The Hindu : The despair and hope

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Monday, Sep 09, 2002

Opinion

Opinion - News Analysis

The despair and hope

By Sankaram Ayala

The culmination of the U.N. World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg was a plan that set broad timetables for improving sanitation, reducing chemical pollution and protecting the endangered plant and animal species. Ecologists and corporations united to oppose global warming. A fresh view of environmental problem-solving emerged. The summit ended as mute protesters displayed signs which said "betrayed".

The Summit to devise an ambitious blueprint to promote development while protecting natural resources is in reality the old agenda of Rio that remained without measurable progress. There were doubts in the minds of the participants — one hundred nations — on the success and utility of the Summit because of the absence of the U.S. President, George Bush, leader of the world's biggest economy and largest polluter of the environment. While the senior Bush said at Rio in 1992 that "the American lifestyle is not up for negotiation", his son, the U.S. President since 2001, followed in his footsteps. He argued that he would not ratify the Kyoto accord unless developing countries agreed to ratify. Few are aware of the fact that only a very small fraction — hardly one fifth — of the annual finances needed for climate change and global warming operations would be adequate to solve the hunger and poverty problem of the developing countries with natural resources conservation.

The participants are polarised into two broad groups — the developed with 24% of the world population and 76% of the poor in the developing. The former is concerned with environmental sustainability and the latter with reducing hunger and poverty. The challenge at the Summit was whether we could put development ahead of sustainability. The fight against poverty is the priority, according to the Danish school, led by Bjorn Lomborg. The U.S. holds just the opposite. The fact is that natural resources of the world are disproportionately used — 80% by the rich, a lion's share of which legitimately belongs to the poor world.

In his opening address, the South African President, Thabo Mbeki, said there was every need for the U.S. to demonstrate to the billions of people that "we lead, that we are committed to the vision and practice of human solidarity, that we do not accept that human society should be constructed on the basis of a savage principle of the survival of the fittest". In a vital session, clashes between the users of renewable and non-renewable resources of energy prolonged till the final decision the last day. The nations agreed to promote an increase in renewable energy but rejected the specific target and timeframe. That would facilitate a move forward. There was much relief when the U.S. administration acceded on efforts to halve the number of people without sanitation by 2015 and to reduce the loss of endangered plants and animals by 2020.

A key diplomat, John Ashe, expressed deep concern about global warming and its effect on sea level rise that ends in total inundation of many islands. In a brilliant speech, the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, said leaders could not afford to allow poverty and environmental degradation to continue unchecked. The President of France, Jacques Chirac, said the U.S. should do more to protect the environment.

Russia's decision to ratify the Kyoto treaty was hailed as a step forward in the struggle to prevent the droughts, floods and agricultural disruptions believed to have been caused by climate change. On behalf of the U.S. President, the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, attempted a presentation in support of his country's policies and actions the midst of uncomfortable actions by protesters. He asserted the U.S. philosophy: "trade as the engine of development". The message from the Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, was balanced and acceptable to the world as a whole. His voice of dissent about the heavy subsidies to the U.S. farmers as harmful to the third world is the truth that deserves praise and gratitude from the third world in particular. Leaders of the G-8 countries recently committed $6 billion aid yearly to Africa, much of which will go toward debt reduction.

To seek relief at the Summit was more than formidable. But what is to be learned by the poor world, without going to the Summit, is the wisdom and experience of the farmers that is more than adequate, if only political support is given to the development of rural areas and the farming business. This optimism arises from two facts. First, the green revolution of India and the caveat of Norman Borlaug — "the rich nations are poor indicators of what has to be done in developing countries. So do not follow their tactics." This has been refused and Western technology and the covert methods of multinational companies were embraced. Second, an unsolicited tribute to the India, a country of low wages but familiar with English. A few technicians and engineers in software systems in Bangalore now support the world's biggest companies, earning India $60 billion in foreign exchange reserves that could be doubled in just three years. This has made the world more dependent on India and India on the world than ever before. If such support were given to farmers and rural development, India would regain its past glory. The former U.S. President, John Kennedy, expressed it as "we have means and capacity to eliminate hunger from the face of the earth in our lifetime. We need only the will." The one intractable issue is the U.S. attitude to the Summit. Many Europeans chastised the U.S. for not caring enough about sustainability as it rejected the Kyoto protocol. The U.S. decision was made on the basis of economic self-interest rather than out of principled belief in world development. An attempt to focus on the fundamental issues of global agenda of reducing poverty and hunger healthcare and sanitation would help the U.S. indirectly. Human misery and ecological degradation lead to terrorism that would not win but cause frequent disturbances to peace, which is more important than accumulation of wealth. This issue cannot be negotiated by the third world or India in a polarised crowd. In conclusion, the appeal of the U.N. Secretary-General quoted below carries weight and would be appropriate and rewarding. It is directed to rich nations, in general, and the U.S., in particular. That is only what India wants and it cannot be done better than the U.N. Secretary-General. To quote: "You put yourself in the shoes of a small developing country which cannot export its agriculture products because of restrictions and tariffs, a small developing country that cannot compete in the world market even if it could export, because the richer farmers in the richer countries are heavily subsidised. There is no point in giving with one hand and taking with the other."

If the summit unanimously resolved by a strong commitment for poverty reduction under environmental protection by the rich and poor nations of the world with no voice of dissent, it is a success worth the energy, erudition and trouble. The vital lesson for the world, in general, and the rich countries, in particular, is the imperative need to eliminate poverty, reduce environmental degradation and development of rural areas and families — a fact rightly endorsed by past Presidents of the U.S. and that remains unfulfilled. To quote Abraham Lincoln: "A house divided cannot stand, a nation cannot live half slave and half free." Bill Clinton observed: "We are safer when other great nations are at peace with their neighbours and within themselves."

(The writer is a distinguished fellow, M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation, Chennai.)

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

Stories in this Section

Johannesburg fiasco

The hostage crisis

Engaging Pak., a better option

Ominous signs in the northeast

The despair and hope

India and the U.S. war on Iraq

Thailand, a brief pause?