Gordon Campbell | Parliament TV | Parliament Today | News Video | Crime | Employers | Housing | Immigration | Legal | Local Govt. | Maori | Welfare | Unions | Youth | Search

 

What the Government failed to tell us about WSSD

A high-powered government delegation, led by Environment Minister Marian Hobbs, recently returned from the Earth Summit in Johannesburg with a Programme of Action for sustainable development that presents economic globalisation as a solution. Professor of Law Jane Kelsey puts the summit under the microscope and finds it decidedly flawed.

What the Government failed to tell us
about the Earth Summit in Johannesburg

Having recently attended the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) briefing on the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg, I was appalled at how sanitised it was.

The briefings glossed over the strong challenges presented inside and outside the Summit to the idea that sustainable development requires even more globalisation.

The summit was meant to provide the next steps forward, based on the progressive agenda of the Rio Earth Summit a decade ago. Instead of Rio + 10, the summit became known as Doha + 10, a reference to ten months since the launching of a new round of free trade negotiations at the WTO ministerial meeting in Doha (Qatar).

There was nothing progressive about the process or the outcome. The people for whom sustainable development is a matter of life and death – poor and small island countries, indigenous nations, peasant farmers, local communities– were marginalised throughout the summit. So were their demands for debt relief, genuine agrarian reform, rights to food security and clean drinking water, enforceable controls over trans-national companies, protection of indigenous rights over biodiversity, an end to dumping of GE-grain on countries facing starvation and much more. Even the powerful Western environmental lobby was sidelined at a venue miles from the main meeting.



Delegations representing poorer countries objected that the UN’s relatively open processes had been subverted by the kind of bullying, manipulation and backroom dealings that pervade the WTO. Venezuela’s President Chavez, speaking for the Group of 77 poorer countries, called the Summit a ‘dialogue of the deaf’, complaining that most heads of state and governments had no influence on the Plan of Implementation.

Predictably, those who dominated were the major powers, especially the United States, EC and Japan, with strong support from Australia and New Zealand on issues of globalisation. Sponsors, such as BMW, Hewlett Packard and Daimler Chrysler, provided an up-market corporate image. The business end of ‘civil society’, re-branded through such alliances as the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, and even Mining, Minerals and Sustainable Development, proclaimed their conversion to social responsibility.

The epitome of corporate ‘green washing’ was a report from the Chairmen of DuPont, Shell and Anova Holdings: ‘Walking the Talk: The Business Case for Sustainable Development’. Their solution was ‘to mobilize markets in favour of sustainability, leveraging the power of innovation and global markets for the benefit of everyone – not just the developed world. This means a further liberalization of the market – a move that would be condemned by anti-globalization protestors'.

Indeed. The Summit’s location in post-apartheid Johannesburg underscored this paradox. Some 20,000 people marched from the depressed township of Alexandra to the summit venue at elite Sandton to be met by some 8000 police, plus tanks, helicopters and barricades. At the fore were a group from Soweto where privatisation of water and electricity had already seen terminations for non-payment and outbreaks of disease, such as cholera. The official delegations were quarantined from this ‘uncivil society’ and oblivious to their warnings about global apartheid.

The champions of the WTO, including New Zealand, emerged victorious. Abundant evidence that links global free markets to deepening inequality, environmental destruction, corporate corruption, collapsing infrastructure, social crises and political chaos was swept aside with the blanket assertion that trade liberalisation enhances sustainable development. Views ignored include those of bodies like the World Health Assembly, UN Commission on Human Rights and UNCTAD who fear the social impacts of WTO agreements on ‘development rights’ to education, water, health care and medicines.

By endorsing the Doha agenda, the Summit effectively sanctioned proposals to extend the power of major corporations over core services and guarantee rights to foreign investors, with no corresponding legal responsibility. This was confirmed by the shift in focus from Type-I treaties that are binding under international law to so-called Type-II outcomes of ‘stakeholder partnerships’. Notionally these ‘partnerships’ include indigenous peoples, local governments and (corporate-friendly) non-government organisations. In practice, they are designed to forge the bond between governments and corporations that Walking the Talk proposed. The Summit’s targets on energy, water and food all assumed private provision by profit-driven transnational companies. An obvious alternative – to cancel the unpayable and often unconscionable debt – had already been ruled out at the Conference on Financing of Development in Monterrey in March 2002.

