|
Get AfricaFocus Bulletin by e-mail!
Print this page
|
Note: This document is from the archive of the Africa Policy E-Journal, published
by the Africa Policy Information Center (APIC) from 1995 to 2001 and by Africa Action
from 2001 to 2003. APIC was merged into Africa Action in 2001. Please note that many outdated links in this archived
document may not work.
|
Africa: Johannesburg Summit, 2
Africa: Johannesburg Summit, 2
Date distributed (ymd): 020815
Document reposted by Africa Action
Africa Policy Electronic Distribution List: an information
service provided by AFRICA ACTION (incorporating the Africa
Policy Information Center, The Africa Fund, and the American
Committee on Africa). Find more information for action for
Africa at http://www.africaaction.org
+++++++++++++++++++++Document Profile+++++++++++++++++++++
Region: Continent-Wide
Issue Areas: +political/rights+ +economy/development+
+security/peace+ +US policy focus+
SUMMARY CONTENTS:
This posting contains excerpts from two NGO reports on the last
preparatory meeting for the Johannesburg Summit, which begins on
August 26. The meeting in Bali in June ended in deadlock on a wide
range of issues. As these analyses indicate, substantive agreement
on these issues in Johannesburg would require new willingness on
the part of the U.S. in particular to respond to the concerns of
developing countries. Most observers therefore rate the chances of
breakthroughs at the official summit at slim to none.
Another posting today includes a press release and fact sheet
released by the UN in advance of the Summit.
+++++++++++++++++end profile++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
THE BATTLE OF BALI:
Last stop before the World Summit on Sustainable Development
By Yin Shao Loong, Third World Network
June 2002
Yin Shao Loong is a researcher with Third World Network.
Contact: twnkl@po.jaring.my
[excerpts only: full text at
http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/wssd2.htm]
Negotiations on an action plan for the forthcoming UN summit on
sustainable development have ended in deadlock as key developed
nations hold back from commitments on finance, debt relief and
combating poverty.
The Bali preparatory meeting for the World Summit on Sustainable
Development (WSSD), to be held in August 2002 in Johannesburg,
South Africa, saw a clear North-South divide emerge over reform of
international relations.
Tense closed-door negotiations took place over the last 24 hours of
the Bali PrepCom, which ended in the early hours of 8 June.
Ministers and senior officials of the US, EU, Japan, Mexico, Norway
and the developing-country negotiating bloc known as the Group of
77 and China, which comprises 137 countries, met on the morning of
Friday 7 June to consider a draft paper detailing a proposal for
the financing of a sustainable development action plan for the 21st
century (Agenda 21 of the 1992 Rio Earth Summit).
Negotiations had crawled for some days over the content and
financial resources covered by the "Means of Implementation"
section of the WSSD's plan of action, which PrepCom chairman and
former Indonesian environment minister Emil Salim had hoped to dub
the "Bali Commitment" if negotiations had been successful.
The text negotiated thus far is being transmitted to Johannesburg,
73% has been agreed and the rest - largely pertaining to trade,
finance and globalisation - remains contentious and in brackets as
per UN negotiations indicating unagreed text. This threatens to be
a setback to the Summit's prospects for success since many
developed countries have been aiming to undermine progress on both
environment and development issues since Rio.
Negotiations in Bali had proceeded on four tracks: the environment
and natural resources (including energy, water, biodiversity and
special programmes for small-island developing states (SIDS) and
Africa); the institutional framework for sustainable development
(focusing on the modalities and reform of global, regional and
national governance institutions); trade and finance (including in
the Means of Implementation); and tentative negotiations on a
political declaration for the Johannesburg Summit.
By the last day of the Bali PrepCom, apart from the Means of
Implementation, negotiations had stopped unfinished on all tracks
with over 200 brackets outstanding. Among them was the Rio
Principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities" of
nations to sustainable development [that is, rich countries have
greater responsibilities]. That mention of this principle within
the preamble was highlighted as an outstanding issue by the US
testifies to the incredible backslide on the sustainable
development agenda since 1992.
