You are here: Home » 2025 » August » Archives for 4th

First ‘climate citizens’ approved by Nauru in world-first program

AUCKLAND, New Zealand, Aug. 04, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — The Republic of Nauru has welcomed its first new citizens under the government’s Economic and Climate Resilience Citizenship Program, announced at COP29 late last year.

Nauru, ranked the world’s fifth most vulnerable nation under the United Nations’ Multidimensional Vulnerability Index (MVI) for its heightened exposure to economic and environmental shocks, launched the program as a way for conscientious investors to acquire an additional citizenship while contributing to climate adaptation and sustainable development projects in the South Pacific.

Program CEO Edward Clark revealed the first approved applicant is a German family of four who recently sold their long–standing family business — a well–known, reputable German company — and are currently living in Dubai.

“They were looking for a second citizenship to provide them with a Plan B given the current global political volatility and chose the Nauru Economic & Climate Resilience Citizenship Program because the contribution was going towards tackling the impacts of climate change on the island,” he explained.

Mr Clark, who has an extensive background in international banking, financial crime and compliance, said it took under four months from receiving the application to the granting of citizenship, and that strict due diligence processes were followed.

“This is a fundamental pillar of our program and a safeguard for Nauru’s reputation and security,” he said.

“All applicants undergo checks with international law enforcement agencies and are subject to in–depth background verification. Our entire application process is consistent with international best practices.”

He said only individuals of the highest calibre who can participate in shaping Nauru’s future will be granted citizenship.

“The granting of Nauruan citizenship to this family marks a major milestone for the program and provides even more confidence to those who are currently exploring Nauru citizenship by investment.”

Nauru is embarking on a long–term project that will reform the nation in the face of economic challenges and climate change, which as well as dealing with issues like food and water security, includes the “Higher Ground Initiative” – relocating almost the entire population from the coast to higher ground.

The new citizens from Germany applied through international migration agents Henley & Partners, who in a statement said the company is “incredibly proud to represent the first applicant to be successfully granted citizenship under the Republic of Nauru’s Economic and Climate Resilience Citizenship Program.

“For our firm, this goes beyond mobility; this is about directing capital into a Small Island Developing State, which is facing real climate risk.

“This is a clear example of how investment migration, when properly designed and governed, can channel capital toward economic and climate resilience measures and create a more sustainable future,” the statement concluded.


GLOBENEWSWIRE (Distribution ID 9505453)

Do Nuclear Tests Still Remain a Future Threat — as World Commemorates the 80th Anniversary of Hiroshima & Nagasaki?

Erico Platt looks at the disarmament exhibition that she staged, “Three Quarters of a Century After Hiroshima and Nagasaki: The Hibakusha—Brave Survivors Working for a Nuclear-Free World”. On 6 and 9 August 1945, the United States detonated two atomic bombs over the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, during World War II. Credit: UNODA/Diane Barnes

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Aug 4 2025 – The 80th anniversary of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II triggers the question: Is nuclear testing dead or is it still alive–and threatening?

The August 6-9 anniversary marks the devastating bombings, which claimed the lives of between 150,000 and 246,000 civilians– and still remains the only use of nuclear weapons in an armed conflict.

Are there any lessons learnt? And will the unpredictable Trump Administration resume nuclear testing?

The New York Times quoted Senator Jackey Rosen (Democrat-Nevada) as saying that her state hosted nearly 1,000 nuclear tests, mostly underground, during the Cold War.

The US has not ratified the 1996 Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). While the U.S. signed the treaty in 1996, the Senate has not given its consent to ratification. The Senate rejected the treaty in 1999.

Until today, the Nevada Test Site remains contaminated with an estimated 11,100 PBq of radioactive material in the soil and 4,440 PBq in groundwater.

In the years following nuclear tests, thousands of residents developed cancers and diseases they believe were caused by the nuclear blast. Individuals known as “downwinders,” exposed in communities across the United States, have fought for nearly 80 years to receive government recognition.

The last nuclear test conducted by the United States was on September 23, 1992, at the Nevada Test Site (now known as the Nevada National Security Site). The test was part of Operation Julin, and specifically, it was the “Divider” test, according to the Nevada National Security Site.

At a disarmament exhibition in UN Headquarters in New York, a visitor reads text about a young boy bringing his little brother to a cremation site in Nagasaki, Japan. Credit: UNODA/Erico Platt

Brandon Williams, who is expected to be the next keeper of the US nuclear arsenal, told the Senate Armed Services Committee last April, he would NOT recommend to re-start US nuclear testing.

Meanwhile, US President Donald Trump last week ordered two “nuclear submarines” to be positioned in regions near Russia in response to threats from former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. But left unsaid was: were they nuclear-armed submarines or nuclear-powered submarines?

“I have ordered two Nuclear Submarines to be positioned in the appropriate regions, just in case these foolish and inflammatory statements are more than just that,” Trump said in a social media post that called Medvedev’s statements highly provocative.

Dr. Natalie Goldring, the Acronym Institute’s representative at the United Nations, told IPS the 80th anniversary of the horrific bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is an opportunity to recommit to a world free of nuclear weapons, including by immediately adopting a permanent moratorium on nuclear weapons testing. In contrast, the Trump administration is reportedly considering restarting nuclear weapons testing.

In the first several months of the second Trump administration, she pointed out, there has been ample evidence of the administration’s dependence on the Heritage Foundation’s “Project 2025”, formally known as “Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise.” The Project 2025 section on the National Nuclear Security Administration stated that a conservative administration should:

“Reject ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and indicate a willingness to conduct nuclear tests in response to adversary nuclear developments if necessary. This will require that NNSA be directed to move to immediate and test readiness to give the Administration maximum flexibility in responding to adversary actions.”

Dr Goldring said “Implementing Project 2025’s recommendations would mean immediately moving toward resuming nuclear weapons testing, without even demonstrating that any adversary actions had occurred. This is an aggressive stance, and could be a self-fulfilling prophecy, prompting the behavior we should be seeking to dissuade.”

“Of course, we can’t reliably predict what President Trump will do, given his impulsive and mercurial nature. He could decide to resume nuclear testing in the mistaken belief that it would make the US look strong. He seems to be fond of dramatic gestures, with little apparent consideration for potential negative consequences. “

“Testing is a symptom of the enormous problem of reliance on nuclear weapons. When we get rid of nuclear weapons, we get rid of the nuclear testing problem. Absent abolition, there will likely be continued pressure to test”.

She said: “Nuclear weapons pose extraordinary risks – in their development, testing, deployment, use, and threats of use. The only real solution to the overwhelming risk associated with nuclear weapons is abolition. The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons provides an effective blueprint for abolition.”

“If abolition of nuclear weapons is not accomplished, the question isn’t whether nuclear weapons will be exploded in wartime again. It’s only a question of when that will happen. And, of course, nuclear weapons are “used” frequently in other ways, including to threaten other countries, and to attempt to coerce them into particular actions or inaction.”

Dr Goldring said nuclear testing should have ended decades ago. Unfortunately, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty has not entered into force, in part because of the failure of the US Senate to ratify the treaty. Even so, with the exception of North Korea, a defacto nuclear testing ban has seemingly been in effect since the 1990s.

