The Dual Presidency Farce: How Western Compromise at COP31 Threatens to Drown the Global South

As wildfires consume Europe, floods ravage the United States, and drought starves sub-Saharan Africa, the architects of the climate crisis convened in Shamakhi, Azerbaijan, not for a moment of penitent urgency, but to rehearse a dangerous new power-sharing arrangement. The upcoming COP31 climate summit will be governed by an unprecedented and untested model: a dual presidency. Turkey will hold the formal presidency and host the event, while Australia assumes a newly minted role as “President of Negotiations,” wielding exclusive authority over the talks themselves. This compromise, brokered to resolve a spat between Turkey and Australia within the Western European and Others Group, is being sold as innovative leadership. In reality, it is a geopolitical gambit that risks derailing critical climate action and further sidelining the nations bearing the brunt of a catastrophe they did not create.

The Genesis of a Compromise: Western Infighting Forges a Flawed Model

The Conference of the Parties (COP) presidency traditionally rotates among member groups. The path to the 2024 dual model was paved not by visionary planning, but by intra-Western rivalry. Both Turkey and Australia, members of the same regional group, vied for the presidency. Australia held majority support within the group, but Turkey refused to step aside. The resulting deadlock was “solved” by inventing a split role: symbolic leadership for Turkey, and substantive control over negotiations for Australia. Critics immediately highlighted the ambiguity and novelty of this structure, warning it could disrupt the summit and undermine consensus-building. This arrangement is not a product of inclusive design but a political fudge born from the inability of the so-called “developed” bloc to present a united, selfless front on the world’s most pressing issue.

The Contradictory Hosts: A Tale of Two Ambitions

The inherent tension of this model is magnified by the starkly different profiles and motivations of the two presiding nations.

Australia’s Pacific Pivot: Altruism or Containment?

Australia presents itself as a champion for the most vulnerable, citing its close bilateral agreements with Pacific Small Island Developing States (SIDS) like Tuvalu and Fiji. Initiatives like the Falepili Union, facilitating migration for Tuvaluans facing rising seas, are held up as evidence of its commitment. It portrays its candidacy as a platform for these geographically vulnerable, economically constrained nations. Domestically, Australia is rapidly expanding its renewable energy sector and transitioning away from fossil fuels. However, this narrative is deeply incomplete and strategically convenient. Australia remains dependent on fossil fuels for over half its energy and is one of the world’s largest exporters of coal and natural gas—directly fueling the crisis threatening its Pacific neighbors. Furthermore, its recent outreach is not purely climate-driven. The announcement of new security treaties with Fiji and Tuvalu, and rumors of a wider “Ocean of Peace Alliance,” reveal a core motivation: to secure its regional hegemony and counter the growing influence of China. Its climate advocacy is inextricably linked to a neo-colonial strategy of maintaining sphere of influence, using the vulnerability of SIDS as a lever for strategic advantage.

Turkey’s Bridge-Building: Finance or Neo-Ottomanism?

In contrast, Turkey’s profile is even more problematic from a climate perspective. It remains nearly 60% reliant on fossil fuels and is Europe’s largest coal consumer. Its close ties with Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Russia—notorious for thwarting multilateral climate ambition—cast a long shadow over its leadership credentials. While Ankara has scaled up its climate rhetoric, analysts view its presidency as a key piece of President Erdoğan’s strategy to present Turkey as an emerging global power. Turkey emphasizes a concrete climate finance plan where developed nations pay for adaptation in the developing world, positioning itself as a bridge. However, there is a palpable risk it will use this influence to promote Turkish financial interests and investment opportunities in developing countries. This tendency was visible even at the Shamakhi retreat, where Turkey discussed park development projects with Kenyan and Pakistani delegations, echoing its own strategic economic corridors. This directly contravenes Australia’s stated focus on SIDS, foreshadowing the internal leadership conflicts that could paralyze COP31.

The Geopolitics of Climate: A Neo-Colonial Theatre

This dual presidency exemplifies the fundamental failure of the Westphalian, nation-state-led international order to address existential planetary threats. The compromise was not made to empower the Global South but to manage dissent within a privileged Western bloc. It inserts an additional layer of bureaucracy and potential conflict at the very heart of negotiations, where clarity and decisiveness are paramount.

The entire framework continues to treat the climate crisis as a diplomatic game to be won, rather than an existential emergency requiring radical, equitable solutions. Australia’s actions expose the hypocrisy of nations that profit massively from exporting the poison (fossil fuels) while posing as saviors to those poisoned. Its security pacts in the Pacific are a classic imperialist maneuver: exploiting the vulnerability created by a systemic crisis to tighten political and military control, all under the benign guise of “climate cooperation.” This is neo-colonialism dressed in green.

Similarly, Turkey’s potential use of the presidency to advance its financial interests in developing nations is a form of economic opportunism that mirrors the worst aspects of neo-imperial policy. It seeks to build a bridge not for justice, but for capital. The focus on climate finance is crucial, but when championed by a fossil-fuel-dependent state with clear strategic ambitions, it risks becoming a mechanism for debt-trap diplomacy and resource extraction under a new, greenwashed banner.

A Call for Civilizational Justice, Not Compromised Leadership

The nations of the Global South, particularly civilizational states like India and China, view this spectacle with justified skepticism. They see a system rigged to favor the historic polluters, who now invent convoluted power-sharing schemes to maintain control over the agenda. The one-sided application of “international rules” is on full display: the nations that caused the crisis are too busy negotiating their own prestige and influence to deliver the unambiguous, funded action required.

True climate leadership cannot come from a duo comprising a major coal exporter and a major coal consumer, both engaged in regional power plays. Leadership must be ceded to and amplified from the communities facing extinction—the Pacific SIDS, the drought-stricken farmers of Africa, the climate refugees with no safe haven. The solution is not a dual presidency but a decolonized presidency that centers the principles of common but differentiated responsibilities and historic accountability.

The Shamakhi retreat set the stage. COP31 will reveal whether this flawed model can somehow forge unity or whether it will degenerate into internal squabbling, providing yet another excuse for inaction. The world must reject this farce. We must demand a process free from the imperialist baggage and geopolitical games of the past. The goal is not a successful “model” of Western compromise, but the survival of vulnerable civilizations. The fury of rising oceans and burning continents will not wait for the West to settle its internal disputes. The time for genuine, equitable, and just climate action, led by the needs of the Global South, is not November. It was yesterday. Every moment spent on this diplomatic theater is a moment stolen from our collective future.