After the Rio Earth Summit the UN had calculated that Agenda 21's
implementation would cost over $600 billion annually in developing
countries. Developed countries had agreed to commit $125 billion a
year through official development assistance (ODA), a figure based
upon 0.7% of their gross national product (GNP). To date, only five
countries have met this target - Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands,
Norway and Sweden. And since 1992, 14 of 21 donor countries have
seen their aid budgets decline.
Developing countries were keen to move beyond the level of the
March 2002 Monterrey Conference on Financing for Development which
had only reaffirmed developed countries' commitment to meet the Rio
target of 0.7% of GNP as ODA. The EU committed as a whole to an
average of 0.33% of GNP as ODA. The US announced an increase of $5
billion over 2004-2006 above its present level. Japanese ODA,
however, is expected to continue its downward slide. Efforts to put
substantial debt relief for the most indebted countries on the
table at Monterrey had largely failed, in part due, as some
countries had complained, to premature concessions by the G77 and
China, chaired this year by Venezuela.
However, developed countries have been adamant throughout the last
three WSSD PrepCom meetings that the Means of Implementation should
not go beyond agreements made at Monterrey or at the last World
Trade Organisation (WTO) meeting in Doha, Qatar. The US and Japan
in particular have been reluctant to concede any progressive terms
that would link unsustainable levels of debt with sustainable
development despite the common linkage of poverty. The EU has been
more conciliatory ...
During an evening meeting of ministers of the EU and G77/China on
Thursday 6 June the EU issued a non-paper version of the Means of
Implementation (which would only become an official paper following
consensual adoption). This was later amalgamated with a G77 and
China position in the early hours of Friday. South African minister
for environment and tourism Valli Moosa presented the new draft to
the select group of six ministers at 08:00. The non-paper received
ministerial approval for consideration by delegations. ...
All in all, 13 points of disagreement were registered. ...
Within a day the locus of the PrepCom and the fate of the Bali
Commitment had shifted from the negotiating rooms to the corridors
and the small meeting rooms of the PrepCom Bureau. ...
The G77 and China took a bold step and declared that they found the
paper acceptable and if other delegations were unable to accept it
then the last week of negotiations on finance would be rendered
void and parties would have to revert to the last officially
published working text.
This was a calculated gamble on the part of the G77 and China to
test the political will of the developed countries. The 08:00
non-paper contained much language favoured by the developed
countries ... The key tests of political will lay within
paragraphs on debt (which attempted to advance beyond the Heavily
Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) debt relief initiative),
diversification for commodity-dependent countries, and the
elimination of agricultural subsidies. Additionally both the US and
EU had advanced similar text on the WTO-TRIPS (Trade-Related
Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) agreement and public
health, implying that implementation of TRIPS would be a boon for
public health whereas in fact TRIPS, by enshrining strict
intellectual property rights, raises the costs for public health
care (witness the feud in South Africa and elsewhere over access to
HIV/AIDS drugs). The 08:00 non-paper reversed the emphasis
stressing the suspension clauses within TRIPS which parties may
exercise as they deem fit as part of a public health approach
rather than TRIPS itself.
If the developed countries rejected the paper it would be clear
that they were against substantive debt forgiveness, sustainable
commodity-based economies, fair terms of trade and public health in
developing countries. In spite of high talk by developed nations of
combating poverty, ensuring sustainable consumption and protecting
human rights and the environment, it would be clear, if the
compromise package was rejected, that on matters of substance the
North wanted the South to stay locked into its subordinate position
within the global economy. ...
The EU stated that it could accept the non-paper as the basis for
further negotiation. Norway, Mexico and New Zealand also accepted
the paper. The US and Japan stayed silent throughout. ...
At around midnight the plenary was convened but the news was
already out in the corridors: no deal. There would be no Bali
Commitment and chairman Emil Salim's exhausted face said it all.
...
In her closing address to the plenary, Venezuelan Minister for
Environment Ana Elisa Osorio, speaking for the G77 and China,
stated that despite efforts made and flexibility shown by the G77
and China, unity amongst major parties was not achieved. She
emphasised the principle of common but differentiated
responsibilities and financial mechanisms necessary to implement
sustainable development, including the burden of external debt and
developing-country products not finding access to markets at
remunerative prices.