“The human and environmental consequences of nuclear weapons testing continue to be enormous. Rather than spending money restarting nuclear testing and developing and deploying new nuclear weapons, we should be committing ourselves to long-term assistance to the affected communities. Such assistance must address their medical, economic, and environmental needs, among others,” declared Dr Goldring.

Project 2025:

https://static.heritage.org/project2025/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf?_gl=1*1vnou5w*_gcl_au*NTM3NTg3MTYzLjE3NTM4MTU4NTI.*_ga*MTYyNTkxMjI5OS4xNzUzODE1ODUz*_ga_W14BT6YQ87*czE3NTM4NTcwODEkbzIkZzEkdDE3NTM4NTczMTYkajYwJGwwJGgw

p. 431

Expressing his personal views, Tariq Rauf, former Head of Verification and Security Policy at the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), told IPS between 16 July 1945 and 3 December 2017, it is estimated that 2,121 nuclear test detonations involving 2,476 nuclear explosive devices have been carried out by ten States – in chronological order: USA, USSR, UK, France, China, India, Israel/South Africa, Pakistan and North Korea.

Though the 1996 Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) prohibits all nuclear test detonations, in all environments, and has been signed to date by 187 States and ratified by 178, it still languishes having not entered into force.

In particular, he said, entry-into-force depends on 44 named States to have ratified. Nine such States are holding up entry into force: alphabetically, China, Egypt, India, Iran, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, and USA.

Indonesia was the latest among this group of 44 States to have ratified in February 2012 – since then not a single State among the remaining nine has taken any steps to sign and/or ratify the CTBT, placing its future in doubt.

While the CTBT prohibits all nuclear testing once in force, nevertheless it has created a powerful global norm against further nuclear test detonations. On the other hand, all nine current nuclear-armed States are modernizing their nuclear explosive devices (warheads), in one way or another, and their nuclear weapon engineers and scientists direly would like to resume some limited explosive testing to validate new designs and certify older existing ones.

Only the CTBT stands in their way. Were any one of the nine nuclear-armed States to resume nuclear test detonations, it is quite probable that others would follow. Though not confirmed, it is speculated that pressure to test nuclear devices likely is strongest in India, followed by Russia, China, North Korea, Pakistan and the United States, said Rauf.

Meanwhile, Senator Edward Markey, co-President Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament (PNND) — along with Senators Merkley, Sanders, Van Holen and Welch – marked the 80th anniversary by introducing Senate Resolution 317 urging the United States to lead the world to halt and reverse the nuclear arms race, including by:

    • working with Russia, China and the other nuclear-armed countries to reduce nuclear risks and arsenals;
    • renouncing the first use of nuclear weapons;
    • limiting the President’s sole authority to start nuclear war;
    • ending the production of new nuclear weapons;
    • maintaining the global moratorium on nuclear testing.

“Eighty years after the Trinity test, much progress has been made to reduce nuclear dangers, but much work remains to be done,” said Senator Markey.

“The United States, Russia, and China must work together to reduce their arsenals. In particular, Washington and Moscow must work to replace the New START Treaty before it expires next year. If they do not, we may be on the cusp of a new and more dangerous nuclear arms race. When it comes to reducing the risk of nuclear war, we cannot afford to go backward.”

Jackie Cabasso, Executive Director, Western States Legal Foundation, Oakland, California, told IPS: “As we approach the 80th commemorations of the U.S. atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we are called upon to remember the estimated 210,000 human beings who were instantly incinerated by the blasts, or who died from agonizing burns and radiation sickness by the end of 1945.

Those who survived, she pointed out, have continued to suffer from physical and emotional damage for eight decades, and radiation-related illnesses among their children and grandchildren are being documented.

“Authoritarian nationalists now hold state power in seven of the nine nuclear-armed states that wield some 13,000 nuclear weapons, most an order of magnitude more powerful than the bombs that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki – over 90% of them in the hands of the U.S. and Russia. Even limited progress towards arms control and disarmament has gone into reverse. The growing dangers of wars among nuclear armed states are palpable and intolerable”.

But Hiroshima and Nagasaki, she argued, were only the tip of the iceberg. Since 1945, there have been 2,056 explosive nuclear weapons tests by at least eight countries. Most of these test explosions have been conducted on the lands of indigenous and colonized people.

The U.S. conducted 1,030 of those tests in the atmosphere, underwater, and underground, while the USSR carried out 715 nuclear test detonations.

Not only did these nuclear test explosions fuel the development and spread of new and more deadly types of nuclear weapons, but hundreds of thousands of people have died and millions more have suffered—and continue to suffer—from illnesses directly related to the radioactive fallout from nuclear detonations in the United States, islands in the Pacific, in Australia, China, Algeria, across Russia, in Kazakhstan, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and elsewhere.

“While we’re not seeing visible signs of resumption of full scale nuclear testing by the U.S., it is very disturbing that Project 2025 proposes that the second Trump administration prioritize nuclear weapons programs over other security programs, accelerate the development and production of all nuclear weapons programs, and increase funding for the development and production of new and modernized nuclear warheads,” said Cabasso.

It also proposes that the administration prepare to test new nuclear weapons. Separately, Robert O’Brien, Trump’s national security advisor during his first term, has written that in order to counter China and Russia’s continued investments in their nuclear arsenals, the U.S. should resume nuclear testing.

“Should the United States conduct a full-scale explosive nuclear test, the moratorium on full-scale explosive nuclear testing that has largely held since 1992 would be shattered. It is almost certain that other nuclear-armed states would follow suit. It would be the final nail in the coffin of nuclear arms control and disarmament for the foreseeable future and would signal an unfettered new nuclear arms race,” she warned.

As the 2024 recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, Nihon Hidankyo, the organization of Japanese atomic bomb survivors, has warned: “Nuclear weapons and human beings cannot co-exist.” Nuclear weapons must be eliminated before they eliminate us.

As recognized in the 1945 Constitution of UNESCO, “Since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defenses of peace must be constructed.” It is incumbent on each of us to contribute in some way to this noble project.

This article is brought to you by IPS NORAM, in collaboration with INPS Japan and Soka Gakkai International, in consultative status with the UN’s Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC).

IPS UN Bureau Report

 


!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

Do Nuclear Tests Still Remain a Future Threat — as World Commemorates the 80th Anniversary of Hiroshima & Nagasaki?

Erico Platt looks at the disarmament exhibition that she staged, “Three Quarters of a Century After Hiroshima and Nagasaki: The Hibakusha—Brave Survivors Working for a Nuclear-Free World”. On 6 and 9 August 1945, the United States detonated two atomic bombs over the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, during World War II. Credit: UNODA/Diane Barnes

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Aug 4 2025 – The 80th anniversary of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II triggers the question: Is nuclear testing dead or is it still alive–and threatening?

The August 6-9 anniversary marks the devastating bombings, which claimed the lives of between 150,000 and 246,000 civilians– and still remains the only use of nuclear weapons in an armed conflict.

Are there any lessons learnt? And will the unpredictable Trump Administration resume nuclear testing?

The New York Times quoted Senator Jackey Rosen (Democrat-Nevada) as saying that her state hosted nearly 1,000 nuclear tests, mostly underground, during the Cold War.

The US has not ratified the 1996 Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). While the U.S. signed the treaty in 1996, the Senate has not given its consent to ratification. The Senate rejected the treaty in 1999.

