The United Nations: A toothless tiger in the face of global atrocities

The veto power of the five permanent members of the UN has been used to shield aggressors from accountability for decades and has prevented the organization from applying its founding principles.

By Fareed Khan 

A version of this article can also be found on Substack.

  
As the 23rd month of Israel’s genocide against Palestinians in Gaza approaches, the United Nations (UN), created in 1945 to prevent such atrocities and uphold global peace, stands exposed as a hollow institution, unable to do the job for which it was created. In a Harvard published study based on Israeli military data, Israeli academic Yaakov Garb estimates that 377,000 to 400,000 Palestinians are missing and presumed dead. This catastrophic loss of life underscores the UN’s abject failure to enforce its own Charter and conventions, particularly the Genocide Convention, which obligates states to prevent and punish the crime of genocide.

The veto power of the five permanent UN  Security Council (UNSC) members—the United States, Russia, China, the United Kingdom, and France—paralyzes the UN, allowing powerful nations and their allies to perpetrate international crimes with impunity. The UN’s inability to halt state-sponsored aggression, exemplified by Israel’s genocide in Gaza, mirrors the collapse of the League of Nations’ in the 1930s, when it failed to curb Japan, Italy, and Germany’s violations of international law. Global political and economic conditions today echo circumstances of the 1930s—a deteriorating geopolitical situation and economic turmoil. In this context, and the UN’s historic inability to reign in its members when they have committed genocidal crimes (Rwanda, Rohingya, Uyghurs), the UN’s structural flaws render it irrelevant in confronting atrocities committed by states like Israel.

The UN’s structural paralysis: The veto power

The UN Security Council, tasked with maintaining international peace, is hamstrung by the veto power of its five permanent members (P5). This mechanism, originally meant to ensure great power consensus, has instead been used to shield aggressors from accountability, including the five permanent members themselves. American scholar Stephen Zunes, who specializes in Middle-East politics and US foreign policy, argues that the violations of UNSC resolutions by the US and its allies are in breach of the UN Charter and Geneva Conventions, and demonstrate the double standards used in selectively enforcing resolutions against American adversaries but not its allies. Since the 1970s the US has vetoed over 50 resolutions critical of Israel, repeatedly blocking UN intervention in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Russia and China have similarly vetoed resolutions targeting their allies, preventing action, as in the case of Syria during its civil war.  This echoes the League of Nations’ failure to enforce sanctions against Japan’s 1931 invasion of Manchuria or Italy’s 1935 conquest of Ethiopia, where weak responses emboldened aggressors.

Gaza: A case study in UN failure

Israel’s actions in Gaza since October 2023 exemplify the UN’s impotence. A 2024 UN Special Committee report found that Israel’s warfare, including mass civilian casualties, starvation policies, and destruction of infrastructure, is “consistent with the characteristics of genocide.” The report documented over 52,535 deaths by May 2025, with 70% being women and children, and notes Israel’s deliberate obstruction of humanitarian aid. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued provisional measures in January 2024, ordering Israel to prevent genocidal acts, but Israel has ignored these rulings without consequence. The UN General Assembly has also passed resolutions calling for a ceasefire, but US vetoes in the Security Council render them unenforceable. The role of the US veto in preventing the implementation of a UN backed ceasefire has allowed Israel’s genocide of Palestinians to continue, while the world and the UN are powerless to act.

This mirrors the League of Nations’ failure to counter Italy’s invasion of Ethiopia, where symbolic sanctions excluded critical oil exports due to great power resistance. UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese’s 2024 report, Anatomy of a Genocide, argues that Israel’s actions meet the legal threshold for genocide, yet the UN’s inaction “emboldens further violations.” The UN’s failure to enforce ICJ rulings or provide humanitarian protection in Gaza, due opposition by a member of the P5, highlights its inability to confront powerful states or their allies, a systemic flaw rooted in the veto power.

