veto power, when you call it to be either abolished or rotating, or you include more representative members of the current world order. So that is about the current Secretary General Antonio Guterres is talking of UN2O. So this book is like a predecessor to UN2O. Oh, that's great. Okay, how about the second book? This one is about the norm of responsibility to protect that the United Nations comes in when the own country cannot protect its citizens and becomes the perpetrator of crimes against citizens. The citizens can appeal to the world community who come together under the umbrella of the UN and enter to punish the rogue state. So you're breaking sovereignty. You're putting humanity above sovereignty. You're undermining the state's sovereignty and it's a collective community of the states, international states, which is promoted. So that was used against Libya. So that book is a study of why the responsibility to protect was used. So how can we use to make a difference? It is kind of that. It strikes me that the Secretary General can take affirmative leadership steps because the United Nations, right or wrong, is a bully pulpit. And he can get up there and say, you guys are not cooperating. You're coming to the Security Council and you're taking a step that actually undermines not only the world, but the United Nations itself. You're neutralizing the very organization that gives you a vote on the Security Council. It's very destructive. You've got to stop doing that. But he doesn't call them out. Why doesn't he call them out? See, arguably he's one of, even if I have to say it, he's not an active or very effective Secretary General as yet in his first term. So, you know, he did not have the motivation or you say the jest zest to bring in action against Ukraine when we saw such bloodshed, the entire world was cringing. It had to be the United Nations. It can be no other. There is no excuse for staying back and watching. You're an intergovernmental organization, the sole intergovernmental organization. You have to take action to be relevant. If you don't take action and then after not taking action in the Ukraine war, you come up with climate change. How effective does that look? If you take good action in Ukraine, then you have the promise of keeping your climate change goals. But if you don't do anything in Ukraine and you write a fancy utopian letter about climate change, it will not make an impact on the world. The world will not believe you because we have seen bloodshed. So, the world demands action from the UN and that is necessary. How did it happen that the responsibility to protect was implemented so effectively and so hastily in Libya, but not when it came to protecting civilians in Ukraine? How come it doesn't happen effectively? Effectiveness is the key. And if you're not an effective leader, then your organization becomes redundant. Yes, totally. Unless we forget the role or the lack of the role that the United Nations played in COVID. And COVID, as you mentioned before the show, is not over. We're having new variants every day. One thing in another and then new viruses, who knows what. And there's no better, just as with invasions and violations of sovereignty, there's no better organization in the world to deal with world health than the United Nations and the World Health Organization. There's no better organization to deal with war crimes and so forth. I mean, I give you all the global issues that are threatening us today. There's no better organization than the United Nations. So, it's nice that this resolution passed, but even you as queen would have a lot of trouble in implementing it for the lack of funding and for the lack of collaboration among the members of the United Nations. I want to call out the members who abstain. These people abstain from a 50-year effort at declaring a human right in clean environment. So, let's see. As you mentioned, China and Russia, why would they abstain and not support a resolution declaring this as a human right? Is there a good reason for that? Are they just being bad kids on the block? Firstly, this resolution was not being allowed to come in by the US and Russia. Okay. Now, 193 members in the sole intergovernmental organization that our world has, the UN, and 161 vote for conditional votes. I told you they have taken objections to the CBDR. They are saying first, sort it out, then we will give you the 100% backing. And eight were abstainees from this. So, Belarus, Russia, China, Ethiopia, Iran, Kyrgyzstan, and Syria. These people who are like they abstain. And so, when we come to the abstentions, we can say that these are either countries who are not conducive to the perspective of human rights mechanisms in the world. They are the antagonistic to human rights mechanisms entering their countries. And secondly, oil and gas producing, and thirdly for their industrial development. So, there is no clear cut reason for the abstentions because it's not like I mentioned, it's not a legally binding resolution. It has just made power transferred to the citizens that they can demand from the government that this is my right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment. I want to fight for it. And he can continue fighting for decades and decades and decades. That's the only thing. There is no legal obligation on the governments to do it. There's a moral obligation unless they include it in the legal frameworks. Now, we have to have the entire, why this has caused problems because you have to have environmental agreements come under international human rights mechanisms. So, if your environment right is not given to you, can you go into a court of law and demand it? That is the mechanism that has to come into play. So, for that infrastructure to develop or for that mindset to develop that I have to, I can call on the courts if my environmental right is denied or I'm given an unhealthy environment to stay in is a change of lifestyle, a change of perspective, a change, it's going to require time. Another 50 years? Oh, I think in another 50 years we won't have clean water. Our forests will be destroyed. There'll be floods everywhere and deserts. In another 50 years, billions of people will lose their lives to any number of things that emanate from climate changing, including more viruses. This is serious. What do they say? We