Agreements

"This Agreement [...] aims to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change, [...] including by [...] Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C and [...] Making finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development."

"The UK government’s overseas development bank has bowed to calls to end fossil fuel financing abroad by promising to invest only in companies that align with the Paris climate agreement. The CDC Group revealed its new climate strategy, which will end support for the most polluting fossil fuel projects, including the production of oil and coal, and channel almost a third of its spending towards climate finance. The publicly owned investor, which supports job-creating sectors in Africa and south Asia, will end financing for coal mining, and oil and gas production, as well as new or existing power plants and refineries that use coal or heavy oil. The UK government is under growing pressure to end its support for overseas fossil fuel projects after campaigners revealed that more than £3bn in public money was used to support polluting projects abroad since the Paris climate agreement was signed..."

"Climate change and biodiversity loss . . . pose an even greater existential threat [than the COVID-19 pandemic], to the extent that we have to put ourselves on what might be called a war-like footing. . . . Putting a value on carbon . . . [is] absolutely critical. . . . [W]e need a vast military style campaign to marshall the strength of the global private sector[, which has] trillions at its disposal . . . . [E]ach sector needs a clear strategy to speed up the process of getting innovations to market [and we] need to align private investment behind these industry strategies. . . . If we can develop a pipeline of many more sustainable and "bankable" projects, at a sufficient scale, it will attract greater investment. . . . CEOs and institutional investors have told me that alongside the promises countries have made, their nationally determined contributions, they need clear market signals, agreed globally, so that they have the confidence to invest without the goal posts suddenly moving. . . . [[wikipedia:Charles III#Natural_environment|[W]e are working]] to drive trillions of dollars in support of transition across ten of the most emitting and polluting industries [including] energy, agriculture, transportation, health systems and fashion. . . . I can only urge you, as the world’s decision-makers, to find practical ways of overcoming differences so we can all . . . rescue this precious planet and save the threatened future of our young people."

"Because the President has undisputed authority over foreign policy, President Biden... will be able to reinsert the United States into the international system. He will rejoin the World Health Organization, the Paris Climate Accords, he will go to NATO and reaffirm support for... our Asian allies, for Australia, for every other country that has depended on... American power, but... it's going to be extremely difficult to return to the kind of world that we assumed existed before 2016, because America does remain fundamentally divided. That bipartisan support for the liberal international order that we thought was extremely strong is no longer..."

"We have opened a new chapter of hope in the lives of 7 billion people on the planet. We have [the planet] on loan from future generations. We have today reassured these future generations that we will all together … give them a better earth."

"These children are ready to deliver their moral verdict on the people and institutions who knew all about the dangerous, depleted world they would inherit and yet chose not to act. They know what they think of Donald Trump in the United States and Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil and Scott Morrison in Australia and all the other leaders who torch the planet with defiant glee while denying science so basic that these kids could grasp it easily at age eight. Their verdict is just as damning, if not more so, for the leaders who deliver passionate and moving speeches about the imperative to respect the Paris Climate Agreement and "make the planet great again" (France's Emanuel Macron, Canada's Justin Trudeau, and so many others), but who then shower subsidies, handouts, and licenses on the fossil fuel and agribusiness giants driving ecological breakdown."

"By comparison to what it could have been, it’s a miracle. By comparison to what it should have been, it’s a disaster."

"The Paris accord assumes that each government consults with its own country’s engineers to devise a national energy strategy, with each of the 193 UN member states essentially producing a separate plan... Global engineering systems require global coordination. ...Both the scale and reliability of... globally connected high-tech systems are astounding, and depend on solutions implemented internationally, not country by country."

"The transition to renewable energy can be greatly accelerated if the world’s governments finally bring the engineers to the fore... I was recently on a panel with three economists and a senior business-sector engineer. After the economists spoke... the engineer spoke succinctly and wisely. “I don’t really understand what you economists were just speaking about, but I do have a suggestion... Tell us engineers the desired ‘specs’ and the timeline, and we’ll get the job done.” This is not bravado.... The next big act belongs to the engineers. Energy transformation for climate safety is our twenty-first-century moonshot."