Historical parallels to the League of Nations

The UN’s continual failures recalls the League of Nations’ collapse in the 1930s. While the League was established to prevent aggression by its members it lacked enforcement mechanisms and relied on great power consensus, a situation similar to that facing the UN. Japan’s 1931 invasion of Manchuria prompted a League investigation, and when the report was tabled it condemned the actions of the Japanese.  The conclusions of the report, which the Japanese delegation rejected, resulted in Japan withdrawing from the organization. Similarly, the League was ineffective in resolving the crisis around Italy’s 1935 invasion of Ethiopia.  The military campaign was marked by the use of chemical weapons and civilian massacres, and was met with weak sanctions, which were undermined by France and Britain’s appeasement policies. The inability of the League to enforce international law was amplified when Nazi Germany annexed Austria and parts of Czechoslovakia, further exposing the organization’s impotence, paving the way for World War II. The League’s inability to act against aggressors not only emboldened further aggression but also rendered it useless at preserving international political stability, a dynamic replicated in the UN’s paralysis today.

The UN’s inability to confront P5 members or their allies mirrors the failures of the League of Nations in the 1930s. Today the US veto shields Israel from accountability over its crimes against Palestinians, just as Britain and France protected Italy in the 1930s. Russia’s vetoes block action on its aggression in Ukraine, where over 13,800 civilians have been killed since 2022. China’s vetoes prevent scrutiny of its abuses against Uyghur Muslims, labelled crimes against humanity by Amnesty International. While India’s policies in Kashmir, including mass detentions and extrajudicial killings since 2019, have been described as potential crimes against humanity.  And yet the UN fails to act due to a systemic flaw where crimes are committed with impunity due to the veto power of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council.

Beyond Gaza: A pattern of impunity

Of course the UN’s failures extend beyond Gaza. The US-led war in Iraq, based on lies about weapons of mass destruction, resulted in close to 300,000 dead, with some putting the death toll at over 900,000.  The actions of the US and its allies destabilized the region and resulted in the rise of the “Islamic state”, and yet the UN imposed no sanctions. The 2011 NATO intervention in Libya, authorized by the UN under the Responsibility to Protect doctrine (R2P), exceeded its mandate, leading to that nation becoming a failed state and an incubator for terrorist groups. Furthermore, in Yemen, air strikes by Saudi Arabia, backed by the US since 2015, caused over 377,000 civilian deaths, with no UN action against either nation.

Additionally, China’s imprisonment of over one million Uyghurs in concentration camps, involving forced labour and sterilization, has been documented by a 2022 UN report, but China’s veto power blocks Security Council action on the matter. In the South China Sea, China’s militarization of disputed islands and creation of islands in contested waters, violates the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, yet the UN has issued no sanctions. 

The ongoing decline of the UN is furthered when repressive governments around the world see leading democracies violate the rights of their own citizens.  Such actions result in leaders of anti-democratic nations justifying their own repressive measures and weakening the international laws and institutions under the UN meant to protect human rights.

Historical failures: Rwanda, Bosnia, and the Rohingya

When it comes to failures the UN’s track record includes a list of crises where lives and societies have been destroyed. The 1994 Rwandan genocide, which killed over 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus, occurred despite the presence of UN peacekeepers, with the Security Council refusing intervention due to veto threats. The 1995 Srebrenica massacre, where over 8,000 Bosniak men and boys were killed under UN watch, also exposed the organization’s inability to protect civilians. And the Rohingya crisis in Myanmar, with over 700,000 displaced since 2017, has seen no effective UN response despite ICJ rulings. Former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan admitted these failures stem from a lack of political will, a view echoed by genocide scholar Gregory Stanton (founder of Genocide Watch), who blames the UN’s paralysis on an unwillingness by P5 nations to give power to the UN that might end up being used against them at some point.

The human cost and moral imperative

The human toll of the UN’s inaction is staggering. In Gaza, entire family lines have been erased, and communities have been wiped off the map, with hospitals, schools, and homes reduced to rubble. Survivors face starvation and disease orchestrated by Israel, with no safe haven. The psychological trauma on children, who constitute nearly half of Gaza’s population, will reverberate for generations to come. Similarly, in Ukraine, Uyghur camps, and Kashmir, millions suffer under the UN’s gaze, their pleas for justice going unanswered. The UN’s failure to act not only betrays its founding principles but also erodes trust in international institutions, fuelling global instability.