forgot already, that it's an existential threat to humanity. Here are modern nations with scientists and academia all telling them about the threat of climate change, and yet they vote against the resolution. Here are countries like, and the one that really strikes me is Cambodia. Hasn't Cambodia been hard enough on its people? Why doesn't Cambodia come around? It's an independent nation. Can it support climate change? Action against climate change? I do not understand actually why some of these countries would have done that. And so I surmise a couple of things. I surmise that they have relations with China and Russia, and China and Russia have twisted their arm on some economic basis or manipulated their government in some way or propagandised their public opinion. And as a result, they can't get their act together on even making a non-binding statement of support for the environment. How true do you think that might be? Is this a matter of China and Russia influencing these other abstaining countries? Yeah, maybe they just don't want to come and attend and get booed at in the General Assembly halls. So they abstain. When they enter the General Assembly halls, they're getting booed to such a large extent that they refuse to enter discussions, because Ukraine still hangs on neck. People don't like it. People are going to make a show of their displeasure. And for that, they did not come. They told their friends, hey, you also don't go abstain from it. So it's okay. They don't value these things. If they don't value international law for war and politics, how do you expect them to follow the law on climate? A proposed statement on climate, not law, statement on climate. And you remember the thing tech Hawaii, the film, the movie which you all had shot about climate change and pandemics. It was such a fact based fact based production that climate change is going to affect pandemics and pandemics is going to affect standard of life. So we have everything intermingling interlinked. So any global good or global issue is called global because there is no isolation. Everything is linked. And for linked issues, you have to have community based resolutions. And we have a weak community house so without an effective leader. So we need America to step up and take up the world order in such a way that they implement this funding equitably and effectively. Oh, yes. But you know, Trump was going just the other way. And I'm sure that people in the General Assembly are worried that if Trump is ever elected again or anybody like him is elected again, they will find the rug pulled out from the United Nations completely and from the liberal world order. So we're at risk now. We're at an inflection point in terms of global history. So I ask you what can be done. I know you covered this in your book, but what can be done to reform the United Nations? It is really critical. Sure, a strong leader, a strong Secretary General can get up there and say, what's wrong with you guys? You know, are you voting against humanity this way? But there's also the notion perhaps of reorganizing the whole organization and saying, look, if you don't want to play ball on human rights, if you want to play ball on saving the world from existential threats that will kill billions of people, get out. Take a walk, take a hike. We're going to make another United Nations and it won't include you. That way we can get things done. What about that possibility, buddy? You're right, Jay. I mean, the reform starts at the power structure of the United Nations. The infrastructure is there. We have headquarters in every continent. We have staff which is pledging from country to country from nationality to nationality, gender equal. Everything is present, but you have to have power politics which implements and collective power is always more effective than singular alliances, bilateral alliances. So when you have 193 countries coming together in this platform, use it. The leadership is lacking, but we saw that when they use responsibility to protect, they could garner armed forces to reinforce an issue to remove a dictator to change a regime. They can do that to protect civilians. They can do that for climate change. They can do that for the United Nations is capable of tackling every issue, but the resolution doesn't have to be in words. It has to be in action. So that's the difference, Jay. Well, I would like to continue this conversation with you because I come to feel that although there are renegades and negative power structures in the United Nations, conceptually it is our best hope. I guess all countries have elements that are self-interested. All countries have economic issues, and if there's one organization that can look after humanity in general, it is the United Nations. But we have to throw out or neutralize countries who don't want to protect the world. It's very clear from this vote that there are countries that don't want to protect the world and they don't belong in the United Nations. And so there needs to be a mechanism to restructure that geopolitical power you talk about, and we'll get a lot further that way. And I am hoping that the United Nations can be saved. And so I would like to have further discussions with you about that problem and the solution and how it's doing and why it's so important. Ruvmati, it's always great to talk to you. Let me offer you the opportunity of leaving a message without viewers. What would you want them to think about along these lines on these issues? Thank you so much, Jay. Always a pleasure. You know that. And we can say that climate change is inevitable and affects our universe. So our actions have to be collective to get effective resolutions to these problems. So we all have to... Let's go, Jay. One more issue to tackle. So that's the way to go for it, Jay. Okay. Next time soon, Dr. Ruvmati Kandekar is so productive and prolific in writing books and in dealing with all the issues that are of global moment. We really appreciate your appearance on the show. Thank you. Thank you so much. Aloha. Thank you so much for watching Think Tech Hawaii. If you like what we do, please like us and click the subscribe button on YouTube and the follow button on Vimeo. You can also follow us on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and LinkedIn, and donate to us at thinktechhawaii.com. Mahalo.