Until today, the Nevada Test Site remains contaminated with an estimated 11,100 PBq of radioactive material in the soil and 4,440 PBq in groundwater.

In the years following nuclear tests, thousands of residents developed cancers and diseases they believe were caused by the nuclear blast. Individuals known as “downwinders,” exposed in communities across the United States, have fought for nearly 80 years to receive government recognition.

The last nuclear test conducted by the United States was on September 23, 1992, at the Nevada Test Site (now known as the Nevada National Security Site). The test was part of Operation Julin, and specifically, it was the “Divider” test, according to the Nevada National Security Site.

At a disarmament exhibition in UN Headquarters in New York, a visitor reads text about a young boy bringing his little brother to a cremation site in Nagasaki, Japan. Credit: UNODA/Erico Platt

Brandon Williams, who is expected to be the next keeper of the US nuclear arsenal, told the Senate Armed Services Committee last April, he would NOT recommend to re-start US nuclear testing.

Meanwhile, US President Donald Trump last week ordered two “nuclear submarines” to be positioned in regions near Russia in response to threats from former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. But left unsaid was: were they nuclear-armed submarines or nuclear-powered submarines?

“I have ordered two Nuclear Submarines to be positioned in the appropriate regions, just in case these foolish and inflammatory statements are more than just that,” Trump said in a social media post that called Medvedev’s statements highly provocative.

Dr. Natalie Goldring, the Acronym Institute’s representative at the United Nations, told IPS the 80th anniversary of the horrific bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is an opportunity to recommit to a world free of nuclear weapons, including by immediately adopting a permanent moratorium on nuclear weapons testing. In contrast, the Trump administration is reportedly considering restarting nuclear weapons testing.

In the first several months of the second Trump administration, she pointed out, there has been ample evidence of the administration’s dependence on the Heritage Foundation’s “Project 2025”, formally known as “Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise.” The Project 2025 section on the National Nuclear Security Administration stated that a conservative administration should:

“Reject ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and indicate a willingness to conduct nuclear tests in response to adversary nuclear developments if necessary. This will require that NNSA be directed to move to immediate and test readiness to give the Administration maximum flexibility in responding to adversary actions.”

Dr Goldring said “Implementing Project 2025’s recommendations would mean immediately moving toward resuming nuclear weapons testing, without even demonstrating that any adversary actions had occurred. This is an aggressive stance, and could be a self-fulfilling prophecy, prompting the behavior we should be seeking to dissuade.”

“Of course, we can’t reliably predict what President Trump will do, given his impulsive and mercurial nature. He could decide to resume nuclear testing in the mistaken belief that it would make the US look strong. He seems to be fond of dramatic gestures, with little apparent consideration for potential negative consequences. “

“Testing is a symptom of the enormous problem of reliance on nuclear weapons. When we get rid of nuclear weapons, we get rid of the nuclear testing problem. Absent abolition, there will likely be continued pressure to test”.

She said: “Nuclear weapons pose extraordinary risks – in their development, testing, deployment, use, and threats of use. The only real solution to the overwhelming risk associated with nuclear weapons is abolition. The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons provides an effective blueprint for abolition.”

“If abolition of nuclear weapons is not accomplished, the question isn’t whether nuclear weapons will be exploded in wartime again. It’s only a question of when that will happen. And, of course, nuclear weapons are “used” frequently in other ways, including to threaten other countries, and to attempt to coerce them into particular actions or inaction.”

Dr Goldring said nuclear testing should have ended decades ago. Unfortunately, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty has not entered into force, in part because of the failure of the US Senate to ratify the treaty. Even so, with the exception of North Korea, a defacto nuclear testing ban has seemingly been in effect since the 1990s.

“The human and environmental consequences of nuclear weapons testing continue to be enormous. Rather than spending money restarting nuclear testing and developing and deploying new nuclear weapons, we should be committing ourselves to long-term assistance to the affected communities. Such assistance must address their medical, economic, and environmental needs, among others,” declared Dr Goldring.

Project 2025:

https://static.heritage.org/project2025/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf?_gl=1*1vnou5w*_gcl_au*NTM3NTg3MTYzLjE3NTM4MTU4NTI.*_ga*MTYyNTkxMjI5OS4xNzUzODE1ODUz*_ga_W14BT6YQ87*czE3NTM4NTcwODEkbzIkZzEkdDE3NTM4NTczMTYkajYwJGwwJGgw

p. 431

Expressing his personal views, Tariq Rauf, former Head of Verification and Security Policy at the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), told IPS between 16 July 1945 and 3 December 2017, it is estimated that 2,121 nuclear test detonations involving 2,476 nuclear explosive devices have been carried out by ten States – in chronological order: USA, USSR, UK, France, China, India, Israel/South Africa, Pakistan and North Korea.

Though the 1996 Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) prohibits all nuclear test detonations, in all environments, and has been signed to date by 187 States and ratified by 178, it still languishes having not entered into force.

In particular, he said, entry-into-force depends on 44 named States to have ratified. Nine such States are holding up entry into force: alphabetically, China, Egypt, India, Iran, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, and USA.

Indonesia was the latest among this group of 44 States to have ratified in February 2012 – since then not a single State among the remaining nine has taken any steps to sign and/or ratify the CTBT, placing its future in doubt.

While the CTBT prohibits all nuclear testing once in force, nevertheless it has created a powerful global norm against further nuclear test detonations. On the other hand, all nine current nuclear-armed States are modernizing their nuclear explosive devices (warheads), in one way or another, and their nuclear weapon engineers and scientists direly would like to resume some limited explosive testing to validate new designs and certify older existing ones.

Only the CTBT stands in their way. Were any one of the nine nuclear-armed States to resume nuclear test detonations, it is quite probable that others would follow. Though not confirmed, it is speculated that pressure to test nuclear devices likely is strongest in India, followed by Russia, China, North Korea, Pakistan and the United States, said Rauf.

Meanwhile, Senator Edward Markey, co-President Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament (PNND) — along with Senators Merkley, Sanders, Van Holen and Welch – marked the 80th anniversary by introducing Senate Resolution 317 urging the United States to lead the world to halt and reverse the nuclear arms race, including by:

    • working with Russia, China and the other nuclear-armed countries to reduce nuclear risks and arsenals;
    • renouncing the first use of nuclear weapons;
    • limiting the President’s sole authority to start nuclear war;
    • ending the production of new nuclear weapons;
    • maintaining the global moratorium on nuclear testing.

“Eighty years after the Trinity test, much progress has been made to reduce nuclear dangers, but much work remains to be done,” said Senator Markey.

“The United States, Russia, and China must work together to reduce their arsenals. In particular, Washington and Moscow must work to replace the New START Treaty before it expires next year. If they do not, we may be on the cusp of a new and more dangerous nuclear arms race. When it comes to reducing the risk of nuclear war, we cannot afford to go backward.”

Jackie Cabasso, Executive Director, Western States Legal Foundation, Oakland, California, told IPS: “As we approach the 80th commemorations of the U.S. atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we are called upon to remember the estimated 210,000 human beings who were instantly incinerated by the blasts, or who died from agonizing burns and radiation sickness by the end of 1945.

Those who survived, she pointed out, have continued to suffer from physical and emotional damage for eight decades, and radiation-related illnesses among their children and grandchildren are being documented.