A path forward: Reform or replacement

The UN’s inability to prevent atrocities stems from its structural flaws and lack of enforcement power, which is a direct result of the P5 veto. Reform proposals have included limiting the veto through the 1950 Uniting for Peace resolution, which allows the General Assembly to act when the Security Council is paralyzed. A General Conference under Article 109 could amend the veto system, though P5 resistance makes this challenging. Alternatively, an international police force under the International Criminal Court could execute arrest warrants for atrocity crimes, bypassing Security Council gridlock. Regional organizations, like the African Union or the Organization of American States, could also assume greater responsibility for conflict prevention, reducing reliance on a paralyzed UN.

Without reform, the UN risks becoming a relic, and go the way of the League of Nations. The crisis in Gaza, where the UN has failed to enforce ICJ rulings or protect civilians, underscores this urgency. The international order championed by Western nations lies in tatters, as a direct result of their actions, as the UN stands by while powerful states commit atrocities. To fulfill its promise of preventing war and genocide, the UN must evolve into an institution capable of holding all nations accountable, regardless of their power.

© 2025 The View From Here. © 2025 Fareed Khan. All Rights Reserved.

The forgotten genocide: The Rohingya crisis and the world’s divided attention

The Rohingya, once at the forefront of global humanitarian concern, have seen their plight fade from the international spotlight, leaving them with few advocates as Myanmar’s military and the Arakan Army continue their relentless campaign of ethnic cleansing.

 

By Fareed Khan

  

Eight years ago, in August 2017, a crisis erupted in Myanmar’s Rakhine State, thrusting the plight of the Rohingya, a stateless Muslim minority, into global focus. What began as targeted violence escalated into a genocide, as determined by the United Nations in 2018. But the roots of the genocide go back to the 1980s.

In 1982, the Rohingya, a Muslim minority in predominantly Buddhist Myanmar, were stripped of their citizenship under the government’s 1982 Citizenship Law, rendering them stateless and laying the foundation for decades of systemic persecution and oppression. This act of legal erasure marked the beginning of a slow-burning genocide, one that has unfolded over 40 years through waves of violence, displacement, and erasure. Despite brief moments of global attention, the Rohingya crisis has faded from the world’s consciousness, overshadowed by other conflicts. While the ongoing genocide in Gaza demands urgent attention, the international community must acknowledge its capacity to address multiple human rights crises simultaneously.

Under the 1982 law, the Rohingya were denied recognition as one of Myanmar’s ethnic groups, branding them as “Bengali” outsiders despite more than eleven centuries of residence in Rakhine State. This legal disenfranchisement fuelled state-sanctioned discrimination, restricting their access to education, healthcare, and freedom of movement. Over the decades, the Myanmar military orchestrated periodic pogroms, each more brutal than the last, aimed at ethnically cleansing the Rohingya from the country. By 2017, the Rohingya population in Myanmar stood at approximately 1.3 million, but the violence that erupted that year would drastically alter this number.

In August 2017, the Myanmar military launched a ferocious assault on the Rohingya, triggered by attacks on police by the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA). The response was disproportionate and genocidal, marked by mass murders, gang rapes of Rohingya women, babies killed in front of their parents, summary executions, and the razing of hundreds of Rohingya villages.

Over 700,000 Rohingya fled to Bangladesh, joining earlier waves of refugees to form the world’s largest refugee camp in Cox’s Bazar, now home to over 1.2 million people. The United Nations and human rights organizations documented these atrocities, with the UN’s 2018 Independent Fact-Finding Mission concluding that the military’s actions constituted genocide, calling for prosecution at the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Canada showed leadership

Canada emerged as a leader in the response to the crisis, with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau appointing Bob Rae as Special Envoy to Myanmar in October 2017. Rae’s 2018 report, "Tell Them We’re Human", outlined 17 recommendations, including humanitarian aid, diplomatic pressure, and accountability measures. That year, Canada committed $300 million over three years (2018–2021) to support Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh and displaced populations in Myanmar.

