Global Youth to Japan’s Aso: Set Strong 2020 Climate Targets

At Major Economies Forum, Climate Campaigners Respond to Polluters’ Lobbying Efforts, Calling On Japanese PM Aso to be a Climate Hero

(Paris)— Youth leaders and members of global advocacy group Avaaz.org today launched an international effort aimed at persuading Japanese Prime Minister Taro Aso to lead by example with a tough target to combat climate change.

The campaign is designed to ratchet up pressure on Japan ahead of a 2020 emissions reduction target announcement expected from Mr Aso within weeks, in the face of a massive lobbying effort by polluting Japanese corporations, and was launched to coincide with this week’s meeting of the Major Economies Forum (MEF) in Paris, France. Youth leaders from xx countries gathered with hundreds of Avaaz members outside the forum with a giant image of Japanese PM Taro Aso behind bars, calling on him to be a climate hero, not a “climate criminal.”

“We are asking Prime Minister Aso to take a stand - to tell polluting industries that the free ride is over and show that one of the world’s strongest economies is going to position itself as a leader in the battle against climate change,” said Avaaz.org Executive Director Ricken Patel. “The Japanese government’s ‘public consultation’ process around the 2020 targets has been practically stage-managed by polluting corporations. Japan must understand that giving in to polluters now will do immense harm to its reputation as a good global citizen.”

“Japan is a very important player on the global stage, and the impact of this decision extends well beyond its borders. Japan can demonstrate international leadership by taking on bold targets for our planet and start creating a new green economy with good, high-paying jobs in Japan – or it can choose to put the global climate talks in peril. In 1997, Japan was rightly proud to serve as the parent of the first global climate change treaty – what became known as the Kyoto Protocol. Mr Aso must not let the birthplace of Kyoto become the graveyard of Copenhagen”, said Mr Patel.

“Scientists tell us rich countries must cut carbon emissions a minimum of 25 percent to stop catatrophic climate change that could cost countless human lives.” said Australian youth leader Anna Keenan, who led the rally. “To recklessly ignore this warning is nothing short of criminal. That’s why we are urging Mr Aso to honour the legacy of Kyoto by adopting a 25%-40% or higher target for GHG reductions in Japan. Anything less would be unacceptable to the world’s youth and future generations, who will bear the burden of shortsighted, irresponsible decisions made today.”

Nepal’s Faltering Peace Process

Despite successful elections and a lasting military ceasefire, Nepal’s peace process is facing its most severe tests yet.

Nepal’s Faltering Peace Process,* the latest report from the International Crisis Group, examines the fragile state of Nepal’s peace process. Ten months after the elections, the constitution-writing process is finally getting underway, but major parts of the peace deal remain unimplemented. Impunity is rife, and public security alarmingly weak. The consensus underlying the process has frayed, relationships between the parties are increasingly acrimonious, and fundamental elements of the deal are being challenged. Key political players, particularly the governing Maoists and the opposition Nepali Congress (NC), urgently need to rebuild consensus on the way forward.

“The Maoists must take the first steps to restore trust by proving their commitment to non-violence and political pluralism”, says Rhoderick Chalmers, Crisis Group’s South Asia Deputy Project Director. “In turn, their opponents should offer constructive criticism within the framework of the peace process rather than spoiling for its own sake”.

The Maoist-led administration’s first six months have been frustrating, with the government’s achievements overshadowed by poorly handled controversies. The Maoists’ longer-term intentions remain suspect, their strong-arm tactics still allied to a revolutionary strategy aimed at a people’s republic. There is little unity of effort or intent among their coalition partners and the opposition NC is in organisational and political disarray. The established parties have yet to face up to the need for reform to counter their poor past record, become more representative and reconnect with voters.

Very different interests and positions remain to be bridged – a task that is possible but that cannot be wished away with over-optimistic language. Heightened tensions between the Maoists and the Nepalese Army underline the urgency of tackling the future of the security sector. Issues such as the implementation of federalism will generate intense debate. Addressing these challenges is the job of Nepal’s leaders. But the international community must recognise the fragility of the process and be prepared to stick with it.

International actors have played important roles in promoting peace and now need to maintain consistent pressure on all parties to live up to their commitments and encourage them to face the threats to peace. Allowing parts of the peace agreements to drift into abeyance will put the entire process at risk.

“A successfully completed peace process could have broad positive effects for the Nepalese people and for the region”, says Robert Templer, Crisis Group’s Asia Program Director. “The need is for carefully targeted assistance and political pressure”.

Foreign investment dispute resolution mechanisms ill-prepared to deal with HR impacts

A growing number of disputes between foreign investors and host governments are being determined within a closed, often secretive web of judicial tribunals that are ill-equipped to deal with the human rights impacts of investment projects. This is the main finding of a new report released today by Right & Democracy (the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development), entitled Bilateral Investment Treaties and Human Rights: Mapping the role of human rights law within investor-state arbitration.

The report, which is the result of a two-year research initiative by Rights & Democracy, describes the foreign investment protection regime as a maze of more than 2600 bilateral investment treaties and free-trade agreements designed to protect investors and their assets. While the agreements place strict legal restrictions on what actions can be taken by host governments, they impose no limits and confer no responsibilities on investors, even with respect to the protection of human rights.

Through a review of recent and current investment treaty dispute proceedings, chief researcher and author Luke Peterson describes in the report how some investors have invoked human rights jurisprudence to support their claims against governments. Conversely, there is only one example – revealed here for the first time – in which a respondent host-government has presented human rights arguments in its defence against the company claims.

"No one doubts that investment and the arbitration of investment disputes have direct implications for the human rights of people living in the project area," said Carole Samdup, Senior Advisor, Economic and Social Rights at Rights & Democracy. "But governments have an obligation to protect their people from human rights violations, even if those violations result from foreign investment projects. Signing investment treaties should not interfere with that obligation."