Sustainable development became code for corporations assuming more control over resources, not less. At a time when corporate corruption dominates the headlines and self-regulation is visibly failing internationally, and in New Zealand, this is an extraordinary coup for big business. Already a ‘Walking the Talk’ forum in Auckland has discussed ‘the implications for business – and the opportunities’ arising from the Summit. More are scheduled, presumably with support from a Third Way Government committed to light-handed regulation and public/private infrastructure projects.

I’m not opposing the idea of businesses becoming socially responsible. But New Zealanders should not be seduced into believing that companies like Waste Management and Shell have been reborn as responsible corporate citizens. Their power needs to be wound back and their actions regulated, not expanded further in the guise of sustainable development and social responsibility.

Text ends: 844 words

Jane Kelsey is a Professor of Law at Auckland University and a member of the Action, Research and Education Network of Aotearoa (ARENA). Further information about the WSSD, and the effects of globalisation on New Zealand generally, is available by contacting ARENA at www.arena.org.nz


Submitted: Don Polly, media liaison, ARENA, 905-8595, donpolly@clear.net.nz

© Scoop Media

 
 
 
Parliament Headlines | Politics Headlines | Regional Headlines

Taxing Capital Gains: Tax Working Group Delivers Final Report

Group Chair Sir Michael Cullen says our system has many strengths but there is a clear weakness caused by our inconsistent treatment of capital gains.

“New Zealanders earning just salary and wages are taxed on their full income but we have several situations where you can earn income from gains on assets and not be taxed at all.

“All members of the Group agree that more income from capital gains should be taxed from the sale of residential rental properties. The majority of us on the Group, by a margin of 8-3, support going further and broadening that approach to include all land and buildings, business assets, intangible property and shares.” More>>

 

89 Cents An Hour: Govt Plans Fix For Minimum Wage For People With Disabilities

IHC is delighted that the Government is looking into replacing the Minimum Wage Exemption (MWE) with a wage supplement to ensure people with disabilities are paid at least the minimum wage. More>>

ALSO:

Auckland Action Against Poverty: Motels Profit From Housing Crisis

A single motel which charges up to $1,500 per week per room has received over $3 million worth of Government funds to provide emergency assistance, despite never having a Code Compliance Certificate – an offence under the Building Act – and receiving a series of longstanding complaints from occupants... More>>

ALSO:

Gordon Campbell: On The Alleged China Relations Crisis

If New Zealand’s relations with China are ‘deteriorating’ then you still need a microscope to detect the signs... More>>

ALSO:

Environment: Government To End Tenure Review

“Tenure review has resulted in parcels of land being added to the conservation estate, but it has also resulted in more intensive farming and subdivision on the 353,000 ha of land which has been freeholded. This contributed to major landscape change and loss of habitat for native plants and animals,” said Eugenie Sage. More>>

ALSO:

Bell Tolls: Big Changes, Grand Mergers Planned For Vocational Training

“At a time when we’re facing critical skill shortages, too many of our polytechnics and institutes of technology are going broke... More>>

ALSO:

Sallies' State Of The Nation: Progress Stalled In Reducing Inequality

The report shows a lack of tangible progress in key areas including record levels of household debt and a growing gap in educational achievement between poorer and more well off communities. More>>

ALSO:

Party Politics In Tax Morale Survey: SSC To Seek Answers From IRD

Minister of State Services Chris Hipkins has today asked the State Services Commissioner Peter Hughes to examine IRD’s reported inappropriate use of a public survey. More>>

ALSO:

 
 
 
 
 

LATEST HEADLINES

  • PARLIAMENT
  • POLITICS
  • REGIONAL
 
 

InfoPages News Channels