“Authoritarian nationalists now hold state power in seven of the nine nuclear-armed states that wield some 13,000 nuclear weapons, most an order of magnitude more powerful than the bombs that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki – over 90% of them in the hands of the U.S. and Russia. Even limited progress towards arms control and disarmament has gone into reverse. The growing dangers of wars among nuclear armed states are palpable and intolerable”.

But Hiroshima and Nagasaki, she argued, were only the tip of the iceberg. Since 1945, there have been 2,056 explosive nuclear weapons tests by at least eight countries. Most of these test explosions have been conducted on the lands of indigenous and colonized people.

The U.S. conducted 1,030 of those tests in the atmosphere, underwater, and underground, while the USSR carried out 715 nuclear test detonations.

Not only did these nuclear test explosions fuel the development and spread of new and more deadly types of nuclear weapons, but hundreds of thousands of people have died and millions more have suffered—and continue to suffer—from illnesses directly related to the radioactive fallout from nuclear detonations in the United States, islands in the Pacific, in Australia, China, Algeria, across Russia, in Kazakhstan, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and elsewhere.

“While we’re not seeing visible signs of resumption of full scale nuclear testing by the U.S., it is very disturbing that Project 2025 proposes that the second Trump administration prioritize nuclear weapons programs over other security programs, accelerate the development and production of all nuclear weapons programs, and increase funding for the development and production of new and modernized nuclear warheads,” said Cabasso.

It also proposes that the administration prepare to test new nuclear weapons. Separately, Robert O’Brien, Trump’s national security advisor during his first term, has written that in order to counter China and Russia’s continued investments in their nuclear arsenals, the U.S. should resume nuclear testing.

“Should the United States conduct a full-scale explosive nuclear test, the moratorium on full-scale explosive nuclear testing that has largely held since 1992 would be shattered. It is almost certain that other nuclear-armed states would follow suit. It would be the final nail in the coffin of nuclear arms control and disarmament for the foreseeable future and would signal an unfettered new nuclear arms race,” she warned.

As the 2024 recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, Nihon Hidankyo, the organization of Japanese atomic bomb survivors, has warned: “Nuclear weapons and human beings cannot co-exist.” Nuclear weapons must be eliminated before they eliminate us.

As recognized in the 1945 Constitution of UNESCO, “Since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defenses of peace must be constructed.” It is incumbent on each of us to contribute in some way to this noble project.

This article is brought to you by IPS NORAM, in collaboration with INPS Japan and Soka Gakkai International, in consultative status with the UN’s Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC).

IPS UN Bureau Report

 


!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

Are Nuclear Tests Dead or Alive—as World Commemorates 80th Anniversary of Hiroshima & Nagasaki?

Erico Platt looks at the disarmament exhibition that she staged, “Three Quarters of a Century After Hiroshima and Nagasaki: The Hibakusha—Brave Survivors Working for a Nuclear-Free World”. On 6 and 9 August 1945, the United States detonated two atomic bombs over the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, during World War II. Credit: UNODA/Diane Barnes

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Aug 4 2025 – The 80th anniversary of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II triggers the question: Is nuclear testing dead or is it still alive–and threatening?

The August 6-9 anniversary marks the devastating bombings, which claimed the lives of between 150,000 and 246,000 civilians– and still remains the only use of nuclear weapons in an armed conflict.

Are there any lessons learnt? And will the unpredictable Trump Administration resume nuclear testing?

The New York Times quoted Senator Jackey Rosen (Democrat-Nevada) as saying that her state hosted nearly 1,000 nuclear tests, mostly underground, during the Cold War.

The US has not ratified the 1996 Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). While the U.S. signed the treaty in 1996, the Senate has not given its consent to ratification. The Senate rejected the treaty in 1999.

Until today, the Nevada Test Site remains contaminated with an estimated 11,100 PBq of radioactive material in the soil and 4,440 PBq in groundwater.

In the years following nuclear tests, thousands of residents developed cancers and diseases they believe were caused by the nuclear blast. Individuals known as “downwinders,” exposed in communities across the United States, have fought for nearly 80 years to receive government recognition.

The last nuclear test conducted by the United States was on September 23, 1992, at the Nevada Test Site (now known as the Nevada National Security Site). The test was part of Operation Julin, and specifically, it was the “Divider” test, according to the Nevada National Security Site.

At a disarmament exhibition in UN Headquarters in New York, a visitor reads text about a young boy bringing his little brother to a cremation site in Nagasaki, Japan. Credit: UNODA/Erico Platt

Brandon Williams, who is expected to be the next keeper of the US nuclear arsenal, told the Senate Armed Services Committee last April, he would NOT recommend to re-start US nuclear testing.

Meanwhile, US President Donald Trump last week ordered two “nuclear submarines” to be positioned in regions near Russia in response to threats from former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. But left unsaid was: were they nuclear-armed submarines or nuclear-powered submarines?

“I have ordered two Nuclear Submarines to be positioned in the appropriate regions, just in case these foolish and inflammatory statements are more than just that,” Trump said in a social media post that called Medvedev’s statements highly provocative.

Dr. Natalie Goldring, the Acronym Institute’s representative at the United Nations, told IPS the 80th anniversary of the horrific bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is an opportunity to recommit to a world free of nuclear weapons, including by immediately adopting a permanent moratorium on nuclear weapons testing. In contrast, the Trump administration is reportedly considering restarting nuclear weapons testing.

In the first several months of the second Trump administration, she pointed out, there has been ample evidence of the administration’s dependence on the Heritage Foundation’s “Project 2025”, formally known as “Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise.” The Project 2025 section on the National Nuclear Security Administration stated that a conservative administration should:

“Reject ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and indicate a willingness to conduct nuclear tests in response to adversary nuclear developments if necessary. This will require that NNSA be directed to move to immediate and test readiness to give the Administration maximum flexibility in responding to adversary actions.”

Dr Goldring said “Implementing Project 2025’s recommendations would mean immediately moving toward resuming nuclear weapons testing, without even demonstrating that any adversary actions had occurred. This is an aggressive stance, and could be a self-fulfilling prophecy, prompting the behavior we should be seeking to dissuade.”

“Of course, we can’t reliably predict what President Trump will do, given his impulsive and mercurial nature. He could decide to resume nuclear testing in the mistaken belief that it would make the US look strong. He seems to be fond of dramatic gestures, with little apparent consideration for potential negative consequences. “

“Testing is a symptom of the enormous problem of reliance on nuclear weapons. When we get rid of nuclear weapons, we get rid of the nuclear testing problem. Absent abolition, there will likely be continued pressure to test”.

She said: “Nuclear weapons pose extraordinary risks – in their development, testing, deployment, use, and threats of use. The only real solution to the overwhelming risk associated with nuclear weapons is abolition. The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons provides an effective blueprint for abolition.”

“If abolition of nuclear weapons is not accomplished, the question isn’t whether nuclear weapons will be exploded in wartime again. It’s only a question of when that will happen. And, of course, nuclear weapons are “used” frequently in other ways, including to threaten other countries, and to attempt to coerce them into particular actions or inaction.”

Dr Goldring said nuclear testing should have ended decades ago. Unfortunately, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty has not entered into force, in part because of the failure of the US Senate to ratify the treaty. Even so, with the exception of North Korea, a defacto nuclear testing ban has seemingly been in effect since the 1990s.

