International

Possible lack of final agreement overspeaks Baku summit negotiations

Baku can go down in history as another failed climate summit, adding to the list of COPs that ended in failure; with a bad agreement, as in Copenhagen (2009) or without agreement, as in the summit in The Hague (2000).

This is raised in the conversations that negotiators, observers and journalists have this Saturday in the corridors of COP29, after the 24 hours of extension of a summit that was supposed to end on Friday afternoon and in full “chaos” after dozens of countries left the room where the draft of the potential agreement was being negotiated.

The analysts and observers consulted, as well as the negotiating teams, agree to underline the “especially chaotic” end of this summit, from which a not too encouraging outcome is expected: either a “bad agreement” – that does not meet the needs of the Global South to face the climate challenge – or, directly, without agreement.

Pessimism invaded the spaces of the summit that hosts these days the capital of Azerbaijan, and in which about 200 states have been negotiating for two weeks how to finance climate action, especially in those low-income countries and vulnerable to the impacts of global warming.

Everyone mentions the ghost of the failed summits in The Hague and Copenhagen, cases that they would like to avoid, because they fear that going through another failure like this would further undermine the already weaken confidence in multilateralism.

20250501_mh_noexigencia_dui_728x90

Some developing countries leave the trading room

In addition, small island states and some Africans left the negotiation room where they met the presidency’s latest proposal for the agreement on climate financing that finalizes COP29, where they said they did not feel heard.

Political representatives of the negotiating group that brings together the least developed countries, as well as that of the small island states claimed to have come to the climate summit in Baku to close “a fair agreement” on climate financing, but they have felt “hurt” by not being consulted.

“There is an agreement to be closed and we are not being consulted. We are here to negotiate, but we are leaving because at the moment we do not feel that we are being heard,” said the head of the negotiating group of the island countries, Cedric Schuste, in statements to the media.

“We do everything we can to build bridges with literally everyone. It is not easy, neither in financing nor in mitigation,” stressed the European Commissioner for Climate Action, Wopke Hoekstra, to emphasize that “it is fair to ask that we be constructive.”

Some Latin American and Caribbean states, which are trying to build bridges between the least developed and rich countries, expressed their refusal to admit that this Baku summit is closed without an agreement.

20250501_mh_noexigencia_dui_728x90

“We cannot leave Baku or Copenhagen,” said Panama’s special climate envoy, Juan Carlos Monterrey, in reference to the climate summit held in the Danish capital in 2009, a meeting that the international climate community considered a failure, by not reaching any agreement.

“We are already at a point of not only building bridges, but walking on those bridges,” Monterrey said, after detailing that the countries had left the consultation mainly because of their discrepancies regarding the total amount that rich countries suggest mobilizing to pay for the climate transition and adaptation to the inevitable impacts of global warming.

“The great struggle is the figure,” said Monterrey, since developing countries at this point support that the goal is 300 billion dollars per year by 2035, and developing and emerging economies ask for 500 billion dollars annually and by 2030.

Lack of transparency in the process

Panama’s main negotiator, Ana Aguilar, also criticized the lack of transparency in the process, something she blamed on the Azerbaijani presidency of the summit, which according to her has had more meetings with some parties than with others, and has been three days without favoring negotiations more than bilaterally.

“We have a problem,” said Colombian Minister Susana Muhamad, who claimed that there is still a long distance between the amount that rich countries propose to mobilize and that requested by those that developing countries.

20250501_mh_noexigencia_dui_728x90

The proposal of the presidency of the COP29, as reflected in a negotiating text made public on Friday, was that the awealing countries pay 250 billion dollars a year by 2035 to the states of the Global South, to help them pay for action against climate change, a phenomenon to which they hardly contribute but of which they are the main victims.

Now there is talk of 300 billion dollars, while the largest group of developing countries demands at least 500 billion.

The dispute is especially in the quantum, Muhamad said, but also “in some of the requirements that I think we can achieve through negotiation,” he said.

“The problem is that it has been published very late, it was published yesterday. The deadline is very short, so we have some countries, those that have less financial capacity, that do not feel satisfied,” explained Muhamad, who added that “we need them to be able to move and deliberate.”

The Colombian minister said that she will encourage rich countries “to take a step forward” and, she added, “it is very important that they do so so that we can move forward and carry out this negotiation.”

