Summary:
Australian Prime Minister Albanese said on Sunday that he wrote to Turkish President Erdogan to resolve a conflict (and “win”) regarding who would host COP31, which operates under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). COP31 is now set to happen in 2026, but it’s important to note that this disagreement has resulted in its delay, especially because the two countries were supposed to have decided who’d host by June 2025 and have had since 2022 to do so. Additionally, the Australian government has noted how there’s no actual selection process for the host, just a consensual agreement. Australia also highlighted how a bloc of 18 Pacific countries are backing them, because whoever hosts COP31 automatically has an advantage and unspoken prioritization.
Analysis:
This article’s important because it highlights the significance of geopolitics. The COP resulted in things like the Paris Agreement. Hosting it is an advantage that increases a state’s soft power because it allows the host to assume leadership & a greater role on the international stage, direct global and national attention to the varying effects of climate change, and it often leads to much-needed domestic reform. It makes sense for two countries who need to address climate change (albeit for varying reasons) to have this desire. While this conflict won’t negatively impact the world in terms of war or extreme conflict, it’ll cause tension between the two countries, because they’re both experiencing issues, but there’s no way of objectively determining which one’s more critical as everything is interdependent. It makes more sense for Australia to host it, since the Pacific country faces more negative effects of CC; they’ll also be representing neighboring states with similar climates, which is more than what Turkey claims. The outcome of this conflict will have a lasting impact as whatever agreement comes out of it will impact all signing entities, but it’ll also indirectly suggest which of the two holds more global influence.
Stakeholder Involvement:
Important stakeholders of this situation include the media, IGOs, NGOs, and neighboring states. Having the media as such a prominent stakeholder could be bad because they tend to turn minor disagreements into horse-race politics (about who has more soft power), which could turn a disagreement into long-term tension. Also, IGOs like the UN are the whole reason the COP exists. The NGOs ensure that the various interests of differing demographics are fully represented during the decision making process; an example of an NGO pertinent to the situation would be Climate Action Australia. Neighboring states are also an important stakeholder here as demonstrated by the Pacific Islands Forum, who have a deep interest in this disagreement, because having Australia host would ensure that their best interests are at the forefront of said negotiations.
Class Connection:
This quintessential article displays a question: how can we balance diplomacy with the responsibility of representing our constituents? This article connects to terms like states, soft power, relational power (which can be classified as soft power in this scenario), balance of power, diplomacy, multilateral treaties, etc.