LIVING in a complex world and looking for simple solutions is like deep-sea diving without oxygen and blaming your lungs for limited breathing capacity.

The recently concluded COP29 has earned flak for not moving the needle forward on many agenda items, with countries expressing loss of faith in the multilateral system and decrying the slow pace of progress in negotiations. This outcry is the result of years of frustration with a system that does not have the mandate to push majority decisions, and instead, allows a few countries to be power brokers.

A combination of factors this year led to the massive disenchantment with multilateralism. What started in 2015 with euphoria and hope of a fair future for all in Paris ended in despair and disappointment at Baku.

There is a history of escalating events behind the indignant mood. The year 2024 was the third consecutive warmest in a row, with alarming palpability of climate change impacts felt across the planet from Africa to Asia and Europe to the Americas.

With parts per million of carbon dioxide increasing in the atmosphere instead of decreasing, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets melting more rapidly, acidification reducing 56 per cent of the oceans` capacity to store carbon, permafrost thawing unlocking vast reservoirs of soil organic carbon, and sea level rise threatening survival of island and coastal states, fear and panic are sweeping across communities, forcing nations to take a more strident view of negotiated climate decisions.

The other reason for frustration is the disconnect between grand-sounding statements and positions taken at the table by rich countries. There is no point of convergence between expressions of solidarity for `development that leaves no one behind` and gavelling decisions that leave more than half of humanity mired in poverty, debt and exposure to high risks.

However, with all the heartache and heartburn, accompanied by strong condemnation of an unfair system, the fact remains that there is no other option for vulnerable countries than to work with and through the multilateral system to get the best possible deal from a rapidly worsening situation.

All recent developments (political, economic and environmental) are an indication that we are fast moving towards a new order in which transactional relationships will determine actions and dominate decisions. With the re-election of Donald Trump, a massive shift in approach with strong leanings towards self-preservation will become an important part of the new playbook for engagement.As the world faces acute food and water security challenges, geopolitics will no longer be about globalisation, free markets or non-aligned diplomacy. The new political model is likely to support inward thinking, impose trade barriers and forge alliances to protect core vested interests.

The Global South is not likely to get a fair deal. Instead, vulnerable nations will come under increasing pressure to accept decisions deemed inadequate and unjust with a take it or leave it choice. Talking about debt and poverty trap will not cut flak either as countries with money will set their own terms and conditions for transactions.

Seen through this precarious lens, countries will have to move beyond reliance on multilateralism to find other ways of tackling existential threats by forging regional and bilateral alliances to strengthen resilience. Reducing existing tensions and building trust can be one step in this direction.

For South Asia, caught in the web of a geography with an interconnected moun-tain system (Himalaya,Karakoramand Hindukush) that serves as a common source of water to HKH countries, and marred by political disputes the region can no longer afford, poses a strategic dilemma. Should it remain defiantly gridlocked in age-old po-sitions at the risk of destabilisation or move beyond the politics of hate and division to embark on a future of hope? The strategic choice between pragmatism over passion and flexibility over rigidity will play a defining role in determining future stability in South Asia. The alternative is a humanitarian crisis.

Any illusion of outside help should at best only be construed as a mirage. The stark disparity between the support for Ukraine and the lack of empathy for Palestine is a wake-up call on where the world stands on morality. Shorn of political veneer, it is nothing more than a band-aid to mask grievous injury.

The warmer the world gets, the colder hearts will become, making the planet inhospitable in more ways than one.

The most strategic lesson from COP29 is to take a realistic view of geopolitics and reset agenda to adapt politically and economically to the new global reality. • The wnter is chief executive of the Civil Society Coalition for Climate Change.

aisha1410@csccc.org.pk