Feed aggregator

Emissionsfreie Lkw zentral für Klimaschutz im Straßengüterverkehr – Treibhausgasminderungsquote setzt Anreize, benachteiligt aber batterieelektrische Lkw gegenüber Brennstoffzellen-Lkw – Reformen nötig, um das Instrument klimapolitisch effizienter zu machen Die aktuelle Ausgestaltung der ...

CTBTO Executive Secretary Robert Floyd addressing staff, Vienna International Centre, Vienna, Austria, 2023. Credit: CTBTO Preparatory Commission

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Nov 12 2025 (IPS)

The US took another step backward –to break ranks with the United Nations– when it voted against a draft resolution calling for the entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT).

The negative vote followed an announcement by President Trump last month that the US plans to resume nuclear testing after a 33-year hiatus. The US stood alone on the UN vote, which was supported by almost all member States in the General Assembly’s First Committee.

The resolution was adopted by an overwhelming majority: with 168 votes in favor, with one against (United States) and 3 abstentions (India, Mauritius, Syria).

During Trump’s first term, the US abstained on the vote. And in other years they had been voting in favour.

Jackie Cabasso, Executive Director, Western States Legal Foundation, which monitors and analyzes U.S. nuclear weapons programs and policies, told IPS the chaos and uncertainty arose from Trump’s factually-challenged social media post that “because of other countries testing programs, I have instructed the Department of War to start testing our Nuclear Weapons on an equal basis.”

The U.S. government’s first ever “No” vote, on the annual UN resolution in support of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), raises further troubling questions about U.S. intentions.

Trump did not specify whether he meant explosive nuclear testing, missile tests, or something else. Russia and China are not conducting explosive nuclear tests, so the U.S. has no basis to respond in kind. They are conducting missile tests, but so is the United States, Cabasso pointed out.

In fact, she said, the U.S. conducted a “routine” test of an unarmed Intercontinental Ballistic Missile on November 5. The Department of Defense (now, Department of War) is responsible for missile tests, but it is the Department of Energy that is responsible for preparation for explosive nuclear testing.

Trump’s announcement was followed by mixed signals.

On November 2, Energy Secretary Chris Wright sought to explain Trump’s post when he told Fox News “I think the tests we’re talking about right now are system tests. These are not nuclear explosions. These are what we call non-critical explosions.”

The headline in a New York Times article was dead on target: Trump pushes Tests with a Nuclear Bang: A Top Aide Says Non-nuclear”.

The waters were further muddied, said Cabasso, by Trump’s unsubstantiated allegations in an interview with 60 Minutes (recorded October 31 but aired November 2) that Russia and China have been secretly conducting explosive nuclear tests deep underground.

In a written statement explaining its General Assembly vote, the U.S. – the only country to cast a No vote – stated, “The United States voted No…. because several paragraphs are inconsistent with U.S. policy or are undergoing policy review…. The United States is not currently pursuing CTBT ratification and therefore cannot support calls for ratification and entry into force.”

Of the other nuclear-armed states, the Russian Federation, China, France, United Kingdom, Israel, and Pakistan voted Yes. India abstained, and North Korea did not vote. Thus, the United States distinguished itself as a “rogue” nuclear armed State.

Jonathan Granoff, President, Global Security Institute, told IPS “calling the statement dumb and dumber does not further the argument that such a resumption of nuclear weapons testing would be contrary to promises made to induce indefinite extension of the NPT, justify further more sophisticated weapons developments in violation of the good faith duties to pursue disarmament under the NPT, end the US advantage of knowing more because it has tested more, upgrade the salience of the use and threat of use of nuclear weapons as legitimate tools of communication amongst nations, lead to increased spending on developing weapons which destroy the user as well as adversaries if used, and stimulate greater international fear and instability.“

“We critically need to develop trust and cooperation to, inter alia, protect the oceans and the climate, end the scourge of corruption stealing between two and four trillion from the world’s productive economies, stop the creation and production of new and even more dangerous weapons as we amplify adversity, ignore preparation for the inevitable next pandemic, eliminate poverty and generally pursue the sanity of human security rather than perpetual instability and the dangerous belief that by madness, mistakes by machines or humans, or design we will not lead ourselves into destroying civilization through the use of these horrific devices,” he said.

Elaborating further, Cabasso pointed out that under the 1980 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a State is obliged to refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose of a treaty when it has signed the treaty.

The United States, Russia and China have all signed but not ratified the CTBT. Russia withdrew its ratification in 2023 to maintain parity with the U.S. The three countries moratoria on nuclear explosive testing until now are consistent with the intent of the CTBT, but Trump’s statements and the U.S. vote in the General Assembly call this commitment into question.

Indicating just how dangerous and uncertain this situation is, Russian President Vladimir Putin, in response, has ordered officials to draft proposals for a possible test of nuclear weapons.

Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov was quoted in TASS, saying “In order to come to a conclusion about the advisability of beginning preparations for such tests, it will take exactly as much time as it takes for us to fully understand the intentions of the United States of America.”

“As we continue to advocate for nuclear risk reduction and the global elimination of nuclear weapons”, said Cabasso, “we must remain vigilant that the option of explosive nuclear weapons testing remains off the table”.

The United States should reverse course, commit to a permanent cessation of explosive nuclear weapons testing, ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and invite other nuclear armed states to follow suit. This would be a huge contribution to long term prospects for international peace and security, she declared.

According to the Washington-based Arms Control Association (ACA), if the United States resumes its nuclear testing, other countries, such as Russia, North Korea, and perhaps China, will likely follow suit, escalating the nuclear arms race, and increasing global tensions.

In response to Trump’s rhetoric, Representative. Dina Titus (Democrat-Nevada.) has introduced the Renewing Efforts to Suspend Testing and Reinforce Arms Control Initiatives Now (RESTRAIN) Act (H.R. 5894) which creates “a prohibition of explosive nuclear testing while simultaneously preventing any funding from going toward the Trump Administration’s effort to conduct explosive nuclear tests.”

And Senator Ed Markey (Democrat-Massachusetts) has introduced companion legislation in the Senate as the No Nuclear Testing Act (S. 3090) to block renewed testing and has called on the Senate to approve ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

In its appeal, ACA says: “We encourage you to reach out to your Member of Congress this week and tell them to block the resumption of nuclear explosive testing including by co-sponsoring the “RESTRAIN Act” and “No Nuclear Testing Act.”

ACA has been at the forefront of the effort to halt nuclear weapons testing for decades.

“Since Trump’s call for renewed nuclear testing, we have flown into action to get our message out, to rally Congressional opposition, to organize with other civil society organizations, and mobilize international opposition to the resumption of nuclear testing by any nation.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!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');  

A Szlovák Hidrometeorológiai Intézet (SHMÚ) elsőfokú meteorológiai figyelmeztetést adott ki szerdán (11. 12.) délelőtt 10:00 óráig, és este 18:00 órától csütörtökön (11. 13.) délelőtt 10:00 óráig az egész országra vonatkozóan a köd előfordulásának a veszélye miatt (50-200 m-es látótávolság). Óvatosan közlekedjenek az útnak indulók!

In today’s edition: Parliament braces for a potential first EPP–Patriots alliance in Thursday’s due diligence vote, the EU’s top judge blasts Viktor Orbán over rule-of-law abuse, and lawmakers’ short-lived MFF rebellion fizzles after Commission concessions

Szlovákia az áfa-csalások egyik fő központjává vált az EU-ban – nyilatkozta a Denník N-nek Laura Codruta Kövesi, az Európai Ügyészség (EPPO) vezetője, aki hivatalos látogatásra érkezett Pozsonyba. Az európai főügyész arra kérte a szlovák rendőrség és az ügyészség képviselőit, hogy változtassanak a hozzáállásukon – írta a Pravda.

Credit: UNICEF/Ulet Ifansasti

By Ian Gary
WASHINGTON DC, Nov 12 2025 (IPS)

The climate crisis is getting worse and requires fundamental changes to societies, economies, and our global financial architecture in response. While extreme economic inequality is on the rise – the world’s billionaires now hold more wealth in the world than every country except the U.S. and China – the impacts of climate change are also unequally felt, with the poor in the Global South and North most at risk.

This month there will be two important UN events focused on addressing the climate crisis and global financial architecture. One event – the 30th UN Framework Convention on Climate Change Conference of Parties (COP30) – will overwhelm the Brazilian city of Belém and attract the media spotlight.

On another continent, in Nairobi, a UN event starting on the same day will get far less attention but is designed to advance an issue which must be central to the climate crisis response – global tax justice.

Starting November 10th, negotiators from member states, along with civil society organizations have sought to influence the process, are holding a formal negotiation session for a planned UN Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation.

There is a strange irony in the fact that two major UN meetings on climate and tax are happening at the same time, thousands of miles away. On the road to Belém, many stories will be written about how Global North countries are failing to meet their commitments to provide billions of dollars in “climate finance” to help Global South countries invest in projects – such as flood defense – to adapt to the realities of climate change.

Rarely mentioned, though, is the need to look beyond aid to the system of global tax rules which starve Global South countries of the resources they need. A report last week from the UN Environment Program (UNEP) said that developed nations provided only $26 billion in “international adaptation finance” to developing countries, far short of the $40 billion a year committed at the Glasgow COP in 2021. Meanwhile, the same report pegs adaptation costs at $310 billion-$365 billion per year by the mid-2030s. Strangely, the UNEP report is completely silent on the need to reform global tax rules to increase the fiscal space to make realizing climate finance commitments possible.