As part of Canada’s response to the crisis, in September 2018, Canada’s House of Commons unanimously declared the Myanmar military’s actions a genocide, a bold step that also saw the revocation of Aung San Suu Kyi’s honorary Canadian citizenship due to her complicity in the atrocities. Canadian news outlets lauded these moves, with The Guardian in the UK reporting Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland’s commitment to “justice and accountability” for the Rohingya.

Yet, even as Canada took these steps, the international community’s focus began to wane. There was a rise in international attention when on November 11, 2019 Gambia filed a genocide case against Myanmar at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), under the Genocide Convention. Canada announced its intent to intervene in the case in 2020 and again in 2022, but didn’t follow through. No formal intervention materialized until November 2023, when Canada joined Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands, and the UK in a joint declaration, a delay that frustrated advocates like the Rohingya Human Rights Network in Canada (RHRN), which has repeatedly called for stronger Canadian action, noting in 2020 that Canada’s leadership was crucial but incomplete without concrete steps like increased support for refugees in the camps and for Gambia’s genocide case at the ICJ.

A deteriorating situation and waning attention

By 2021, the situation in Myanmar deteriorated further with a military coup that deposed the civilian government, intensifying violence against the Rohingya. The remaining 600,000 Rohingya in Myanmar faced starvation, internment, and attacks from both the military and the Arakan Army, a Rakhine militia. In June 2022, Canada announced a second phase of its strategy, committing $288.3 million from 2021 to 2024 to support Rohingya refugees and crisis-affected populations. However, no new funding has been announced since, leaving humanitarian aid for the 1.2 million Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh critically underfunded according to the United Nations

Canadian news coverage of the Rohingya crisis, robust in 2017–2018, dwindled by 2022, and is practically non-existent today as other crises dominate the news headlines. Additionally, human rights organizations have noted Canada’s diminished interest in the plight of the Rohingya, highlighting the lack of a new special envoy after Rae’s departure in 2020.

The parallels between the plight of the two peoples are stark. Both the Rohingya and Palestinians face systematic ethnic cleansing, mass displacement, and targeted violence against civilians. In Gaza, Israel’s military campaign has killed more than 70,000, displaced millions, and destroyed a society, drawing global condemnation. Euromed Human Rights Monitor, a Geneva-based NGO, has called the Gaza crisis "the most transparent genocide in history". The Rohingya, like Palestinians, endure daily atrocities—starvation in Rakhine camps, attacks by the Arakan Army, and a lack of safe return options—yet their plight does not garner the same attention it did several years ago.

The international community’s focus on Gaza, while justified, reveals a troubling limitation—the assumption that global attention is a zero-sum game. The Rohingya’s fading visibility underscores this, as international aid to Cox’s Bazar has plummeted since 2020, with the UN reporting a 2023 funding shortfall of over 50% for the Rohingya Joint Response Plan. In a March 2023 statement, Doctors Without Borders noted that global indifference and under-funding will leave the Rohingya refugees in squalid conditions, reliant on overstretched humanitarian agencies, and will result in malnutrition and outbreaks of deadly diseases. Canada’s initial leadership—its 2018 and 2021 aid packages, limited sanctions, and genocide recognition—has not been sustained, with no new special envoy appointed and resettlement efforts stalled.

The Rohingya community in Canada is very small at just under 1,000 people, with only a few hundred resettled here since 2017, a minute fraction when compared to the more then 225,000 Ukrainian refugees accepted since 2022, or the more than 100,000 Syrian refugees resettled since 2015.

Next steps

So what can Canada do today?

First, Canada can demonstrate that the global community has the ability to address multiple crises simultaneously. The Rohingya genocide, like Gaza’s, meets the UN Genocide Convention’s criteria—systematic intent to destroy a group via mass murder, displacement, and cultural erasure. It requires accountability, more humanitarian aid, and stronger diplomatic pressure. Canada can lead by example by appointing a new special envoy to coordinate Canadian efforts for the Rohingya.