“The human and environmental consequences of nuclear weapons testing continue to be enormous. Rather than spending money restarting nuclear testing and developing and deploying new nuclear weapons, we should be committing ourselves to long-term assistance to the affected communities. Such assistance must address their medical, economic, and environmental needs, among others,” declared Dr Goldring.

Project 2025:

https://static.heritage.org/project2025/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf?_gl=1*1vnou5w*_gcl_au*NTM3NTg3MTYzLjE3NTM4MTU4NTI.*_ga*MTYyNTkxMjI5OS4xNzUzODE1ODUz*_ga_W14BT6YQ87*czE3NTM4NTcwODEkbzIkZzEkdDE3NTM4NTczMTYkajYwJGwwJGgw

p. 431

Expressing his personal views, Tariq Rauf, former Head of Verification and Security Policy at the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), told IPS between 16 July 1945 and 3 December 2017, it is estimated that 2,121 nuclear test detonations involving 2,476 nuclear explosive devices have been carried out by ten States – in chronological order: USA, USSR, UK, France, China, India, Israel/South Africa, Pakistan and North Korea.

Though the 1996 Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) prohibits all nuclear test detonations, in all environments, and has been signed to date by 187 States and ratified by 178, it still languishes having not entered into force.

In particular, he said, entry-into-force depends on 44 named States to have ratified. Nine such States are holding up entry into force: alphabetically, China, Egypt, India, Iran, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, and USA.

Indonesia was the latest among this group of 44 States to have ratified in February 2012 – since then not a single State among the remaining nine has taken any steps to sign and/or ratify the CTBT, placing its future in doubt.

While the CTBT prohibits all nuclear testing once in force, nevertheless it has created a powerful global norm against further nuclear test detonations. On the other hand, all nine current nuclear-armed States are modernizing their nuclear explosive devices (warheads), in one way or another, and their nuclear weapon engineers and scientists direly would like to resume some limited explosive testing to validate new designs and certify older existing ones.

Only the CTBT stands in their way. Were any one of the nine nuclear-armed States to resume nuclear test detonations, it is quite probable that others would follow. Though not confirmed, it is speculated that pressure to test nuclear devices likely is strongest in India, followed by Russia, China, North Korea, Pakistan and the United States, said Rauf.

Meanwhile, Senator Edward Markey, co-President Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament (PNND) — along with Senators Merkley, Sanders, Van Holen and Welch – marked the 80th anniversary by introducing Senate Resolution 317 urging the United States to lead the world to halt and reverse the nuclear arms race, including by:

    • working with Russia, China and the other nuclear-armed countries to reduce nuclear risks and arsenals;
    • renouncing the first use of nuclear weapons;
    • limiting the President’s sole authority to start nuclear war;
    • ending the production of new nuclear weapons;
    • maintaining the global moratorium on nuclear testing.

“Eighty years after the Trinity test, much progress has been made to reduce nuclear dangers, but much work remains to be done,” said Senator Markey.

“The United States, Russia, and China must work together to reduce their arsenals. In particular, Washington and Moscow must work to replace the New START Treaty before it expires next year. If they do not, we may be on the cusp of a new and more dangerous nuclear arms race. When it comes to reducing the risk of nuclear war, we cannot afford to go backward.”

Jackie Cabasso, Executive Director, Western States Legal Foundation, Oakland, California, told IPS: “As we approach the 80th commemorations of the U.S. atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we are called upon to remember the estimated 210,000 human beings who were instantly incinerated by the blasts, or who died from agonizing burns and radiation sickness by the end of 1945.

Those who survived, she pointed out, have continued to suffer from physical and emotional damage for eight decades, and radiation-related illnesses among their children and grandchildren are being documented.

“Authoritarian nationalists now hold state power in seven of the nine nuclear-armed states that wield some 13,000 nuclear weapons, most an order of magnitude more powerful than the bombs that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki – over 90% of them in the hands of the U.S. and Russia. Even limited progress towards arms control and disarmament has gone into reverse. The growing dangers of wars among nuclear armed states are palpable and intolerable”.

But Hiroshima and Nagasaki, she argued, were only the tip of the iceberg. Since 1945, there have been 2,056 explosive nuclear weapons tests by at least eight countries. Most of these test explosions have been conducted on the lands of indigenous and colonized people.

The U.S. conducted 1,030 of those tests in the atmosphere, underwater, and underground, while the USSR carried out 715 nuclear test detonations.

Not only did these nuclear test explosions fuel the development and spread of new and more deadly types of nuclear weapons, but hundreds of thousands of people have died and millions more have suffered—and continue to suffer—from illnesses directly related to the radioactive fallout from nuclear detonations in the United States, islands in the Pacific, in Australia, China, Algeria, across Russia, in Kazakhstan, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and elsewhere.

“While we’re not seeing visible signs of resumption of full scale nuclear testing by the U.S., it is very disturbing that Project 2025 proposes that the second Trump administration prioritize nuclear weapons programs over other security programs, accelerate the development and production of all nuclear weapons programs, and increase funding for the development and production of new and modernized nuclear warheads,” said Cabasso.

It also proposes that the administration prepare to test new nuclear weapons. Separately, Robert O’Brien, Trump’s national security advisor during his first term, has written that in order to counter China and Russia’s continued investments in their nuclear arsenals, the U.S. should resume nuclear testing.

“Should the United States conduct a full-scale explosive nuclear test, the moratorium on full-scale explosive nuclear testing that has largely held since 1992 would be shattered. It is almost certain that other nuclear-armed states would follow suit. It would be the final nail in the coffin of nuclear arms control and disarmament for the foreseeable future and would signal an unfettered new nuclear arms race,” she warned.

As the 2024 recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, Nihon Hidankyo, the organization of Japanese atomic bomb survivors, has warned: “Nuclear weapons and human beings cannot co-exist.” Nuclear weapons must be eliminated before they eliminate us.

As recognized in the 1945 Constitution of UNESCO, “Since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defenses of peace must be constructed.” It is incumbent on each of us to contribute in some way to this noble project.

This article is brought to you by IPS NORAM, in collaboration with INPS Japan and Soka Gakkai International, in consultative status with the UN’s Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC).

IPS UN Bureau Report

 


!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

Japan’s Right-wing Populist Rise

Credit: Kim Kyung-Hoon/Reuters via Gallo Images

By Andrew Firmin
LONDON, Aug 4 2025 – Rice queues – something once unthinkable – began appearing around May. As the country’s staple food hit record prices, frustrated shoppers found themselves breaking a cultural taboo by switching to rice from South Korea. It was a symbol of how far Japan’s economic certainties had crumbled, creating fertile ground for a political shift.

That came on 20 July, when Japan joined the ranks of countries where far-right parties are gaining ground. The Sanseitō party took 15.7 per cent of the vote in the election for parliament’s upper house, while the ruling two-party coalition of the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) and Kōmeitō lost its majority. The result spells trouble for Japan’s civil society.

From conspiracy theories to parliament

Sanseitō, founded during the COVID-19 pandemic, grew out of a right-wing YouTube channel. Initially, it spread virus conspiracy theories and opposed masks and vaccines, territory that globally provided entry points for far-right radicalisation. Since then, it’s embraced exclusionary politics.

The party’s leader, Sohei Kamiya, says he wants to be Japan’s Trump. His ‘Japan First’ agenda, accompanied by an abundance of xenophobic rhetoric, urges strict immigration limits.