Global tax justice must be advanced to fill the “yawning gap” highlighted by the UNEP between what has been committed and what is needed to deal with the climate crisis. The OECD has said that countries suffer $100-240 billion in lost revenue annually from profit shifting by multinational corporations.

A significant portion of that is lost by Global South countries. If these “lost” funds were recovered through changes in global tax rules, the resources could dwarf the paltry sums being provided by the Global North.

Given that major Global North donors are slashing their aid budgets or closing their aid programs entirely (see the shuttering of USAID), we must now approach the climate finance debate with a “post-aid” lens. The ritualistic annual highlighting of the failure of Global North countries to meet the climate finance commitments must be supplemented by growing demands for global tax justice, ensuring global tax systems enable countries to tax economic activity where it takes place.

Fair and progressive taxation must be part of the post-aid landscape, particularly to support the ability of Global South countries to respond to the climate crisis with their own financial resources.

While thousands of activists descending on Belém, a hardy band of a few dozen civil society groups, organized by the Global Alliance for Tax Justice, will be engaging the UN tax negotiation process in Nairobi. New and effective rules to ensure that multinational companies pay their fair share – including those companies most directly driving the climate crisis – are desperately needed.

Beyond closing tax loopholes, countries need to remove the tax subsidies that incentivize fossil fuel production. In the US, recent research by the FACT Coalition found that American taxpayers are effectively subsidizing oil drilling abroad.

Other research has found that tax and other subsidies may make some future oil and gas projects appear economically viable when, without these breaks, they aren’t.

Fortunately, some conversations are starting to bridge the climate and tax divide, with campaigners in both camps increasingly understanding that the global climate movement needs tax justice to win. Last month, academics and activists convened in Brazil for a policy research conference, with organizers stating that the “convergence of climate justice and tax reform is an ethical, political, and economic imperative.”

Foreign aid won’t come to the rescue, and the private sector won’t invest in climate adaptation at scale because of mismatched incentives. After the dust settles in Belém and Nairobi, governments, international organizations, and activists must find new ways to bring the climate and tax conversations together to tackle global inequality and the climate crisis. It will be a win for people and the planet.

Ian Gary is the Executive Director of the Financial Accountability & Corporate Transparency (FACT) Coalition

IPS UN Bureau

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!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');  

PET trays, a circular economy success story, risk restrictions under PPWR secondary legislation. Europe’s farmers, food producers and coastal communities could lose one of their most reliable tools to keep produce fresh, transport it safely and reduce food waste.

A Szlovák Hidrometeorológiai Intézet (SHMÚ) előrejelzése szerint felhős/borús, elvétve ködös időjárás várható szerdán (11. 12.). Napközben sok helyen felszakadozhat a felhőzet. Elvétve – főleg keleten – ködszitálás vagy gyenge eső fordulhat elő.

Here's what to watch as the EU implements its new defence policies

In thinly veiled attack, ECJ chief decries Hungarian ‘oligarchy’

Geography made Belgium a gateway, globalisation made it a goldmine

Tackling the carbon emissions of bottom trawling is a fast and effective way to forestall climate change while protecting our precious marine ecosystems. But despite the minimal returns, governments across Europe keep subsidising the practice

Main agenda items, approximate timing, public sessions and press opportunities.

Statement by the High Representative on behalf of the EU on the alignment of certain third countries with Council Decision (CFSP) 2025/2211 of 27 October 2025 concerning restrictive measures against the leadership of the Transnistrian region of the Republic of Moldova.

Statement by the High Representative on behalf of the European Union on the alignment of certain third countries with Council Decision (CFSP) 2025/2207 of 27 October  2025 amending Decision (CFSP) 2016/1693 concerning restrictive measures against ISIL (Da’esh) and Al-Qaeda and persons, groups, undertakings and entities associated with them.

Main agenda items, approximate timing, public sessions and press opportunities.

Statement by the High Representative on behalf of the EU on the alignment of certain third countries with Council Decision (CFSP) 2025/2211 of 27 October 2025 concerning restrictive measures against the leadership of the Transnistrian region of the Republic of Moldova.

Statement by the High Representative on behalf of the European Union on the alignment of certain third countries with Council Decision (CFSP) 2025/2207 of 27 October  2025 amending Decision (CFSP) 2016/1693 concerning restrictive measures against ISIL (Da’esh) and Al-Qaeda and persons, groups, undertakings and entities associated with them.

Main agenda items, approximate timing, public sessions and press opportunities.

Statement by the High Representative on behalf of the EU on the alignment of certain third countries with Council Decision (CFSP) 2025/2211 of 27 October 2025 concerning restrictive measures against the leadership of the Transnistrian region of the Republic of Moldova.