|
.
Johannesburg : a step forward or back?
By S. Faizi
As Johannesburg is all set to host the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) from August 26, the usefulness of this the largest assembly of heads of states - with a massive gathering of civil society activists - remains a perturbing question.
Emil Salim, the charismatic chairman of the preparatory committee for the summit, deployed all his persuasive skills at the final session of the committee attended by ministers at Bali, some weeks ago, to move forward in agreeing on the negotiation text. But what he ended up with was a heavily disputed text. American intransigence poses a grave threat to achieving the objectives set forth for the Summit.
The Summit is meant to rescue Agenda 21 - a blueprint for action to reverse the twin crises of environment and development formulated by the Rio Summit of 1992 - from an implementation crisis. But unless the G-77 musters the courage for a radical intervention, Johannesburg is going to be a journey backward from the hard negotiated agreements of Rio.
While the Johannesburg Summit process ought to have moved forward by nations agreeing on time-bound plans to implement Agenda 21, the US and its 'yes' states have been using the process to reopen issues that have already been settled through negotiations. The US challenges the very premise of the Summit by arguing that poverty eradication is a function of the market and not a responsibility of governments.
Universally agreed Rio principles such as 'common but differentiated responsibility' of various nations for the global environmental crisis, transfer of appropriate technology to needy developing countries on 'concessional and preferential terms', 'precautionary approach' and the 'polluter pays' concept were
reopened for protracted, unyielding negotiations at the Bali ministerial.
Even innocuous references to the biodiversity and climate treaties and their respective protocols on biosafety and mandatory emission reductions were also challenged by the US. They pushed their ancient argument, with even greater vigour, that their unsustainable pattern of consumption cannot be negotiated.
The US and allies seek to use the Johannesburg process to open the UN up for the multinational corporations through a new provision called 'partnerships'. This is to trivialise the need for binding commitments on the part of governments and to legitimise the tyranny arising from the globalisation of western capital. The partnership syndrome has come here to stay and is likely to spread like an epidemic to other areas of UN endeavour.
The performance of the G-77 in the negotiations remains pathetic. They continue to be reactive, lack political will, have little technical support, and have far less concern for the people they represent than the western countries have for their multinationals. On many an occasion Norway argued more effectively for the South than many G-77 delegations did.
My expectation to see a difference in the G-77 leadership of the politically firm Venezuela was in vain. In my extensive interactions with G-77 delegations at Bali, I could see their hidden fear mixed with frustration. As for India, when was the last time we had a significant role in multilateral negotiations?
It is not only that the final meeting of the preparatory committee at Bali had ended up with a heavily bracketed negotiation text. Even a preliminary text for the Summit's political declaration was not available when the ministerial ended and it was only later on that the chairman could formulate one for circulation. An informal 'Friends of the Chair' is at work to narrow down the differences before the Summit begins, but with no appreciable results.
Unless radical new initiatives spring up from the G-77, the Johannesburg Summit would prove to be a costly loss for the developing world. As the space for multilateral democratic negotiations to resolve global issues steadily dwindles, a long and sustained struggle remains the only serious option available to the people. And there is no assurance that such struggle would always be peaceful.
Courtesy http://www.indian-express.com
|