Sanseitō shows deep hostility towards excluded groups. It strongly opposes LGBTQI+ rights, even though these are limited in Japan, calling for repeal of the 2023 LGBT Understanding Promotion Act. The party opposes same-sex marriage; despite civil society legal action leading to mixed court judgments, Japan remains the only G7 country to not recognise marriage equality.

Kamiya has blamed young women for Japan’s declining birthrate, saying they’re too career-focused and should stay home and have children. He’s has also said he supports Trump’s moves to eliminate climate protections and calls for Japan’s militarisation, positions right-wing populists are commonly taking around the world.

Economic crisis and political corruption

Change has been coming in Japan’s previously static politics. The LDP, a big tent right-wing party, has been in power, either on its own or with Kōmeitō, for almost all of the time since its 1955 founding. It long enjoyed credit for reconstructing Japan’s shattered post-Second World War economy and rebuilding international relationships through a strongly US-aligned foreign policy.

But its dominance has crumbled under economic stagnation and corruption scandals. The LDP lost its lower house majority in a snap October 2024 election, called by Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba after he assumed leadership following his predecessor’s scandal-forced resignation.

In November 2023, it was revealed that some US$4 million had been hidden in unreported and illegal slush funds linked to key party factions. This scandal followed the July 2022 assassination of former prime minister Shinzo Abe, whose killer harboured a grudge against the Unification Church, a religious movement widely considered a cult. The killing threw the spotlight on extensive links between the church and LDP.

Political crisis coincided with economic malaise. Inflation is rare in Japan, but in common with many other countries, food prices have spiked and pay hasn’t kept pace. The rice crisis, partly due by extreme weather impacts caused by climate change, provided the most potent symbol, affecting a staple food deeply embedded in national identity. The government reacted to high prices by releasing some of its reserve stock, but refused calls to cut the 10 per cent consumption tax, which Sanseitō wants to abolish.

Demographics and immigration fears

Underlying these economic problem lies Japan’s demographic challenge. An estimated 30 per cent of people are aged 65 or over, and around 10 per cent are 80-plus. The flipside is a low fertility rate: each woman is currently predicted to have 1.2 children, far below the 2.1 rate needed to maintain a stable population.

Japan’s demographics threaten to undermine its economic base, since there may not be enough taxpayers to fund social security spending. A previously reluctant government has been forced to ease tight immigration controls and bring in more working-age people. Foreign-born residents now comprise around three per cent of Japan’s population, a small proportion for most global north economies but a highly visible change in a previously broadly homogenous society.

Sanseitō has weaponised this demographic shift, unleashing xenophobic rhetoric to tap into anxieties about cultural change, blaming foreigners for domestic problems. Anxiety about the birthrate has also provided ample ground to scapegoat feminism and LGBTQI+ rights movements.

Political disengagement and generational divides

The political establishment’s failure to connect with younger generations also created a dangerous vulnerability. Research in 2024 showed that only a third of voters were satisfied with the way Japan’s democracy currently works, and over half didn’t identify with any political party. Disaffection is widest among young people, exacerbated by the reality that politicians are typically a generation or two older.

The swing towards Sanseitō suggests that at least some disenchanted with established politics found something to vote for. The party draws support particularly from young people, and especially young men. It’s aided by having a much stronger social media presence than established parties, with around 500,000 YouTube followers compared to the LDP’s 140,000.

In many countries, it was once a safe assumption that young people were more progressive than older generations, but increasingly that no longer holds. In economies where young people are struggling, anything that looks new and promises to break with failed establishment politics, even when extremist, can be appealing.

Instability and polarisation ahead

Sanseitō says it doesn’t want to work with any established party and, as has been seen in other countries, may use its parliamentary presence to mount stunts and court publicity. Its support is unlikely to have peaked, and even though it doesn’t have power, it can expect influence: once far-right rhetoric moves from into the mainstream, it seeps into and shifts the broader political debate.

Japan’s rightward tilt could extend beyond Sanseitō. Unhappiness with the LDP saw another right-wing party, the Democratic Populist Party, pick up support. These shifts could cause the LDP to respond to its losses by taking a more nationalist and conservative tack, as associated with its former leader Abe.

Japan’s trajectory mirrors concerning patterns across global north democracies such as France, Germany, Italy and Portugal, where right-wing populist parties have gained profile by provoking outrage, sowing division and targeting excluded groups, alongside the civil society that defends their rights.

This all suggests danger for Japan’s excluded groups and civil society. As Japan steps along this troubling path, its civil society needs to be ready to make the case for human rights. What began as a rice crisis has evolved into a test of whether Japan’s democratic institutions, including its civil society, can withstand a gathering populist storm.

Andrew Firmin is CIVICUS Editor-in-Chief, co-director and writer for CIVICUS Lens and co-author of the State of Civil Society Report.

For interviews or more information, please contact [email protected]

 


!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

Belem City Limits: How to Host a Successful Climate COP

The shift towards clean energy, such as solar power, is accelerating globally. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres declares fossil fuel era is fading; presses nations for new climate plans before COP30 summit. Credit: UNEP/Reza Shahriar Rahman

By Felix Dodds and Chris Spence
SAN FRANCISCO, California / APEX, North Carolina, US, Aug 4 2025 – There is no question that most climate activists and governments were delighted when Brazil offered to host the 2025 UN Climate Conference taking place this November.

Brazil has played such a crucial role in shaping the sustainable development agenda. It hosted the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, which agreed on Agenda 21 and the blueprint for sustainability in the 21st century, the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, 27 principles intended to guide countries in future sustainable development but also saw signed agreements for the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Forestry Principles.

Out of the Rio Earth Summit, you saw the creation of a new UN body to monitor the implementation of these agreements. This was the UN Commission on Sustainable Development and a new convention, the Desertification Convention (UNCCD), negotiated within two years, which, along with the UNFCCC and UN CBD, became known as the Rio Conventions.

What is perhaps not appreciated is that it also kicked off what became the Straddling Fish Stocks Agreement (signed 1995, came into force 2001), the Persistent Organic Pollutants (signed in 2001 and came into force in 2004, and the Prior Informed Consent Conventions (signed in 1998 and came into force in 2004).

In 2012, Brazil also hosted Rio+20, which upgraded UNEP’s governing body to a universal body – the United Nations Environment Assembly– and also converted the UN Commission on Sustainable Development to the UN High-Level Political Forum. Rio+20 was also the birthplace of the process that led to the adoption of the Sustainable Development Goals.

There are also references to the other SDG areas throughout the text. We mention this to underscore the significant role Brazil has played in shaping the agenda for sustainable development.

Belém’s Time to Shine
Both the 1992 and 2012 UN Conferences were held in Rio de Janeiro, in part because the number of participants could easily be accommodated in the available hotels.

In 1992, an estimated 38,000 people attended, with an additional 16,000 attending the NGO Forum. The Rio+20 conference welcomed over 45,000 attendees.

This time around, the Brazilian Government decided to host the UN Climate Summit, COP 30, in Belém. Arguably, the logic is sound: the city is located in the eastern Amazon, making it the perfect place to talk about climate change and Brazil’s commitment to protecting a rainforest so vast it has been called the “lungs of the Earth”. Symbolically, the decision to hold COP30 in Belém is perfectly sensible.

