Posted on 08/25/2002 5:20:23 PM PDT by Pokey78
Deep tensions between Britain and the US have emerged ahead of the Earth Summit in Johannesburg, which remains shrouded in pessimism ahead of its official start today.
The summit is aimed at reducing world poverty through promoting environmentally sustainable growth, and although it is seen as the most important world summit for years, there are growing concerns that virtually nothing significant will be achieved.
As the gloom deepened in the corridors, it seems many delegates are staying away. Although 65,000 delegates had been predictected to turn up, the UN has downgraded its expectations to just 40,000, and by yesterday only 9,000 delegates and journalists had been accredited.
Last night it also emerged that inspite of the extra 8,000 police on duty, that a shot had been fired at a Swiss delegate in an attempted robbery in a hotel. It followed the earlier robbery on Saturday night of another delegate in a nearby room.
The UK has backed calls from developing countries for targets to reduce the number of people who don’t have access to drinking water, sanitation or electricity. The UN has warned that unless real progress is made, the world will be increasingly divided between haves and have nots, fuelling global terrorism.
However, the US yesterday made clear that it does not want any new targets and will not provide any new money to reduce poverty or help protect the environment. The head of the US delegation John Turner said yesterday: “We don’t see the need for any new targets.”
Although 100 world leaders have said they will attend the summit, President Bush has said he will not attend. The head of the British delegation, the Environment Secretary Margaret Beckett, yesterday showed growing frustration with American intransigence, which could derail the summit. She said: “It’s true that the American government is not doing as much as we would all like to see it do, but that’s doesn’t mean there aren’t lots of people in America who take these issues just as seriously as they deserve”.
“We very much want to see targets on issues like sanitation. We hope to pursuade our American friends to agree to some of the targets” she added.
After a year of talks, no agreement has been reached on more than a quarter of the negotiating text, and there is concern that positions are now so entrenched that it will be impossible to reach any meaningful agreement in the ten days of the summit. One UN official warned that failure to resvolve outstanding issues could render the summit useless, and said they were not optimistic about progress.
“We hope to make some headway by the start of the summit. So far, what we forsee is a complete disaster” he said.
South Africa’s deputy foreign minister Aziz Pahad, insisted that while he was confident that common ground could be reached, “it would be romantic to assume that there would be absolute consensus at such a large-diverse conference.”
Tony Juniper, director-designate of Friends of the Earth, said that there was now little chance of the summit achieving anything significant. “I think it’s looking like we’re going to get a pretty modest set of outcomes. It’s clear that we’re going to get no legally binding targets” he said. Friends of the Earth has been very critical of Tony Blair’s decision to attend the summit for just one day.
Mr Blair also came under attack from his most senior environment adviser, Jonathan Porritt, who said he didn’t give environmental issues the priority they deserve. Yesterday Mrs Beckett defended the Prime Minister, saying he had been fully involved in the summit. “The idea that all he brings to the summit is the time he spends here is crazy. He’s been working on it for 18 months - he’s been engaged and involved in it all the way through” she said.
Mrs Beckett also insisted that it would be a disaster if the delegates let the growing row with Zimbabwe’s President, Robert Mugabe, to overshadow the summit. Mr Blair had been facing calls to boycott a speach by Mr Mugabe, who will be attending the summit at the same time as Mr Blair. “The most important and crucial thing is to make sure the summit is not dominated by the issue of Robert Mugabe. There is nothing President Mugabe would like better than to think a whole world summit has been hijacked by his behaviour and his concerns” said Mrs Beckett.
The start of the summit has already been overshadowed by the highly televised clash between protestors and police in the centre of Johannesbug. Activists claimed that police, who fired stun grenades at a candle-lit demonstration which included children, were being heavy handed. However, Johannesburg’s Police Director Happy Schutter defended their action, saying that the marchers had not obtained permission. “We had to show them we wouldn’t let this happen during the summit. If they want to march they must get permission” he said.
The South African government has been worried that the summit could be as disrupted by protests as earlier summits such as Genoa, and have drafted in tens of thousands of police from surrounding areas. The Sandton City shopping and hotel complex has been cordoned off to outsiders, with incredibly tight security both surrounding it and inside. The organisers have been worried about actions by terrorists since this is the first meeting of world leaders since September 11th, and is taking place just before the anniversary of the attack on the US.
I prefer American attacks on the UN.
So true - I sit in meetings sometimes and add up all the hourly rates of the attendees. Often, I think that money would be better spent on actually fixing the problem than talking about it!
Got Representative Democracy?
Actually, if they want to help the poor, Bank officials should focus less on "inclusion" and more on freedom - because that's the real antidote to poverty. This is confirmed by the "Index of Economic Freedom," published annually by The Wall Street Journal and The Heritage Foundation. This guidebook ranks nations by how economically free they are. It consistently shows that people who live in countries with the fewest economic restraints are wealthier than those in economically repressed countries.
Take Haiti and the Dominican Republic, two developing countries with a common border. The 2001 Index shows that of the 155 countries graded, Haiti ranks 137th, while the Dominican Republic is 59th. So what? Well, the answer to that question is this: Thanks to a more market-oriented economy that features low tax rates, Dominicans earn nearly five times as much as Haitians: an average of $1,799, compared to Haiti's $370.
Examples like these abound. So why the Bank's misdiagnosis? Partly because of what it sees in the former Soviet Union. We've poured billions into many of these countries, and they're worse off today than under Soviet rule, Bank officials say. So capitalism obviously doesn't work.
But as the United States and other democracies have shown, capitalism isn't just the absence of socialist-style economics.
The reason should be clear: All the loans in the world are no substitute for economic reform - for freedom. Countries that want to be rich don't need charity; they need to unshackle their people's economic potential. Perhaps then the Bank can adopt a new slogan: "Our Dream is a World That's Really Rich."
I think the united states paid their war debt(s) off with WWI and WWII.
Hehehe. That's the best advice I've heard all evening.
Yeah. There are LOT of Britons who reminisce about the old days of the empire.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.