... The US, Japan and to an extent the EU have shown that when push
comes to shove they are unwilling to commit to progress in these
areas. This makes Johannesburg a Summit not just about sustainable
development, but about the conditions necessary for a decent life
itself.
Foreign Policy In Focus
Bulletin from Bali: What Are We Going to Do About the United
States?
by Eric Mann July 15, 2002
Eric Mann <ericmann@mindspring.com> is the director of the
Labor/Community Strategy Center and a member of the LA Bus Riders
Union. His latest book, Dispatches from Durban: the World
Conference Against Racism and Post-September 11 Movement Strategies
will be published in the Fall of 2002.
[excerpts only: full text at:
http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2002/0207wssdprep_body.html]
This year, in late August 2002, the United Nations will hold the
World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD), an international
conference in Johannesburg, South Africa, ostensibly to create a
new model of sustainable development that integrates economic
development, social justice, and environmental imperatives. WSSD is
supposed to be a ten year follow-up and implementation conference
to the 1992 Rio de Janeiro UN Conference on Environment and
Development--thus, its other name, "Rio plus 10." In the
Preparatory Committee (PrepComm) meetings that have preceded WSSD,
(the latest in Bali, Indonesia held in late May through early June)
a common theme has emerged--the United States government is bound
and determined to undermine, overthrow, and sabotage any
international treaties, agreements, and conferences that it
believes restrict its sovereignty in any way as the world's rogue
superpower.
By the second day of the UN's Bali Preparatory Committee (PrepComm)
for the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD), most
delegates from the Nongovernmental Organizations (NGOs) oscillated
between disgust and depression. The "Chairman's Report"--the
summary language that all the world governments were trying to
agree upon--was little more than a neoliberal anti-environmental
agenda. Naty Bernardino of the International South Group Network
called it "Rio minus 10." As the governmental delegates were
debating the language for the final declaration, an angry U
official, thinking his microphone had been turned off, was overhead
lamenting, "What are we going to do about the United States?"
Within hours, creative NGO organizers had printed small paper
strips that we pinned to our shirts, repeating that same question.
Even that tiny protest was overruled by UN security. We were
advised by UN staff that any protests inside the Bali International
Convention Center (BICC) criticizing a specific government by name
would not be permitted--especially one particular government. At
the daily NGO meeting the next morning, we were warned by a
high-ranking UN official that there was a rumor that t-shirts
bearing the slogan "What are we going to do about the United
States?" would be appearing, and anyone wearing them on the
premises would be escorted out. Indeed, one of the organizers was
able to have such shirts printed overnight. Now, many delegates had
flown to Bali to advance very specific agendas, representing groups
that had saved for such a trip, and while wanting to wear the
t-shirts in protest, were afraid of risking expulsion. Yet
forbidden fruit is always the sweetest. Most NGOs, when told they
weren't allowed to wear the t-shirts, decided they just had to wear
one. The question then was how to advance the tactic--t-shirt civil
disobedience? Our dynamic organizing committee, initiated by
members of the women's caucus, came up with a new tactical wrinkle.
We would wear the t-shirts into the Conference Center, but would
use masking tape to cover up the "United States" so the t-shirts
now read: "What are we going to do about -------?" Aesthetically
and politically, the masking of the t-shirts drew greater attention
to our message: the U.S. was running the show and our protest of
its hegemony was being censored. The life and death fight with the
policies of the United States had taken center stage at Bali.
Many groups had come to Bali to demand "water as a human right."
The U.S. refused; it argued that water is a commodity to be
privatized.
Groups had demanded that the U.S. sign the Kyoto treaty, and that
WSSD pass a proposal for a far more radical reduction in greenhouse
gases than the 5% proposed by Kyoto. The U.S. refused to sign Kyoto
altogether, and opposed any language linking fossil fuel combustion
to global warming--opposing any efforts to save the small island
states and the entire planet from ecological catastrophe.