But the choice of city has also courted controversy.

In fact, there is no question that many delegates and other stakeholders attending the UN’s preparatory meeting in Bonn in June were not happy that Belém is to be the host city.

Why? It all comes down to the limitations facing any small city. Estimates vary, but Belém there are only 7,900 rooms in hotels available, and the Brazilian team is trying their best to deal with the expectation of the numbers coming from adding cruise ships (4,000 rooms), Airbnb or short-term lets (16,500 rooms), and the conversion of schools.

This is nowhere near enough for a UN Climate Summit of this scale and magnitude.

Reuters reported that COP30 President Correla said they had more than 30,000 rooms, compared to an estimate of 20,000 that UN officials had stated Brazil was required to provide. To provide some perspective, here are the last five COP numbers. These exclude those that did not have access to the UN meeting but attended what is called the “Green Zone”. In most countries hosting a COP, the Green Zone is used to promote sustainable development activities to the country’s public and those that do not have access to the main event.

A guide to the number who may want to attend might be obtained by taking an average of the last four COPs. It’s clear that, since Glasgow, numbers have increased considerably. If we take the average of the previous four COPs, we might expect a Brazilian COP to attract around 58,000 people.

These kinds of numbers far outstrip Belém’s ability to cope. What’s more, the limited supply of rooms is reportedly already having a dramatic impact on prices, pushing rates over $ 1,000 a night in many cases. This is especially bad news for small delegations from poorer nations, as well as other essential stakeholders, including Indigenous peoples’ groups and nonprofits, which may not have the deep pockets of some wealthier nations.

Belém and the Brazilian hosts are pulling out all the stops to meet demand. They have brought in two cruise ships with 6,000 additional beds, which they have promised to make available to delegates from developing countries at lower prices. They are actively working on adding capacity through Airbnb and converting schools and other venues into temporary accommodation.

And according to a recent New York Times report, they are even converting “love hotels”—no-frills rooms serve as “a backdrop for lunch-hour trysts, clandestine affairs and passion struck lovers seeking some privacy”—into regular hotels by removing “erotic” apparatus such as (believe it or not!) stripper poles.

Even with such creative solutions in play, however, many worry there will still be a shortage of accommodation.

A Big Tent
Why does this matter? After all, some believe the COPs are getting too big. Critics of mega-Summits point out, quite rightly, that these enormous meetings create logistical nightmares. Not only that, but they note, again correctly, that only a few thousand people out of the tens of thousands who attend are involved in the UN negotiations. Why do we need all the others there?

Furthermore, with climate change under attack from fossil fuel lobbyists and a small but growing number of sympathetic politicians worldwide, some governments are reducing their climate commitments rather than increasing them. Won’t delegations be smaller if governments are less committed?

There is, however, a counterargument to this. In our view, the vast majority of the public—and most governments—remain firmly committed to addressing the existential threat climate change poses. Because of this, we believe the world needs opportunities for people to come together in large numbers and demonstrate their commitment and resolve.

The COP30 in Brazil could have provided that. Arguably, it ought to have been a record-breaking event with massive engagement from Indigenous peoples’ organizations, community-based groups, and more traditional stakeholders.

It might have energized concerned citizens and climate activists to create a shared narrative to take back and challenge the growing opposition to action. Of course, some of that will still happen in Belém, whether it attracts (and can accommodate) 20,000 or 30,000 or even more. However, given the small city’s accommodation limitations, it will not reach the level it might have done.

A Better Way?
While it’s too late to change the venue for COP30, perhaps a new system needs to be considered? We would welcome a process where the UN assesses possible options the host country is considering. Such an assessment could then go to the COP Bureau and a decision be taken in coordination with the host country.

This might help avoid any disconnect between the numbers wishing to attend and those who can realistically be accommodated, doesn’t happen again.

A good example of this type of process was the transparent approach by South Africa for the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development. In this case, the South African government allowed cities to bid. Cape Town, Durban, and Johannesburg duly applied.

The government then published the relevant information, and the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs conducted a review of the cities through a fact-finding visit. Ultimately, it was determined that only Johannesburg could accommodate the 37,000 people who officially attended. Again, there were even more people involved in related events that also took place in the city at the same time.

Türkiye and Australia: Planning for COP31
Looking to the future, let’s consider COP31: the two countries that are hoping to host COP31 are Australia and Türkiye.

For Australia, Melbourne has an estimated 26,500 hotel rooms, while Sydney has 43,000 rooms and Brisbane has around 21,000, and is reportedly building another 3,000. Meanwhile, Perth has 16,000, Adelaide 10,000, and Canberra around 7500. Realistically, this likely means Sydney or (possibly) Melbourne or Brisbane might have the capacity to host an event of this size.

For Türkiye, the mega-city of Istanbul boasts the most capacity, with estimates ranging from 75,000 to over 200,000 rooms; easily enough for a COP. Accurate figures for other Turkish cities, such as Ankara and İzmir, are difficult to obtain. However, these types of data should guide the COP31 Bureau and the host country.

There are, of course, additional issues for a host country and city that need to be addressed, such as transport, the size of the conference centre, and access to enough cafes and other foot outlets at the venue, , including vegetarian and vegan options.

Implementation Time

Another change we would like to see happen in the climate process is both logistical and substantive. As COP30 President, Brazil is developing a much-needed process within the delegates’ “Blue Zone” to focus on implementation of the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement. With Brazil’s strong reputation for diplomatic creativity, perhaps this innovation should not come as a surprise. However, it should certainly be welcomed.

Future Presidencies should build on this. We need COPs to rapidly ramp up the focus on implementation if we are to keep well under within two degrees, and preferably under 1.5, by the end of the century. An enhanced Blue Zone should also be the home for inspiring projects and coalitions focused not on policy but on implementing what we already have. As former US President Barack Obama once said:

“We are the first generation to feel the effect of climate change and the last generation who can do something about it.”

Prof. Felix Dodds and Chris Spence have participated in UN environmental negotiations since the 1990s. Their latest book, Environmental Lobbying at the United Nations: A Guide to Protecting Our Planet, was published in June 2025.

IPS UN Bureau

 


!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

Belem City Limits: How to Host a Successful Climate COP

The shift towards clean energy, such as solar power, is accelerating globally. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres declares fossil fuel era is fading; presses nations for new climate plans before COP30 summit. Credit: UNEP/Reza Shahriar Rahman

By Felix Dodds and Chris Spence
SAN FRANCISCO, California / APEX, North Carolina, US, Aug 4 2025 – There is no question that most climate activists and governments were delighted when Brazil offered to host the 2025 UN Climate Conference taking place this November.

Brazil has played such a crucial role in shaping the sustainable development agenda. It hosted the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, which agreed on Agenda 21 and the blueprint for sustainability in the 21st century, the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, 27 principles intended to guide countries in future sustainable development but also saw signed agreements for the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Forestry Principles.

Out of the Rio Earth Summit, you saw the creation of a new UN body to monitor the implementation of these agreements. This was the UN Commission on Sustainable Development and a new convention, the Desertification Convention (UNCCD), negotiated within two years, which, along with the UNFCCC and UN CBD, became known as the Rio Conventions.

What is perhaps not appreciated is that it also kicked off what became the Straddling Fish Stocks Agreement (signed 1995, came into force 2001), the Persistent Organic Pollutants (signed in 2001 and came into force in 2004, and the Prior Informed Consent Conventions (signed in 1998 and came into force in 2004).

