The following article was published in "The Guardian", newspaper of the Communist Party of Australia in its issue of Wednesday, September 18th, 2002. Contact address: 65 Campbell Street, Surry Hills. Sydney. 2010 Australia. Phone: (612) 9212 6855 Fax: (612) 9281 5795.
CPA Central Committee: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "The Guardian": <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Webpage: http://www.cpa.org.au> Subscription rates on request. ****************************** Johannesburg Summit The battle lines have become clearer and sharper When the World Summit of Sustainable Development (WSSD) opened in Johannesburg on August 26, the people of the world looked on with high hopes that the Summit would see action and a genuine commitment towards addressing the serious economic, social and environmental crises that threaten the future of the human race and life on planet Earth. by Anna Pha Heads of State, government leaders, negotiators, NGOs, trade unions and big business representatives were among the 21,000 delegates who took part in the official meeting. They came from rich and poor countries; from small islands that are sinking in the seas, countries that are experiencing climate extremes of drought or floods, heavy pollution, and from countries suffering extreme poverty, disease, starvation, unemployment, wars, illiteracy and lack of development. Unsustainable consumption and production patterns are swallowing up the earth's vital resources and destroying the environment. The conference adopted two documents - a political declaration and a Plan of Implementation. The political declaration looked innocuous on the surface. It gave the impression of unity and commitment to sustainable development, using expressions such as "constructive partnership for change", "collective strength", "global consensus", "common goals". It spoke of "empowerment and emancipation and gender equality", called for broad based participation in policy formulation. "We commit ourselves to build a humane, equitable and caring global society cognisant of the need for human dignity for all." "..[we] are united and moved by a deeply felt sense that we urgently need to create a brighter world of hope." The Declaration promised protection of biodiversity and reaffirmed the Agenda 21 program adopted at the Rio summit 10 years ago. It expressed determination "to save our planet, promote human development and achieve universal prosperity and peace". The weakness in the declaration and the Implementation Plan, was in what was not said. While recognising the need for poverty eradication, for changes in consumption and production patterns and to protect and manage natural resources, there was little that would actually bring about such outcomes. The will of the overwhelming majority of countries present was not expressed in the final declaration. The US successfully exploited the need for a consensus around the final documents to thwart the wishes of the majority of people around the world. In doing so its sheer arrogance, obstruction and behaviour made it few friends. The few specific measures tended to focus on the "opening of markets" (meaning acceptance of IMF and World Bank policies) and "partnerships" between big business, governments and other sectors of the community. The Summit documents papered over the sharp divisions and struggles that took place in Johannesburg. These differences are reflected in the different estimates made of the Summit. "This Plan of Implementation provides us with everything we need to make sustainable development happen over the next several years", said the Johannesburg Summit Secretary-General Nitin Desai. "This Summit makes sustainable development a reality", said UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan. He said that the Summit would put us on a path that reduces poverty while protecting the environment and working for all people, rich and poor. Rio minus ten Barry Coates, Director of the World Development Movement, summed up the Summit as: "rather than Rio plus ten, the outcome has set the agenda back to the extent that it could more accurately be termed Rio minus ten". Tony Juniper of Friends of the Earth said, "Instead of developing a new momentum at the summit, civil society has a very hard job of defending the Summit from a take-over by the WTO. The powerful idea of eradicating poverty and protecting the environment is being subordinated to 'free trade'". A positive note was struck by a Cuban news agency: "The strong contradictions between North and South were present during all the days of the World Summit, but nevertheless we cannot talk of a step back because there, unity and the battle of ideas triumphed". In the past 10 years since the UN hosted the Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro in Brazil, there has been a substantial decline in both the development of poorer nations and of the environment. The question of sustainable development was put firmly on the global agenda at Rio, generating great expectations for a better world. It was also significant as being possibly the first UN Summit to be sponsored by the corporate sector. The Rio Summit adopted an Action Plan (Agenda 21) which recognised that development and the environment are interconnected. Agenda 21 contained many promises of support for developing countries including more aid, technology transfer, preferential trade terms and foreign direct investment. The rich world has failed to deliver on these promises. Rio adopted a number of important principles which came under attack at Johannesburg. In particular the concept of "common but differentiated responsibilities" and the "precautionary principle" was included. These principles recognised the inequality between poorer countries and the highly industrialised countries and the importance of environmental protection in the case of a threat of irreversible damage taking priority over trade and other rules. It is the transnational corporations (TNCs) whose activities are responsible for much of the depletion of natural resources, the destruction of forests, the drying up of water and marine resources, massive use of fossil fuels for transport and industry, the manufacture and dumping of toxic wastes and other environmentally unsound activities. These issues were squarely on the agenda at Johannesburg. Business lobby The corporate sector came well prepared for the Summit. Approximately 700 corporations were represented directly, including the major polluters and environmental destroyers. They, along with the assistance of the governments of the US, Australia, Canada and Japan, did all in their power to prevent decisions being made that would interfere with their present methods of production, depletion of resources and emission of greenhouse gases. At the same time they claimed to give priority to sustainable development. "Business is good for sustainable development, and sustainable development is good for business", said Phyll Watts, chairman of Shell, in an address to a business conference held during the Summit. The business leaders' conference was organised by the Business Action for Sustainable Development (BASD), an employer body set up by the International (ICC) of Commerce and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (an offshoot of the World Business Council) to lobby for business interests at the Summit. "It should be our top priority to eradicate poverty. We must fight poverty through sustainable economic growth and development in poor countries", Anders Fogh Rasmussen, President of the European Union and Prime Minister of Denmark, told the business meeting. "Through development and economic growth we can create the resources to step up protection of our