THE THINLY-VEILED message emerging out of the Johannesburg summit for us— people of Pakistan and other less developed countries— is to give up the long wait for the world to come to our rescue.
It is, if not totally unrealistic, premature to expect developed countries to forego their immediate economic gains for some ultimate universal ambition. We will have to look for solutions to our problems, on our own.
The belief that problems of underdevelopment and issues related to sustainable development could be addressed from some international forum has proved to be delusive. Refusal of the US even to sign the Kyoto treaty reflected on the level of its commitment to high-sounding missions.
The world was probably too preoccupied with new possible directions that the US-led war against terrorism might take to focus on the happenings and outcome of the UN-sponsored Johannesburg Development Summit. Dashing of hopes expressed at the outcome of Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit held in 1992 must have further dampened the spirits and led to the lack of interest in the event.
For all their debates and discussions over multi-faceted issues related to sustainable development, some 60,000 delegates, drawn from all over the world, at best have provoked greater sense of urgency about the challenges posed by pollution and poverty that continue to threaten the future of the mankind. Formally the summit adopted the strategy to set targets and specify timeframe to attain those instead of attempting for new treaties. Some of the conclusions were interesting. For instance, a new objective that was added to the old agenda was to improve the sanitation facilities. In this respect the governments pledged to halve the number of people without basic sewage disposal by 2015. Bad sanitation was identified to be a cause of many ailments found in the poor countries leading to deaths of several thousand people each year.
The summit adopted much-diluted wordings on phasing out of agricultural subsidies in the US and European Union much to the dismay of anti-globalization organizations attending the meeting. These groups were also unhappy over non-adoption of tougher regulations to monitor and control multinationals.
The previous event at Rio, a decade earlier, created a lot more euphoria. It was a time when the world had just entered the post-cold war era. It was still in the process of comprehending what it would be like without the great Soviet Empire and its East European allies. There was hope that efforts and funds wasted by two rival blocks in their race to outsmart each other militarily and otherwise might go into achieving the agreed world development targets.
It was not to be. The long list of missed targets, ten years down the history lane, proved hardly anything more than a wish list. The evaluation of performance of world leaders vis-a-vis agreed goals reflected their lack of commitment. Actions were much short of deals and treaties made by signatory states with power to bring about the desired change in the world situation towards the goals of sustainable development.
The situation point to another factor that is not spelled out clearly for either it is not understood or hush hushed for favour of optimism. Shocks and confusion that surround happenings at the international stage amply demonstrates that dynamics of the post -cold war world are a lot more complicated and yet to be understood. Better and more realistic evaluation of the modern day world, however, is essential to define attainable targets to tread towards cherished goals. During the cold war era things were lot simpler in terms of explaining the attitudes and policies of nations internally and towards each other. There were agreements and there were agreed disagreements. During that era less developed countries learned to bargain to an extent in joining this or that bloc and could manoeuvre to draw some economic benefit, in war of wits between giants.
That situation has changed. In today’s unipolar world there is no counter balance to US. It can act the way it pleases. It, directly and through its financial arms, (twin sisters the World Bank and the IMF) pressure loan recipient poor countries to liberalize trade and at the same time clamp 30 per cent duties on steel import to protect its own steel industry. It needs no one’s permission when it decides to bail out airline or hoteleering or any other sector in stress in its own country. It forces Third World to withdraw subsidies to promote competition but shamelessly subsidizes its own agriculture. And there is not much that anyone could do beyond verbal criticism, that too, informally. Even Europe, that is supposedly less interfering jealously guards its economic interests. On issue of farm subsidies it is also not prepared to budge. Its attitude towards pollution related issues is comparably more flexible and progressive than US.
The fact is that in the absence of some sort of counter weight or some economic lever in the control of less developed countries, perceived moral obligations and argument of collective good of the humankind has failed to exercise the kind of pressure or conviction needed to persuade resourceful states and economic entities to forego their immediate economic or political gain in favour of some sacred noble cause.
The editorial comment on the Johannesburg Summit in ‘The Economist’ is self-revealing. In its September 7th-13th issue it writes, “If the world needed saving, it would have been wrong to expect an event such as the UN summit to rise to that challenge in the first place. Happily, though the world does not need saving. On most measures, both human welfare and the environment are getting better, not worse. Particular problems, such as AIDS and climate change, do need more attention and international cooperation. When it comes to curbing poverty, on the other hand, international cooperation is not the main thing that is needed. In any case, it is ludicrous to suggest that the earth is in grave peril”.