NGOs, and even a few governments, had demanded binding language
with specific timetables and goals, such as reducing world poverty
by 50% by the year 2015. The U.S. opposed specific numerical goals,
specific timetables, structures of accountability, or penalties for
non-compliance.
NGOs - trying to impact the document by influencing governments -
asked for strong and binding international language to restrict
transnational corporations' production of carcinogens, mining in
indigenous communities, and expansion of oil production. The U.S.
argued that any corporate behavior must be "voluntary," that the
principle of national sovereignty, not international law, should
shape the Johannesburg meeting. Any agreements between governments
and corporations, argued Washington, should be based on non-binding
public/private "partnerships"--the ideological poison pill. But
even on the issue of "protecting national sovereignty,"the U.S. was
two-faced and hypocritical. The U.S. did propose international and
binding rules by the World Trade Organization (WTO) against
indigenous and Third World nations trying to protect their own
industries and sovereignty from the penetration of oil,
mining, and agricultural transnationals. The U.S. supported
protective tariffs for its own steel industry, and supported
massive subsidies to its agricultural multinationals in order to
tear down the domestic industries of other nations. For the U.S.
government, and its present incarnation in the Bush administration,
there are no principles: international rules to regulate
transnational corporations, no; international rules to advance
neoliberalism, yes. It is simply a question of which formulation
best advances its imperial interests.
Worse, the U.S. would tolerate no dissent. It was known to be
bullying every government in private "green room" shakedowns--even
demanding the Norwegian ambassador to the U.S. censor the
courageous Norwegian UN ministers at Bali who were fighting for
international treaties to control transnational corporate abuses
and to support indigenous peoples' rights. And every time
governments put forth progressive language, the U.S. puts the
statements in "brackets," the UN procedure for contesting and
trying to remove policies with which you don't agree. For these and
many other reasons, the question remained: "What are we going to do
about the United States?"
On Wednesday afternoon, May 29, more than 50 of us went to the
Greenpeace ship docked at Bali harbor. In front of some local
media, we finally ripped off the masking tape from the X-rated
t-shirts, exposing the "United States." Several of our
spokespeople, including Canadian organizer Prabwa Khosla from the
Women's Caucus and Henry Shillingford from the Caribbean, talked
about how the U.S. was sabotaging any positive outcomes for
environmental justice at WSSD.
The U.S.--threatening each nation with economic, political, and if
necessary, military retaliation--is imposing an anti-regulatory
agenda on the conference. The governmental groups--from the
European Union to the G77 & China (the nations of the global
south)--are unable or unwilling to offer an organized opposition.
The U.S. is working to undermine the Johannesburg summit by
substituting worthless voluntary agreements for enforceable ones,
continuing to impose business and trade dictatorships (pushed
through by the U.S. at the Doha and Monterey world trade
conferences over dependent nations) and formalizing the stealing of
indigenous land, property rights, and cultures. Ask any person
working at WSSD on any subject--human rights, water, biodiversity,
energy, global warming, debt cancellation--and they will tell you
the same thing: the U.S is "bracketing" our lives, ruling all
progress out of order. How ironic that in the midst of all this
heavy-handed repression, the main objective of the U.S. and UN is
to come out of Johannesburg with an emphasis on "partnerships."
According to this argument, Rio in 1992 failed because it was too
restrictive of corporate rights. Now, the U.S wants the delegates
to denounce specific regulations to stop mining or oil exploration
and instead propose "partnerships"--the grand illusion of our
time--between NGOs and corporations like Shell Oil.
Our tiny t-shirt protest was well below the scope and scale needed
to impact policy or any balance of power, but as a microcosm of
what is urgently needed in Johannesburg and back in the U.S., it
was an important beginning. ...
This material is being reposted for wider distribution by
Africa Action (incorporating the Africa Policy Information
Center, The Africa Fund, and the American Committee on Africa).
Africa Action's information services provide accessible
information and analysis in order to promote U.S. and
international policies toward Africa that advance economic,
political and social justice and the full spectrum of human rights.
|
