"A good day" at the UN Security Council?

The UN Security Council´s deliberations yesterday were another example of the almost complete uselessness of the institution. After a lenghty debate, initiated by the "climate security superpower" Germany - a country not willing to increase its real defense spending within NATO - the Security Council managed to agree on a meaningless statement:

The Security Council "expressed "concern that possible adverse effects of climate change may, in the long run, aggravate certain existing threats to international peace and security."

It also asked U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to include information on possible climate change impacts in his regular reports on world troublespots.
Western diplomats said the fact that any statement was agreed was an advance on the last council debate on the issue in 2007. "This was a good day today for climate security," German Ambassador Peter Wittig told reporters.

Sadly, also Obama´s UN ambassador Susan Rice contributed to the "climate security" hype:

U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice said Washington strongly believed the council "has an essential responsibility to address the clear-cut peace and security implications of a changing climate," and should "start now."

This blog seldom praises Russia for anything. However, even if Russia finally agreed to the meaningless SC statement, what the Russian ambassador Alexander Pankin said, makes sense:

But Russian envoy Alexander Pankin said Moscow was "skeptical" about attempts to put the implications of climate change on the council's agenda, which is defined as dealing with threats to international peace and security.
"We believe that involving the Security Council in a regular review of the issue of climate change will not bring any added value whatsoever and will merely lead to further increased politicization of this issue and increased disagreements between countries," he said.

Read the entire article here