|
New
Delhi, 06 September 2002
The
ineffectiveness of the UNO can be judged by the poor media coverage
received by one of its major undertakings, the World
Summit on Sustainable Development, which opened in
Johannesburg, South Africa on 26 Aug. Over 4,000 delegates discussed
five key areas for 10 days,: including water, energy, health,
agriculture and biodiversity, aimed at drafting a plan to turn
promises made at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio into reality.
President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa in his inaugural address
termed, "the global human society... characterised by islands
of wealth, surrounded by a sea of poverty, unsustainable" and
called for greater solidarity with the world's poor.
That
is what the UN has been reduced to 末 an organization of
world痴 poor nations to which the rich give attention on a need to
basis besides of course, just paying lip service.
No
formal treaties were to be signed at the summit. But the final
declaration 末 to be signed by heads of state who arrived later
at the summit climax 末 was hoped to be "credible and
meaningful".
More
than 100 heads of state including the leaders of Britain, France and
Germany were to attend the summit, but only about 60 turned up. The
president of the USA 末 the world's largest economy and biggest
polluter 末 declined to be there. Right from the start, more
disdain than hope prevailed over the wide-ranging discussions. Most
of it was due to the intransigence of USA who, it was felt, wanted a
weak agreement, or none at all, so as to leave it free to act as it
will. Among the thousands of anti-globalization marchers who
regularly demonstrated outside the venue, several carried
hand-written signs criticizing Bush's absence. Delegates from the
Sierra Club, a conservation group, noted it by placing an empty
chair and a pair of shoes at one of the meeting venues.
Talks
continued through the weekend and to the relief of most
representatives, most agreements could be reached on 02 & 03 Sep
and the final plan of action got ready by 4 Sep, for the summit to
end on due date. The conference had a twin-track programme, running
environmental issues, of more concern to the industrialised world,
in tandem with development themes of greater interest to poor
countries. A review of the decade (since 1992) showed there were as
many, or perhaps even more people below subsistence level as in
1992, when the last earth summit was held in Rio.
All
the same, negotiators felt a bit upbeat on 02 Sep after reaching
deals on climate change and trade, as heads of state began arriving
to discuss poverty and the environment. One contentious issue was
resolved late 31 Aug, when negotiators settled on wording to address
the Kyoto Protocol on climate change, which the United States, under
President Bush, has refused to sign. Environmentalists also welcomed
the wording, though they tempered their enthusiasm. Steve Sawyer,
climate director for Greenpeace, called it "a tremendous
achievement in this process because basically it doesn't go
backward."
To
appear more reasonable than Bush and underscore Washington痴
isolation, Russian President Putin announced on 03 Sep that Russia
would sign the Kyoto Protocol and so did China. Compromises were
also reached on trade that largely stuck to language agreed to at a
World Trade Organization meeting in Doha, Qatar. They included a
reaffirmation of commitments to hold negotiations concerning phasing
out agricultural and other trade-distorting subsidies. The last
outstanding issue was resolved late 02 Sep when negotiators agreed
to delete language giving the WTO precedence over multilateral
environment agreements. Developing nations sided with the United
States against setting targets on renewable energy sources, while
the EU and other countries pushed for a commitment to halve the
number of people without access to sanitation by 2015.
By
week痴 end, the Delegates had agreed on more than 95 percent of
the nearly 70-page plan, though a few tough issues remained.
Negotiators met behind closed doors and worked late into the night,
to settle remaining differences over energy and sanitation. The
breakthrough came after diplomats again worked late into the night
on 03 Sep to resolve a dispute over language in the conference's
plan on health care for women. Finally, they arrived at a plan early
04 Sep that is intended to reduce poverty and preserve the earth's
natural resources.
The
plan is meant to set the global agenda for the coming years. It
calls on nations to reduce by half the number of poor people who
lack sanitation by 2015; to commit to the sound management of
chemicals with the goal of minimizing their adverse effects on
health and nature by 2020; and to reduce significantly by 2010 the
number of animals and plants having endangered status. Fishing in
areas where stocks are depleted will also stop until renewed. In the
end, the nations agreed to promote an increase in renewable energy,
but rejected the specific target and time frame (15% by 2010).
The
plan calls for the reduction of agricultural subsidies in wealthy
countries, which, poor nations say, protect farmers in the United
States and Europe from competition. It also urges nations to promote
renewable energy sources like solar and wind power as well as to
expand access to energy services by the poor. Officials from the
United States and the United Nations praised the document, but it
was sharply assailed by environmentalists and advocates for the
poor, who complained that wealthy countries had weakened the
language.
The
secretary general of the conference, Nitin Desai, emphasized that
leaders had succeeded in finding common ground in difficult
discussions. But he, too, acknowledged that the plan was weaker than
many hoped. "In some areas," he said, "I wish we
could have done more."
"If
you were taking score," said the spokesman for the National
Environmental Trust, an advocacy organization headquartered in
Washington, "you'd have to say the US just got everything they
wanted. The environmental lobby is extremely disappointed. The Bush
administration won this ballgame 44-0."
US
Delegates, however, defended their actions, saying that targets and
timetables are meaningless without devising strategies to carry out
plans, particularly for poor countries that often lack the
infrastructure and resources to comply. What came out loud and clear
was the fact, howsoever unpalatable, that no summit
can achieve the desired results without the consent and
approval of the sole super power!
Yet,
the last word still remained with those representing the majority as
Mr
Powell, US Secretary of State whilst addressing the closing session
of the summit, was jeered when he criticised Zimbabwe and talked of
action the US was taking to meet environmental changes. When he
criticised Zambia 末 also facing a food crisis 末 for
rejecting genetically modified corn that Americans eat every day,
demonstrators shouted "shame on Bush" and some unfurled a
banner reading, "Betrayed by Governments". Several
of the two dozen protesters, many of them Americans, were escorted
from the hall so that he could resume his 10 minute address.
International
aid agency Oxfam summed up in branding the whole deal on the table
as offering only "crumbs for the poor", and called the
agreement, "a triumph for greed and self-interest, a tragedy
for poor people and the environment".
Back
to Top
Disclaimer
Copyright
|