20250501_mh_noexigencia_dui_728x90

International

Bogotá and Quito Seek Dialogue After Tariffs and Power Cut Escalate Tensions

Bogotá and Quito will hold an emergency bilateral summit next week amid recent developments that have strained relations between the two countries.

Tensions escalated this week after Ecuadorian President Daniel Noboa unexpectedly announced a 30% tariff on Colombian imports. Colombia responded with a reciprocal measure, imposing the same tariff on around 20 Ecuadorian products and suspending electricity exports to Ecuador.

Aware that electricity imports are critical to easing Ecuador’s recent energy crises, Quito further imposed a 30% tariff on the transportation of Colombian oil through its territory.

However, recent statements from the Ecuadorian government suggest that dialogue between the two sides has intensified in recent hours. Ecuador’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Gabriela Sommerfeld, confirmed that active conversations are under way.

In Colombia, segments of the business sector have welcomed the prospect of negotiations. The National Business Council (Consejo Gremial Nacional, CGN), for instance, urged both governments to restore commercial relations, warning that the dispute “puts jobs and regional economic stability at risk.”

20250501_mh_noexigencia_dui_728x90

International

Trump-Era Defense Plan Prioritizes Border Security and Scales Back Global Commitments

The U.S. military will prioritize the defense of the homeland and the deterrence of China, while providing more limited support to its allies and elevating Latin America as a key focus of its agenda, according to a Pentagon strategic document released on Friday.

The 2026 National Defense Strategy (NDS) represents a significant shift from previous Pentagon policies, both in its emphasis on allies assuming greater responsibility with reduced backing from Washington and in its more moderate tone toward traditional adversaries such as China and Russia.

“As U.S. forces focus on defending the homeland and the Indo-Pacific, allies and partners elsewhere will assume primary responsibility for their own defense, with crucial but more limited support from U.S. forces,” the document states.

The previous defense strategy, published during President Joe Biden’s administration, described China as Washington’s most consequential challenge and characterized Russia as an “acute threat.”

The new strategy, however, calls for maintaining “respectful relations” with Beijing and makes no reference to Taiwan, the democratically governed island claimed by China and allied with the United States. It also describes the threat posed by Russia as “persistent but manageable,” particularly affecting NATO’s eastern members.

20250501_mh_noexigencia_dui_728x90

While both the Biden-era strategy and the Trump administration’s approach emphasize the importance of defending U.S. territory, they differ significantly in their assessment of the challenges facing the country.

The Trump administration’s NDS sharply criticizes the previous government for neglecting border security, arguing that this failure led to an “influx of illegal immigrants” and widespread narcotics trafficking.

International

Guatemala considers sending high-risk gang members to military prisons

Amid the escalating crisis in Guatemala’s prison system, the government is considering transferring high-risk gang members to military-run detention facilities, a move that analysts say could help address overcrowding and the lack of control in civilian prisons.

The debate has gained urgency following the killing of ten police officers by gang members, reportedly in retaliation after the government refused to meet demands made by Aldo Dupie Ochoa, alias “El Lobo,” leader of the Barrio 18 gang, which authorities identified as responsible for the attack.

Guatemala’s Minister of Defense, Henry David Sáenz, told local media that the possibility of relocating high-danger inmates to military brigades has not been formally discussed. However, he noted that the practice is not new to the Armed Forces and said it is something that “was already being done.”

One example is the detention center located within the Mariscal Zavala Military Brigade, in Zone 17 of Guatemala City, where several inmates are held under military supervision. The facility also houses high-profile detainees, including former official Eduardo Masaya, who faces corruption charges.

In 2015, a ministerial agreement authorized the establishment of the Zone Seventeen Detention Center within the brigade, with a maximum capacity of 114 inmates in Area A and 21 in Area B. The agreement specified that the facility would be used exclusively for civilians or military personnel considered at risk of assassination.

20250501_mh_noexigencia_dui_728x90

Additionally, since 2010, a prison has operated within the Matamoros Barracks in Zone 1 of Guatemala City, holding dangerous or high-profile inmates. However, media outlets have described these military detention centers as “VIP prisons,” particularly for former government officials such as ex-president Otto Pérez Molina.