"As President, I have one obligation, and that obligation is to the American people. The Paris Accord would undermine our economy, hamstring our workers, weaken our sovereignty, impose unacceptable legal risks, and put us at a permanent disadvantage to the other countries of the world. It is time to exit the Paris Accord and time to pursue a new deal that protects the environment, our companies, our citizens, and our country. It is time to put Youngstown, Ohio, Detroit, Michigan, and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania -- along with many, many other locations within our great country -- before Paris, France. It is time to make America great again."

"Close to 40 percent of the 53,000 German Jews who were able to escape to Palestine between 1933 and 1941 arrived as "capitalists" thanks to the Haavara Agreement. It is true that the 140 million Reichsmarks they were able to rescue through Haavara represented only a very small part of the assets owned by German Jews in 1933. But for the people who brought those assets to Palestine, as well as for the economy of the Jewish yishuv, they were of great importance."

"The National Socialist government attempted to promote the emigration of its unwanted Jewish citizens. Two principal agreements were used by the state to regulate emigration: the "Haavara" and the "Rublee-Wohlthat." The Haavara Agreement was in force from 1933 until 1941 and concerned emigration to Palestine. This agreement is now regularly mentioned in the relevant literature. In 1972 the former director of the Haavara Agreement, Werner Feilchenfeld, self-published a brochure which has obviously not been read by most people who write about the Haavara; otherwise they might not write so much nonsense about it."

"Between 1933 and 1940, German policy encouraged and actively promoted Jewish emigration to Palestine"

"At a time when much of the rest of the world is starting to wake up to the repression, mendacity, and dangers of the Chinese Communist Party regime, the Vatican is getting even deeper in bed with it. And at a time when that regime is intensifying repression of religion—including Catholics—in China, Pope Francis is renewing an accord with Beijing that has yielded no benefits yet save for President Xi Jinping and only disunity and suffering for the Catholic Church."

"The agreement just renewed between the Holy See and China is not [a peace accord] between the two sides: it is not the end of the troubles for Catholics in China, nor does it sanction religious freedom in China. It is a compromise, strongly contested by many and celebrated with excessive enthusiasm by others. It is not a situation that is advantageous to everyone. I believe that the Vatican paid a higher price than Beijing. It is an agreement that perhaps the Holy See could not have renounced without causing further difficulties to Catholics in China."

"Finally, the agreement did not address the issues of the legalization of ‘underground’ bishops not recognized by the Communist Party, and the fate of clergy who were imprisoned or under house arrest."

"The document makes no provision for any papal role in the process, not even a papal right to approve or veto episcopal appointments in China, which was supposed to be the single substantive concession to the Vatican in the agreement. It’s as if the deal never happened."

"The deal, which is part of Pope Francis's vision to expand the Catholic Church's following across the world, would help the Vatican gain access to potentially millions of converts across China, the world's most populous nation."

"Supporters argue that the deal represents a step forward as it unites Catholics in China under the authority of the pope. But critics argue that the deal would only embolden the Chinese leadership in their persecution of religious minorities, and provide moral legitimacy to a repressive regime."

"As part of the 2018 agreement, the Vatican legitimized Chinese priests and bishops whose loyalties remain unclear, confusing Chinese Catholics who had always trusted the Church. Many refuse to worship in state-sanctioned places of worship, for fear that by revealing themselves as faithful Catholics they will suffer the same abuses that they witness other believers suffer at the hands of the Chinese authorities’ increasingly aggressive atheism."

"Backers of the deal argue that it was never meant to address all outstanding issues, but was an important first step and largely beneficial to Chinese Catholics."

"The Vatican has defended the accord against criticism the pope sold out the underground faithful, saying the deal was necessary to prevent an even worse schism in the church in China."

"Little is known about the precise terms of the arrangement, except that it involves input from the Chinese government on the appointment of bishops to Chinese dioceses."

