CLIMATE AS A GLOBAL SOCIOPOLITICAL ISSUE: CHALLENGES OF INTERNATIONAL GOVERNANCE AND BRAZIL'S POSITION

With President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s imminent participation in the United Nations (UN) General Assembly, multilateral negotiations on climate change have emerged as a central point of divergence. On September 22, the UN will bring together representatives of governments from around the world with the aim of consolidating a global commitment to urgent contemporary issues, such as poverty, armed conflicts and, above all, climate change. This event represents an arena for the dispute of narratives and the search for structural transformations in the dynamics of global power.

Although the summit’s agenda largely aligns with Brazilian interests, which include the reform of international institutions, the text of the final declaration raises concerns both for the Brazilian government and for other developing nations. One of the points of greatest tension lies in the attempt by rich nations to frame the climate crisis as a threat to international security, shifting the focus of the debate from historical responsibilities for environmental degradation to a security-based approach.

Climate Change and Global Securitization

The proposal to link the climate issue to international security issues raises significant concerns among emerging countries. Shifting the climate debate to a militarized perspective could obscure the historical responsibilities of the largest emitters of polluting gases and, ultimately, transform the environmental crisis into a justification for external interventions that could affect national sovereignty. This scenario is particularly worrying for countries like Brazil, which is experiencing the effects of climate change intensely, with severe droughts and record forest fires, but which has historically contributed little to the environmental crisis compared to industrialized powers.

For the Brazilian government, the attempt to securitize the climate issue could divert the focus from the structural causes of environmental change, concentrating only on the effects. Brazilian diplomacy has for decades argued that industrialized countries should assume responsibility for the environmental damage caused by their predatory economic development model, especially during the Industrial Revolution. In this sense, any approach that ignores these historical responsibilities is seen as insufficient and potentially harmful to developing nations.

Revisions to the Text and Brazil's Role in the Negotiations

Thanks to pressure from Brazil and other emerging nations, the preliminary text of the agreement has undergone revisions. The current version excludes explicit references to peacekeeping operations and reinforces that each UN body must address climate implications within its respective mandates. This adjustment aims to prevent the environmental issue from being shifted to institutional spheres that do not have the expertise or legitimacy to deal with the structural causes of the climate crisis, such as the UN Security Council.

If approved, the text will guide international bodies to consider the impacts of climate change on international security in a more integrated manner, without deviating from their core responsibilities. The document highlights that the adverse effects of environmental degradation — such as biodiversity loss, water scarcity and desertification — have the potential to exacerbate social tensions, generate economic instability and, in some cases, worsen armed conflicts.

The mediator of the process, Guy Ryder, acknowledges the difficulties in the negotiations and admits that there is no guarantee that a final agreement will be reached. However, he insists on the historical relevance of the moment, stating that the discussions represent one of the most important diplomatic processes since the 1960s.

Power Dynamics in the Security Council and the Future of Multilateralism

Brazil has maintained a cautious stance regarding the inclusion of environmental issues on the UN Security Council agenda. The Foreign Ministry has argued that this body does not have the appropriate instruments to address the root causes of climate change, which could compromise the legitimacy of UN mechanisms specialized in the issue. The initial draft of the agreement, presented in July, suggested that climate implications for international peace and security should be considered even in peacekeeping operations, a proposal supported by wealthy nations, including the largest donors to initiatives to combat deforestation.

However, the absence of leaders of the major global powers at the Future Summit — a side event to the UN General Assembly — raises doubts about the concrete impact of the negotiations. China, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States and France, permanent members of the Security Council and nuclear powers, will send only lower-level representatives to the event, reflecting the deep geopolitical divisions and reluctance of these nations to promote reform of the multilateral system.

Lula's Role at the Summit and the Environmental Crisis in Brazil

For President Lula, the event represents a strategic opportunity to position Brazil as a global leader in environmental negotiations. However, the domestic scenario weakens his ambitions. Brazil is going through a period of intense forest fires and drought, which undermines the credibility of the Brazilian government in advocating for global climate action. Although deforestation has decreased compared to previous years, the domestic environmental situation calls into question the climate leadership narrative that Lula wanted to present at the UN.

Lula will use the Future Summit as a platform to demand that developed countries reform international structures and commit more to climate action, including allocating financial resources to support the nations most vulnerable to the effects of climate change. Two days after the summit, the Brazilian president will open the UN General Assembly, reiterating the urgency of climate action in his speech. However, Brazilian diplomats recognize the challenge of balancing the tone of demand with the environmental reality in the country itself, where the climate crisis has intensified.

The Brazilian delegation will be composed of important figures from the national political scene, such as the presidents of the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate, as well as ministers. The delegation, however, faces criticism due to the high cost of the trip and the contradiction between Lula's environmental discourse and the reality of a Brazil ravaged by fires.

The Climate Crisis as an Existential Challenge for the UN

For António Guterres, UN Secretary-General, the Summit of the Future is a crucial opportunity to renew multilateralism and reform global institutions, including the Security Council. In a context of deep geopolitical divisions and the growing threat of climate change, Guterres calls for a greater commitment from member states to face the existential threats of the 21st century.

However, skepticism surrounding the negotiations is palpable. Many international observers point out that the Pacto do Futuro, the ambitious name given to the agreement under negotiation, may be little more than a reaffirmation of commitments made at previous conferences and never fully fulfilled.

Conclusion: Brazil and the Challenges of Global Climate Leadership

Lula’s participation in the UN General Assembly represents a decisive moment for Brazilian foreign policy. In a context of multiple global crises — from armed conflicts to the acceleration of climate change — Brazil seeks to reinforce its position as a central actor in international environmental negotiations. However, the tensions between global narratives of historical responsibility and attempts to securitize the climate crisis, combined with the country’s domestic reality, present significant challenges for Brazilian diplomacy.

Brazil’s success as a leader on environmental issues will depend not only on its ability to articulate reforms in the international system, but also on its ability to deal with the internal crises that affect its credibility. The fires ravaging the Amazon are not just an environmental tragedy; is a crucial test of the Brazilian government’s ability to navigate the complex global and domestic dynamics that shape the future of climate governance.