In 2012, Brazil also hosted Rio+20, which upgraded UNEP’s governing body to a universal body – the United Nations Environment Assembly– and also converted the UN Commission on Sustainable Development to the UN High-Level Political Forum. Rio+20 was also the birthplace of the process that led to the adoption of the Sustainable Development Goals.

There are also references to the other SDG areas throughout the text. We mention this to underscore the significant role Brazil has played in shaping the agenda for sustainable development.

Belém’s Time to Shine
Both the 1992 and 2012 UN Conferences were held in Rio de Janeiro, in part because the number of participants could easily be accommodated in the available hotels.

In 1992, an estimated 38,000 people attended, with an additional 16,000 attending the NGO Forum. The Rio+20 conference welcomed over 45,000 attendees.

This time around, the Brazilian Government decided to host the UN Climate Summit, COP 30, in Belém. Arguably, the logic is sound: the city is located in the eastern Amazon, making it the perfect place to talk about climate change and Brazil’s commitment to protecting a rainforest so vast it has been called the “lungs of the Earth”. Symbolically, the decision to hold COP30 in Belém is perfectly sensible.

But the choice of city has also courted controversy.

In fact, there is no question that many delegates and other stakeholders attending the UN’s preparatory meeting in Bonn in June were not happy that Belém is to be the host city.

Why? It all comes down to the limitations facing any small city. Estimates vary, but Belém there are only 7,900 rooms in hotels available, and the Brazilian team is trying their best to deal with the expectation of the numbers coming from adding cruise ships (4,000 rooms), Airbnb or short-term lets (16,500 rooms), and the conversion of schools.

This is nowhere near enough for a UN Climate Summit of this scale and magnitude.

Reuters reported that COP30 President Correla said they had more than 30,000 rooms, compared to an estimate of 20,000 that UN officials had stated Brazil was required to provide. To provide some perspective, here are the last five COP numbers. These exclude those that did not have access to the UN meeting but attended what is called the “Green Zone”. In most countries hosting a COP, the Green Zone is used to promote sustainable development activities to the country’s public and those that do not have access to the main event.

A guide to the number who may want to attend might be obtained by taking an average of the last four COPs. It’s clear that, since Glasgow, numbers have increased considerably. If we take the average of the previous four COPs, we might expect a Brazilian COP to attract around 58,000 people.

These kinds of numbers far outstrip Belém’s ability to cope. What’s more, the limited supply of rooms is reportedly already having a dramatic impact on prices, pushing rates over $ 1,000 a night in many cases. This is especially bad news for small delegations from poorer nations, as well as other essential stakeholders, including Indigenous peoples’ groups and nonprofits, which may not have the deep pockets of some wealthier nations.

Belém and the Brazilian hosts are pulling out all the stops to meet demand. They have brought in two cruise ships with 6,000 additional beds, which they have promised to make available to delegates from developing countries at lower prices. They are actively working on adding capacity through Airbnb and converting schools and other venues into temporary accommodation.

And according to a recent New York Times report, they are even converting “love hotels”—no-frills rooms serve as “a backdrop for lunch-hour trysts, clandestine affairs and passion struck lovers seeking some privacy”—into regular hotels by removing “erotic” apparatus such as (believe it or not!) stripper poles.

Even with such creative solutions in play, however, many worry there will still be a shortage of accommodation.

A Big Tent
Why does this matter? After all, some believe the COPs are getting too big. Critics of mega-Summits point out, quite rightly, that these enormous meetings create logistical nightmares. Not only that, but they note, again correctly, that only a few thousand people out of the tens of thousands who attend are involved in the UN negotiations. Why do we need all the others there?

Furthermore, with climate change under attack from fossil fuel lobbyists and a small but growing number of sympathetic politicians worldwide, some governments are reducing their climate commitments rather than increasing them. Won’t delegations be smaller if governments are less committed?

There is, however, a counterargument to this. In our view, the vast majority of the public—and most governments—remain firmly committed to addressing the existential threat climate change poses. Because of this, we believe the world needs opportunities for people to come together in large numbers and demonstrate their commitment and resolve.

The COP30 in Brazil could have provided that. Arguably, it ought to have been a record-breaking event with massive engagement from Indigenous peoples’ organizations, community-based groups, and more traditional stakeholders.

It might have energized concerned citizens and climate activists to create a shared narrative to take back and challenge the growing opposition to action. Of course, some of that will still happen in Belém, whether it attracts (and can accommodate) 20,000 or 30,000 or even more. However, given the small city’s accommodation limitations, it will not reach the level it might have done.

A Better Way?
While it’s too late to change the venue for COP30, perhaps a new system needs to be considered? We would welcome a process where the UN assesses possible options the host country is considering. Such an assessment could then go to the COP Bureau and a decision be taken in coordination with the host country.

This might help avoid any disconnect between the numbers wishing to attend and those who can realistically be accommodated, doesn’t happen again.

A good example of this type of process was the transparent approach by South Africa for the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development. In this case, the South African government allowed cities to bid. Cape Town, Durban, and Johannesburg duly applied.

The government then published the relevant information, and the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs conducted a review of the cities through a fact-finding visit. Ultimately, it was determined that only Johannesburg could accommodate the 37,000 people who officially attended. Again, there were even more people involved in related events that also took place in the city at the same time.

Türkiye and Australia: Planning for COP31
Looking to the future, let’s consider COP31: the two countries that are hoping to host COP31 are Australia and Türkiye.

For Australia, Melbourne has an estimated 26,500 hotel rooms, while Sydney has 43,000 rooms and Brisbane has around 21,000, and is reportedly building another 3,000. Meanwhile, Perth has 16,000, Adelaide 10,000, and Canberra around 7500. Realistically, this likely means Sydney or (possibly) Melbourne or Brisbane might have the capacity to host an event of this size.

For Türkiye, the mega-city of Istanbul boasts the most capacity, with estimates ranging from 75,000 to over 200,000 rooms; easily enough for a COP. Accurate figures for other Turkish cities, such as Ankara and İzmir, are difficult to obtain. However, these types of data should guide the COP31 Bureau and the host country.

There are, of course, additional issues for a host country and city that need to be addressed, such as transport, the size of the conference centre, and access to enough cafes and other foot outlets at the venue, , including vegetarian and vegan options.

Implementation Time

Another change we would like to see happen in the climate process is both logistical and substantive. As COP30 President, Brazil is developing a much-needed process within the delegates’ “Blue Zone” to focus on implementation of the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement. With Brazil’s strong reputation for diplomatic creativity, perhaps this innovation should not come as a surprise. However, it should certainly be welcomed.

Future Presidencies should build on this. We need COPs to rapidly ramp up the focus on implementation if we are to keep well under within two degrees, and preferably under 1.5, by the end of the century. An enhanced Blue Zone should also be the home for inspiring projects and coalitions focused not on policy but on implementing what we already have. As former US President Barack Obama once said:

“We are the first generation to feel the effect of climate change and the last generation who can do something about it.”

Prof. Felix Dodds and Chris Spence have participated in UN environmental negotiations since the 1990s. Their latest book, Environmental Lobbying at the United Nations: A Guide to Protecting Our Planet, was published in June 2025.

IPS UN Bureau

 


!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);