environment. In other words: economic growth is the key to both the eradication of poverty and to a better environment", said Mr Rasmussen. Protecting the business environment "We must foster an environment in which private initiative and business can thrive. We look forward to develop close partnerships on these goals." According to Rio Tinto's Sir Robert Wilson, "economic growth, the essential condition for sustainable development, depends on the products of the mining industry". In all of their contributions the TNCs completely eradicated any role for governments (except as "partners" providing handouts to the private sector) and made no concrete suggestions in regard to changing their behaviour which, after all, lies at the heart of the problem. Their solution was "good governance", "partnerships", "free markets" and all the other IMF and World Bank neo-liberal (economic rationalist) policies that have done so much harm already. The US, Australia and Canada were part of a small but persistent minority that attempted to block any global rules for corporate accountability, the setting of standards for corporate behaviour, or that might restrict their profit-making. Instead the US, with its big business, promoted "partnerships" as the solution. These partnerships would be a vehicle for the distribution of aid by rich countries. The aid would go to private sector projects which corporations such as Rio Tinto, Shell, du Pont, etc, could then use as propaganda, as well as for making profits. Partnerships are a vehicle for privatisation and relieving governments of their responsibility to provide essential services. The areas of focus include water, energy, health car, education, agriculture and biodiversity. Consistent with the approach of big business and the US administration new conditions are being attached for the receipt of aid. Colin Powell, US Secretary of State said at the Summit that assistance would only be given to developing nations "that are governed wisely and fairly and are strongly committed to investing in health and education". The conditions focus on deregulation, privatisation and implementation of other IMF policies. All of these policies will only contribute further to the lack of development, an increase in poverty and environmental problems, as in the past. There was absolutely no attempt on the part of the US administration, Australia, Canada or the big corporations to genuinely address the many critical issues facing the world. US Secretary for State Colin Powell told the Summit that the facts "scream out to us . Drought, wasteful land use and economic mismanagement threaten to create famine", said Powell. "In one country in this region, Zimbabwe, the lack of respect for human rights and the rule of law has exacerbated these factors to push millions forward towards the brink of starvation." At this point he was forced to stop talking for half a minute as the Summit broke out in jeers, boos, slow clapping and shouting. Powell was shouted down on a number of other occasions during his speech. He strongly opposed any moves towards the regulation or accountability of corporations. He opposed any genuine, concrete measures to combat climate change and viciously attacked those countries that rejected US food "aid" in the form of genetically modified crops. US war plans condemned The anti-US sentiment went much further than the reaction of delegates to Powell's treatment of Zimbabwe. He was also taken to task by a number of speakers over the US threat of war against Iraq. Former South African President, Nelson Mandela, told reporters that he was "appalled" at Bush's threat of a unilateral invasion of Iraq to forcibly impose a "regime change" on Iraq. "No country should be allowed to take the law into their own hands". The Bush-Cheney administration "has introduced chaos into international affairs and we condemn that in the strongest terms", said Mandela. South African President Thabo Mbeki, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and French President Jacque Chirac spoke of their opposition to war on Iraq. Many speakers including Thabo Mbeki called for self-determination for Palestine and for an end to the blockade against Cuba. There was widespread anger that George W Bush refused to attend the Summit. The US succeeded in blocking proposals from the European Union to increase to 15 per cent the total energy derived from renewable energy sources by 2010. The US and Japan were among those who rejected the UN goal that industrially developed countries dedicate 0.7 per cent of their GDP to finance the sustainable development of poorer countries. And while the battle between the US, Australia, Japan, the EU and big business representatives and Third World countries and the people of the world was being fought out inside the conference, a similar battle was raging outside. On the streets and in many other venues the people were taking action in defence of sustainable development. In the nearby impoverished township of Alexandra, residents erected a huge sculpture of a metallic robot against a banner reading "Don't Let Big Business Rule". Different organisations held hundreds of fringe events around a huge range of issues. There were anti-globalisation and anti-privatisation marches, actions by the landless farmers, NGOs and many other people. Green Wash Awards In Johannesburg there was a special presentation of the "green wash" academy awards by environmental organisations. Major oil corporations, Shell, Exxon Mobil and BP dominated the awards, beating biotech giants Monsanto Novartis and Aventis in a gripping awards ceremony. Other winners were Enron for best makeup, Arthur Anderson for best documentary destruction and unprecedented joint awards to Total, Unocal and Premium Oil for best foreign direct investment. (For details visit http://www.earthsummitbiz/awards The oil companies are presenting themselves as solar companies and companies that promote giant agri-business and oppose consumer information are claiming to be the solution to world hunger, said Craig Bennett of Friends of the Earth. We are delighted to recognise these companies for what they are - hypocrites. There was another presentation during the Summit where awards for sustainable development partnerships were jointly presented by the UNEP and ICC. Shell was a lucky winner again, for its gas exploration project in the Philippines! While the Johannesburg Summit failed to deliver necessary decisions to combat climate change and ensure sustainable development for the poorer countries, there were some noteworthy positive features. First there was the isolation of the US and the strong and wide opposition to its arrogant, aggressive, dictatorial behaviour; There is growing unity among the countries of the South, continuing from earlier battles at Seattle, Davos, Genoa, Prague and elsewhere. And again, many diverse forces all facing oppression and exploitation by TNCs found considerable commonality and unity in their struggle. The struggle lines have become sharper and clearer. Despite all the efforts of the US administration and little Johnny, it appears that the Kyoto Treaty will be ratified. The announcements by Russia, China, Estonia and Canada at the Summit, if carried through, will see the Kyoto protocol come into legal force - without the US or Australia. ******************************************************** .. -- -- Leftlink - Australia's Broad Left Mailing List mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Archived at http://www.cat.org.au/lists/leftlink/ Sponsored by Melbourne's New International Bookshop Sub: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=subscribe%20leftlink Unsub: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20leftlink
