Johannesburg Summit:
The battle lines have become clearer and sharper

by Anna Pha

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.

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.