"Further, while the pastoral intent of the Holy See is understandable, in reality it is not possible to clearly distinguish the pastoral from the political in China. The Vatican’s deal gives political legitimacy to the Chinese regime."

"With the Vatican-China deal of 2018, renewed in 2020 and 2022, the schism between the Patriotic Catholic Church and the “underground” Catholic Church loyal to the Vatican was theoretically healed. Rome recognized the bishops of the Patriotic Catholic Church. The former “underground” Catholics were encouraged to affiliate with the Patriotic Catholic Church, although those “Catholic conscientious objectors” who refused to do so, while not encouraged in their attitude by the Vatican, were still regarded as being in communion with Rome. One might have expected that, after becoming somewhat affiliate with the Vatican, the Patriotic Catholic Church would have ceased to publicly support the most obnoxious repressive practices of the [Chinese Communist Party] towards other religions. After all, this may now embarrass the Vatican as well."

"We’re optimistic the Chinese authorities will wish to continue the dialogue with the Holy See within the agreed terms of the accord, and we move forward."

"The fact we have managed to get all the bishops of China in communion with the Holy Father for the first time since the 1950s, and that the Chinese authorities allow the pope a modest say in the appointment of bishops but ultimately the final word, is quite remarkable."

"It does mean that we have an opportunity to raise other issues with our Chinese counterparts. If we were to walk away from the dialogue completely, we wouldn’t have any opportunity for that. We don’t have a diplomatic mission in Beijing. We have representation in Hong Kong, but that’s very much at a church level, there’s no political exchanges, so we would be left with nothing at all."

"The United States also condemns Russia’s decision to grant expedited Russian citizenship to Ukrainians living in the Russia-controlled Donbas. Through this highly provocative action, Russia is clearly intensifying its assault on Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Mr. President, Donbas is Ukraine, and the people there are Ukrainian—regardless of which language they prefer to speak. Conferring citizenship en masse to the citizens of another state undermines and violates the principle of sovereignty. Russia’s actions subvert the principles on which the Minsk agreements are based: that the Donbas is an integral part of Ukraine and the Ukrainian government must reestablish its control over this territory."

"Russia signed the Minsk agreements in 2014 and 2015, and President Poroshenko and President-elect Zelenskyy have reaffirmed that these agreements are the best vehicle for ending the conflict in eastern Ukraine. It is unacceptable that Russia would take steps to stymie the peace process just four days after Ukraine’s presidential elections. We welcome President-elect Zelenskyy’s expressed commitment to implement the Minsk agreements and redouble efforts to support Ukrainian citizens living in territories controlled by Russia."

"Mr. President, this council was convened today to discuss the implementation of the Minsk Agreements, a goal that we all share, despite Russia’s persistent violations. These agreements, which were negotiated in 2014 and 2015 and signed by Russia, remain the basis for the peace process to resolve the conflict in eastern Ukraine. This council’s primary responsibility – the very reason for its creation – is the preservation of peace and security. As we meet today, the most immediate threat to peace and security is Russia’s looming aggression against Ukraine."

"The ongoing war in the Donbas region in southeastern Ukraine was supposed to stop when the Minsk agreements were signed in 2014 and 2015 by the members of the Trilateral Contact Group—consisting of Ukraine, Russia, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), and representatives of the self-proclaimed republics. Indeed, even heads of state Angela Merkel, François Hollande, and Vladimir Putin gave the final version a high-profile public blessing."

"As we know, peace did not ensue after Minsk. In spite of the agreements, the military operations conducted in eastern Ukraine continued with variable intensity. Ukraine and Russia blamed each other for their non-implementation. Why did the agreements fail? Now that nominal efforts are underway to discuss a possible peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine, it’s important to understand the myriad ways in which the Minsk agreements were inadequate and improbable, so that lessons can be learned from its failures. Perhaps the biggest failure of all was context. As the saying goes, possession is nine-tenths of the law. Indeed, diplomacy can only go so far if one party maintains possession of a territory and the military force to hold it."