During the recent negotiations at the Bali UN pre-conference leading up
to the World Summit on Sustainable Development this fall, conference
Chair Emil Salim of Indonesia put his hand over his microphone. Leaning
to a colleague, he asked in semi-jest, “What are we going to do about
the USA?” The question summed up the consternation felt by many who had
gathered in Bali. They’d come from around the world in hope of making
genuine progress on the most critical issues of our time: poverty,
clean water, sanitation, climate change, forests, fisheries, and the
shift to sustainable global resource use and economics. But they found
that the US was an unwilling partner. Repeatedly, the US blocked
detailed language that would establish funding, or set specific target
goals and dates.
The US administration is focused on an approach to world problems that
relies on “free trade” and volunteerism rather than international
agreements. The basic idea is that enhanced trade and international
business investment should be the fundamental driving force to address
global environmental and social justice issues. The Bush administration
also appears to favor what the UN calls “Type 2” agreements - voluntary
pacts among businesses, government and civic groups - as a replacement
for binding international agreements at the upcoming World Summit.
But the US position is not being accepted so far by a majority of
governments and other participants in the Summit negotiating process.
Many believe that genuine, detailed, funded international plans must be
the outcome of the Summit if the global challenges it focuses on are to
be properly addressed. They don’t believe that it’s helpful to postpone
setting target dates and goals, or that Type 2 approaches alone will be
effective. The sweeping rhetoric of the 1992 Rio Earth Summit and its
Agenda 21 program made it a watershed event ten years ago. For the
first time, UN member states agreed to address critical global issues
like climate change, bio-diversity and resource loss, poverty and the
need to shift to a sustainable economic model. However, because the Rio
commitments were not backed up by detailed and funded implementation
plans, the Global Environmental Outlook report issued May 22, 2002
indicates that little progress has been made on key global issues, and
that in many areas, deterioration is accelerating. Most delegates,
therefore, don’t believe that business driven interests will address
the issues. They have often been part of the problem rather than the
solution.
Developing nations also don’t find the Bush administration’s “free
trade” stance to be trustworthy. The Bush administration has touted the
WTO and free trade philosophy to them, and even conditioned $30 billion
in increased US aid recently pledged to developing countries on their
willingness to open their markets to US goods.
But at the same time, Bush recently signed huge subsidies and tariffs
to protect US agriculture and steel markets. The hypocrisy of this
position wasn’t lost on most countries at Bali. Nor was the fact that
the $30 billion additional aid being offered is a sixth of the total
subsidies for agriculture in the rich nations. The mistrust generated
by these inconsistencies has contributed significantly to difficulties
in negotiations on the Summit, and may ultimately generate major
problems within the WTO as well.
Thus, when Chairman Salim gaveled the Bali negotiations to a close on
June 8th, something unexpected had happened: The Summit agreement was
not completed. The common wisdom had been that, weak or strong, a
Summit agreement text had to be approved at the Bali conference of
ministers in order to assure a successful “Earth Summit 2” this August
in Johannesburg. Everyone knows that world leaders don’t really
negotiate agreements, they just show up, give speeches, take credit,
and sign them, right?
Not this time. This time, the key disputed issues have been passed
forward to the Summit itself for resolution - or for a final burial in
a sea of rhetoric. And so George Bush and his administration, and the
other power brokers within the UN membership have been left with a
decision. Will they come to Johannesburg and show visionary leadership
on the key world issues of our time, or will they send their minions to
pursue unenlightened self-interest in the full glare of World Summit
media?
What are we going to do about the USA?
It’s time Americans ask their government for a more constructive US international policy.
We need to ask the Bush administration to take a cooperative,
constructive role in addressing crucial global issues at the upcoming
World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg. A war on
terrorism and a carte blanche for international business doesn’t
represent an adequate response to the historic problems now at hand. If
we fail to act, it’s not difficult to project a path of increasing
trade and military tension as divisions between the rich and poor
increase, and as vital systems dependent on climate, fresh water, soil,
forests and fisheries continue to deteriorate and fail. If the US takes
the lead with intelligent, enlightened self-interest, it can create
international momentum for a cooperative, healthy and sustainable
planet that will benefit us all.
What you can do:
We don’t have a paywall because, as a nonprofit publication, our mission is to inform, educate and inspire action to protect our living world. Which is why we rely on readers like you for support. If you believe in the work we do, please consider making a tax-deductible year-end donation to our Green Journalism Fund.
DonateGet four issues of the magazine at the discounted rate of $20.