NewsMax.com Staff
Saturday, Aug. 31, 2002

Tempers were growing short and the Times says there is growing speculation that the gathering is in peril.

"Developing nations said that they would prefer not to sign any accord rather than agree to what was on offer. Charities said that the agreement being negotiated was a step backwards, and urged European governments not to sign. After negotiations between officials collapsed, ministers yesterday started emergency talks to see if they could reach a deal,” the Times reported, adding that no agreements have been reached on any of the main issues such as access to sanitation, boosting renewable energy, protecting wildlife, reducing farm subsidies in the developed world, climate change, ensuring that trade and globalization do not put poor countries at a disadvantage, and improving human rights.

Signs that the summit was in danger of reaching any sensible conclusions were obvious when representatives of environmental groups began denouncing the use of electricity in Africa and the development of the flush toilet. That last demand provoked one observer to suggest that the U.N. might consider moving back to its old New York headquarters in Flushing Meadow.

According to the Times, such proposals as increases in aid and debt relief have been ruled out and even principles agreed at the Rio Earth summit ten years ago — such as that rich countries have more responsibility to tackle global environment problems than poor ones — may be dropped in the face of bitter American opposition.

'If Possible'

The only firm agreements reached are to stop over-fishing and the banning of toxic chemicals, but the terminology employed is so qualified with phrases such as "if possible” that even these minor agreements are rendered essentially meaningless.

The Eco-Equity Coalition, a group of charities including Oxfam and the World Wide Fund for Nature that are involved directly in the negotiations, wrote a letter to ministers explaining their withdrawal: "Although designed and billed as a conference that would serve to put sustainable development at the heart of international governance, we must squarely face the fact that, overall, no significant progress has been made — especially when it is held up to the urgent needs of poverty reduction and environmental protection.”

Tony Juniper, director-designate of Friends of the Earth told the Times: "Most of these talks are simply going backwards. Key pledges have been made meaningless by weasel words. Governments can’t even agree to reaffirm the principles of the Rio Summit ten years ago. This summit could easily be remembered as Rio minus ten rather than Rio plus ten.”

Barry Coates, of the World Development Movement, told the Times that if the agreement was not improved, it should not be signed. "There has been an abject failure of vision. As things stand, not one person’s life or the environment will be improved. A bad agreement is as much a step backwards as no agreement at all.”

Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:

United Nations

A product that might interest you:
"Peacekeeping Fiascoes" - How to avoid the U.N.’s disasters