Second, given the significant shortfall in funding for humanitarian aid for Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh, Canada should play its part in supporting UN aid efforts at levels similar to what it did in 2018 and 2021. It is a small price to pay to maintain stability in the region.

Additionally, Canada can revisit refugee resettlement efforts. It’s 2018 offer to take in vulnerable Rohingya, including rape survivors, was rebuffed by Bangladesh at the time. But the political situation there has changed with the previous government ousted, and renewed efforts by Canada with the new Bangladeshi leadership could make resettlement of Rohingya refugees a reality.

Finally, with Gambia's ICJ case still ongoing Canada has a chance to show leadership there by providing robust support to Gambia's legal team. On the basis of the November 2023 joint statement Canada can commit its own legal resources and funds to try and speed up the process at the ICJ given that it is now six years since Gambia filed its genocide case and there has seemingly been little progress. Justice delayed is justice denied. Canadian efforts to expedite the proceedings would bring the Rohingya closer to getting justice.

The Rohingya, once at the forefront of global humanitarian concern, have seen their plight fade from the international spotlight, leaving them with few advocates as Myanmar’s military and the Arakan Army continue their relentless campaign of ethnic cleansing. Canada, which demonstrated leadership in 2018 by recognizing the genocide and committing significant aid, has the opportunity to reclaim its role as a champion of justice.

The parallels between the Rohingya’s suffering and the ongoing violence in Gaza, where systematic destruction continues, underscore the need for a sustained, collective response any time the horrors of genocide are taking place. By acting decisively for the Rohingya, Canada can overcome the shame of failing to act to help the Palestinians and show that its seeming commitment to the "international rule of law" is more than rhetoric. However, whether Canada’s leaders possess the moral resolve to live up to their proclaimed role as defenders of the international order remains uncertain, as their actions will ultimately define their legacy in confronting these atrocities.

© 2025 The View From Here. © 2025 Fareed Khan. All Rights Reserved.

Prospect of war looms if world's largest economies fail to act aggressively to address climate change

The International Court of Justice’s ruling on climate change recognized that it poses an immediate and far-reaching threat to people around the world and has implications for the full enjoyment of human rights. 

  

By Fareed Khan 

  

Twenty-two years ago, the Pentagon’s Office of Net Assessment, a highly regarded internal think tank, sounded an alarm that reverberated through US defence circles. Its 2003 report, An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security, warned that climate change could surpass terrorism as a national security threat by 2008, driven by abrupt climate shifts that would trigger resource scarcity, mass migration, and widespread conflict.

 

The report drew on studies of prehistoric weather patterns and the ocean’s thermohaline circulation, which regulates global climate by distributing warm and cold currents. It cautioned that rapid polar ice melt would release vast amounts of freshwater, disrupting ocean salinity and slowing the ocean currents which regulate weather patterns, leading to catastrophic changes like violent storms, and rising sea levels. The impact of such changes would affect low lying coastal regions most dramatically, and could result in Siberia-like winters in Europe and North America, alongside droughts and shortened growing seasons in key agricultural regions, resulting in political and economic instability around the world. Though the report’s most extreme timeline predictions have not fully materialized, its scientific foundation remains robust, and its warnings about climate-driven insecurity are now unfolding with alarming clarity.

 

 

On July 23, 2025, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) amplified these concerns with a landmark advisory opinion, declaring that a state’s failure to take decisive action against climate change could constitute an “internationally wrongful act”, and potentially a crime against humanity. The court underscored the gravity of the situation as “an existential problem of planetary proportions that imperils all forms of life and the very health of our planet.” The unanimous ruling by the court’s 15 judges affirmed that a “clean, healthy, and sustainable environment” is a human right, establishing a legal framework that could hold nations accountable for environmental harm caused by their actions or inaction.

 

The court further recognized that climate change poses an “immediate and far-reaching threat to people and communities around the world and has implications for the full enjoyment of human rights.” This 130-page opinion is a clarion call for states to align their policies with international obligations to curb greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, reinforcing the Pentagon’s foresight that climate change is a global security issue with far-reaching consequences for all nations.

