From: Blunderov (squooker@mweb.co.za)
Date: Fri Aug 30 2002 - 02:44:25 MDT
[Blunderov]
Well, it is all happening in my home town so here is a little of the
flavor of the current proceedings.
(There have been roadblocks everywhere but no apparent problems)
Warm regards
<rip>
The Star Johannesburg 29 August
As tens of thousands of people and about 100 heads of state gather in
Johannesburg for the World Summit on Sustainable Development, one
question is on everyone's mind: "What can be done about the US?"
Under pressure from the right wing of the Republican Party, President
George W Bush will not be attending the WSSD. While his absence is an
affront to democratic multilateral co operation among nations, it should
not be mistaken for a lack of US commitment to the outcome. On the
contrary, the US has set an aggressive agenda for the summit that the
administration has been pursuing for over a year.
The agenda involves halting progress toward the fulfillment of the
commitments made by Bush's father at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio, and
the enactment of specific policies that benefit corporations at the
expense of people and the planet.
The 1992 Rio Earth Summit was an historic watershed. It placed the
environment crisis at the top of the international agenda, and linked
environment with development in a new paradigm of sustainable
development. Governments, including the earlier Bush administration,
made many commitments in Rio. These included binding international
agreements to protect people and the environment such as the Kyoto
Protocol on Climate Change and the Convention on Biodiversity.
There was also a commitment by developed countries to provide 0,7% of
GNP in aid to developing countries and to transfer environmentally
friendly technologies; and the creation of a structure at the United
Nations to enforce these measures, based on transparency and democratic
participation of governments and civil society.
Over the past 10 years admirable work has been done to fulfill these
commitments. However, far more attention has been paid to implementing
the corporate globalization agenda of liberalized trade and investment
policies enforced by the World Trade Organization, the World Bank, the
International Monetary Fund and others.
While the agreements of Rio have floundered, the institutions of
economic globalization have thrived with political and financial support
that has turned them into the world's dominant international
institutions. While the products of Rio focus on social and ecological
sustainability, the institutions of corporate globalization focus on
profit maximization and wealth for the few.
Not surprisingly, therefore, the world is facing even greater
environmental and economic crises today than in 1992.
Not only has Bush withdrawn from the Kyoto Protocol, but his
administration has also announced that it will not negotiate new binding
commitments.
According to US Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs Paula
Dobriansky, "the world community does not need to negotiate new goals or
create new global bureaucracies (at the WSSD)".
Rather than fulfill the commitments made in Rio by his father, Bush is
using the summit to fulfill a corporation globalization agenda which
includes the privatization of vital human services through "public
private partnerships" and reduced government regulation of corporations
and foreign capital with a call for "investor friendly environments".
The two initiatives combine to make a deadly corporate cocktail:
privatization of vital resources with a weakening of the government's
ability
to regulate the corporations that provide the services.
The Bush administration has already implemented public private
partnerships at the US Agency for International Development (AID). One
such initiative, the US Energy Assistance Partnership Programme, was
established by about 80 utilities and regulatory partnerships in 32 AID
assisted countries. Among other things, it has accelerated the
deregulation and privatization of publicly owned utilities in developing
countries.
In California, after the government and the Enron Corporation
"partnered" to deregulate the energy sector, Californians experienced
blackouts, prices that went through the ceiling, and some of the most
unethical (and illegal) corporate behavior in the state's history.
Around the world, the effects of Enron "public private partnerships"
have frequently been deadly. For example, in 2001, eight people were
killed when police were brought in to quell riots in the Dominican
Republic after blackouts lasting up to 20 hours followed a power price
hike that Enron and other private firms initiated.
In 1993, the president of Guatemala tried to dissolve the Congress and
declare martial law after rioting ensued, following a price hike that
the government deemed necessary after selling the power sector to Enron.
In India in 1997, police hired by the power consortium, of which Enron
was a part, beat non violent protesters who challenged the $30 billion
(about R318 billion) agreement struck with Enron.
The World Bank and IMF also employ the privatization model of
development. The people of South Africa are well acquainted with it.
When water was privatized in South Africa, prices soared, people were
cut off and many had no choice but to turn to contaminated sources of
water. The result has been a cholera epidemic 10 times worse today than
at any point over the last 20 years.
In Cochabamba, Bolivia, World Bank water privatization brought increased
rates overall and as much as triple the rates for some of the poorest
users.
In a country where the minimum wage was less than $60 per month, many
users received water bills of and above $20 per month. In both
instances, the people have risen up to demand an end to privatization
and a return to the public provision of this vital resource.
Interestingly, most wealthy countries, such as the US, take the opposite
approach, heavily subsidizing the public provision of water and
sanitation services in accordance with government regulations such as
the Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water Acts. As a result, access to
water in the US is largely taken for granted.
Historically, it has always been binding regulation that has made
business and government act in ecologically and socially sustainable
ways. Partnerships are likely to be used to transfer the responsibility
for sustainable development from governments to corporations.
Therefore, around the world, the call is for increased aid to developing
country governments (at least, the 0,7 % promised at Rio) working
directly with local communities in the provision of vital services and
increased regulation of corporations through a binding Corporate
Accountability Convention at the UN.
In fact, as a result of the Enron scandal and countless other corporate
disasters, Bush made such a commitment last month when he signed new
corporate regulations into law in the US.
What is good for the US must be good enough for the rest of the world.
The power and influence of the US does not depend on the presence of
Bush at the WSSD.
Bush has demonstrated his firm commitment to a privatization and
deregulatory agenda from the World Trade Organization ministerial in
Doha, Qatar, through the UN Conference on Financing for Development in
Monterrey Mexico, to the G 8 Summit in Kanaskis, Canada.
The heads of state meeting here do not need to be reminded of this
agenda, nor the cost of noncompliance. In fact, the only thing that
would require the president's attendance would be if his government
suddenly embraced a commitment to real social and ecological sustainable
development.
The UN is the last international institution that provides a real
alternative to corporate globalization. The WSSD is our opportunity to
embrace, empower and strengthen that alternative.
Just as we did in Seattle, the people of South Africa, the US and the
world have already begun to unite and demand that our governments do the
right thing in Joburg.
It is not too late to let them know that they will be held accountable
for their actions at the WSSD.
It is time to make our voices heard.
W Antonia Juhasz is the Project Director at 117e International Forum on
Globalization (IFG) based in San Francisco, California.
<tear>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:55 MDT