 

Today, the predictions of the 2003 report are no longer speculative—they are unfolding before our eyes. The World Meteorological Organization confirmed 2024 as the hottest year on record, with global temperatures approximately 1.55°C above pre-industrial levels. Extreme weather events—scorching heatwaves, devastating floods, massive wildfires, and intensified hurricanes and typhoons—are becoming more frequent and severe, causing more deaths and more physical damage year after year. 

 

For instance, in 2024 Hurricane Helene devastated coastal and inland communities in the United States, with studies attributing its catastrophic impact to climate change. In Asia, typhoons and floods displaced nearly eight million people in 2024, while in South Sudan, four consecutive years of flooding submerged two-thirds of the country, exacerbating a hunger crises. Wildfires have also surged, with the western United States experiencing a 500% increase in burned areas between 1972 and 2018, and similar trends observed in Canada, Europe, and Australia. These events have released millions of tons of CO² into the atmosphere, creating a feedback loop that intensifies global warming and heightens security risks worldwide.

 

Poorer nations, which contribute the least to global GHG emissions, face the most severe consequences, their national security threats amplified, with little recourse to address them. In Sudan, decades of droughts, rainfall variability, and desertification have driven 15 million people into severe hunger, with climate shocks compounding regional conflict. In Bangladesh, a 2024 flood affected over 18 million, with more than 1.2 million people trapped by flash flooding in eastern and south-eastern parts of the country, underscoring the vulnerability of low-lying regions to rising sea levels and extreme weather events. These nations already grapple with food and water insecurity, mass displacement, and heightened conflict over dwindling resources. The added crises of climate related catastrophes is something beyond their ability to address on their own.

 

There is also the fact that climate change acts as a “threat multiplier,” intensifying existing conflicts and creating complex humanitarian crises. By 2040, extreme climate hazards are projected to include a third of the planet’s nations, with most hosting displaced populations, posing security challenges for themselves and their neighbours.

 

As climate-driven instability grows, richer regions and nations—North America, Europe, Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand—are likely to adopt a fortress mentality to protect their resources and borders, a scenario envisioned by the Pentagon report.  It warned that wealthier nations would eventually face an influx of millions of climate refugees from Africa, Asia, and South America, and that by 2050, climate change could push 158 million more women and girls into poverty, and 236 million into hunger, fuelling migration from vulnerable regions. In response, richer nations may fortify their borders, as seen in debates over migration in the US and various European countries, where climate-driven displacement is already a factor amplifying security concerns.

 

The potential for military conflict escalates as resource scarcity intensifies, a risk the Pentagon identified. The US intelligence community’s 2021 National Intelligence Estimate pinpointed 11 countries, including Afghanistan, India, and Pakistan, as particularly vulnerable to climate-induced instability. Competition over fresh water, food, and energy could spark conflicts or even societal collapse, particularly in regions like the Middle East and North Africa, where water scarcity and extreme heat already strains societies. In Jordan, population growth and refugee influxes from neighbouring countries already exacerbates water shortages, while Saudi Arabia faces the prospect of diminishing aquifers affecting fresh water availability, and rising sea levels threatening coastal cities.

 

The Pentagon’s report also warned of nuclear proliferation as “have-not” nations with technical know how develop nuclear weapons to secure resources or coerce aid or resources from their neighbours or wealthier countries. Such scenarios are plausible, with Egypt’s president hinting at military action over Nile River water disputes with Ethiopia, a situation exacerbated by climate change, highlighting the global security stakes.

 

The ICJ’s ruling offers a legal framework to hold nations accountable, but its effectiveness is uncertain when major powers flout international law elsewhere. The ongoing genocide in Gaza, labelled by the United Nations, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch as a genocide, underscores this hypocrisy, as states fail to uphold their obligations, under the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the Genocide Convention, to prevent and punish criminal acts. If nations like Israel, the US or China evade accountability for atrocities such as crimes against humanity and genocide, who is to say that they will prioritize climate action when their own economic interests are at stake?

 

The ruling also arrives at a time when global cooperation on climate action is faltering. Nations like Canada, the US, Australia and Russia—major GHG producers on a per capita basis—have consistently failed to meet their emissions reduction targets, undermining the Paris Agreement’s goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. Furthermore, Canadian prime minister Mark Carney and American president Donald Trump have proposed policies to expand fossil fuel extraction in their respective countries, while China continues building coal-fired power plants to power its economy. This is despite warnings from the world’s top climate scientists about the impact that additional oil and gas extraction, and burning fossil fuels will have on the planet, and the predictions of economic experts that global oil production may peak before 2030, all of which could disrupt global energy markets, substantially increase GHG emissions, and heighten security risks.

 

The failure to meet GHG reduction targets compounds the climate crisis, which in turn undermines global security. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change emphasizes that emissions must be halved by 2030 to limit warming to 1.5°C, yet current trajectories suggest a 3°C increase, with catastrophic consequences. In Asia, rising temperatures and changing precipitation patterns threaten agricultural productivity which would impact billions, while urban areas face increased risks from flooding and heatwaves. These disruptions could drive migration and conflict, as seen in the war in Syria in the 2010s, and the displacement of tens of millions in Bangladesh, China, India, and the Philippines due to typhoons and floods over the past decade. Richer nations’ reliance on fossil fuels contradicts the ICJ’s call for accountability, exacerbating the security threats identified by the Pentagon, and putting nations on the path to possible military conflict.

 

For Canada, the climate crisis poses unique national security challenges, particularly in the Arctic. The rapid melting of Arctic ice, driven by increasing water temperatures, is opening new shipping routes and providing new opportunities to exploit valuable resources, intensifying competition among nations like Russia, China, and the United States. Historically, Canada’s territorial sovereignty in the Arctic was protected by its ice-covered waters, but as the ice retreats, the region becomes a potential flashpoint for military conflict. Canada has invested minimally in Arctic defence since climate change became a major policy issue in the 1990s, relying on its harsh northern climate as a natural barrier. However, with the Arctic warming at up to four times the global rate, Canada must now contend with foreign powers eyeing its resources in the north and possibly challenging its territorial claims, echoing the Pentagon’s warnings about climate-driven conflict.

 

The path forward requires urgent, transformative action. The ICJ’s ruling provides a legal framework for nations to prioritize climate justice and pushes the needle on prioritizing threats to the planet over economic growth. Wealthier nations must lead by reducing emissions, investing in resilient infrastructure, implementing policies to mitigate GHG emissions, and supporting vulnerable countries through climate finance and technology transfers. Programs like the US’s Feed the Future initiative, which promotes climate-resilient crops, shows potential, but their scale must expand dramatically and such programs must be adopted by other food producing giants if future conflict is to be prevented. Individuals can also pressure their governments to implement policies aligned with the Paris Agreement and the ICJ’s framework, advocating for equitable solutions that prioritize the most vulnerable.

 

The climate crisis is a present reality that is already having profound implications for global and national security, it will impact our children and grand children for decades to come. The Pentagon’s 2003 warning, followed by the ICJ’s 2025 ruling, underscores the urgent need for action to prevent a future of conflict resulting from climate change, the mass displacement of hundreds of millions across the globe, and the adoption of a fortress mentality among those nations that have the resources to adapt to a changing climate.

 

For Canada, the melting Arctic ice signals a new era of vulnerability, where military conflict over sovereignty is a very real possibility. Without swift, coordinated global efforts, the world risks descending into a struggle for survival, where the consequences of inaction or actions that worsen the problem, will be measured in lives lost, nations divided, and ecosystems despoiled due to climate change related conflicts. The researchers who authored the Pentagon report painted a bleak picture of the future if nations didn’t act to implement policies that changed the way economies were managed. It remains to be seen if political leaders in the seats of economic power around the world heard what they were saying, if they are listening to the ICJ’s recent advisory opinion, and whether they will take action to protect the interests of all of humanity or only those who vote them into power.

  

© 2025 The View From Here. © 2025 Fareed Khan. All Rights Reserved.