EXPORTING ENRON
ENVIRONMENTALISM:
The Bush Vision for Johannesburg
by Victor Menotti, International Forum on Globalization
President George W. Bush’s absence
will be more than obvious when heads of state and tens of thousand of people
converge in Johannesburg, South Africa from August 26 – September 4, 2002 at
the United Nation’s World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) to mark ten
years since the Rio Earth Summit. But
present or not, President Bush’s vision for the world will be there. In preparation for the summit, there has
been much criticism of the United States for "not being engaged" or
"not taking seriously" the WSSD process. But a closer examination of the expected outcomes reveals that
nothing could be further from the truth.
The Bush plan for Johannesburg
shows more strategic foresight than almost anything the president has proposed
in international fora to date. What has
been revealed on "the road to Johannesburg" is a grand plan which
would incapacitate the United Nations as an institution to meaningfully address
the twin crises of global poverty and ecological decline.
While some people may believe the
UN needs no help in undermining itself, we all must recognize the need for
alternative international institutions outside of the World Trade Organization
and International Monetary Fund that can put limits on corporate
globalization. Indeed, the United
Nations has produced many important legal instruments that can protect poor
people and natural systems from being plundered by global corporations. And it is precisely this system of
protections, collectively known as the UN’s Multilateral Environmental
Agreements (MEAs) that the Bush adminsitration seeks to destroy. Pulling out of the Kyoto Protocol was only a
tip of the iceberg; what’s afoot now is a move to withdraw from and subjugate
the whole system.
The Bush proposals not only would
it transform the foremost inter-governmental forum for addressing global crises
into an entirely new apparatus for promoting corporate growth but it could also
foreclose even the possibility for real solutions to emerge. Advancing this plan on the road to
Johannesburg includes at least three main strategies:
o
Rollback Rio by withdrawing from key principles and blocking any new
government commitments to implement Rio’s outcomes;
o
Greenwash globalization by insisting that the best way for governments
to implement sustainable development is by advancing the WTO’s new Doha agenda for global free trade;
o
Export "Enron" environmentalism by shifting responsibility for
addressing the crises to corporations via voluntary, public-private
"partnerships" in water, energy, and other areas.
As inadequate and in need of
reform as they may be, the United Nations and its MEAs embody a legitimate process
that has yielded important products that must be defended. In theory and practice, the UN remains the
sole international institution where people-driven ideas can be proposed,
approved, and implemented as international law. The integrity of these existing
mechanisms for countering corporate globalization, as well the strategic space
they
occupy in today’s international
architecture, are "what’s at stake in Johannesburg."
ROLLINGBACK RIO
The United States is specifically
trying to withdraw from at least two key negotiating principles agreed to in
Rio:
o
"The Precautionary Principle." This is the idea that
governments should err on the side of caution when there is the possibility of
devastating and irreparable environmental harm. It is the cornerstone of much public policy-making for the
environment and public health. Many
technology-based industries (such as biotechnology, chemical, and even
communication technology manufacturers) view this principle as hampering the
development and deployment of their new inventions. In many ways this is true because it requires that they first
"show no harm" before making society bear the risks of their
experiments.
The Precautionary Principle has
also been the cornerstone of one of Rio’s most important products, the
Convention on Biological Diversity’s "Cartagena Protocol on
Biosafety," which establishes the rights of nations to regulate the import
of genetically modified organisms, or GMOs.
However, this concept clashes with the rules of the World Trade Organization,
which says that nations need to use "sound science" by presenting conclusive scientific evidence before
enacting any measures that might restrict trade. This is the opposite of the Precautionary Principle. The US wants WTO rules to supercede so that
its biotechnology industry will not face trade restrictions to its GMO seed
exports. Undermining the Precautionary
Principle will reverberate into other international policies, such as those
addressing endangered species, persistent organic pollutants (POPs) and climate
change, among others.
o
"Common but differentiating responsibilities." This is the
understanding that those nations who played the biggest role in causing a
problem should take the lead in addressing it.
It is especially important to poor nations who do not have the financial
or technological resources to act. Many
developing nations view climate change, for example, as something caused by the
industrialized nations and that they should be the first ones to clean up their
act. Most want to take the necessary
steps and avoid the high costs of burning fossil fuels in the developing
economies, but they will not so do if the biggest polluters do not take prior
action.
Rejecting this principle (which
President George W. Bush’s father agreed to in Rio) would undermine years of
inter-governmental negotiations to arrive at general agreements on how to
approach the problem.
The United States is also actively
blocking attempts by other
governments to advance, in Johannesburg, any of the products from Rio. Already scuttled are plans by signatories of
the Kyoto Protocol to hold a ceremony that would bring the treaty "into
force" in Johannesburg, thereby embarrassing the US who recently withdrew
from it. The US has also undermined efforts to fund poor nations’
implementation of Rio agreements.
Explaining to NGOs in Bali why the Bush administration is so determined
to thwart any new action, the head of the US delegation, Jonathan Margolis,
said that timetables and targets are "theater" that "don’t
work." It was suggested he consult
with his colleagues in the US Trade Representative’s Office, who never fail to
use them in negotiations for new free trade deals.
GREENWASHING GLOBALIZATION
The United States is leading the
charge to "greenwash globalization" in Johannesburg by presenting its
free trade and investment agenda as synonymous with sustainable
development. Negotiators from the US
Trade Representative insisted in Bali that advancing the WTO’s new Doha work
program is the best way for governments to address poverty and the
environment. But the US claim ignores
the fundamental fact that free trade agreements, by design, diminish peoples’
ability to use their governments to guide economic activity. Removing controls on corporate conduct is
exactly the opposite of what governments need to do to "change economic
course" toward sustainable development.
Dissatisfaction with Doha and deep
divisions over the impacts of globalization are being played out in several
paragraphs of the "Draft Plan of Implementation for WSSD," including:
# 45: "…it is a matter of great and increasing concern that not
all countries are reaping the benefits of globalization, and that some may even
be falling behind." This is the language desired by poor nations to
register their dissatisfaction with globalization. The US does not want to allow any official acknowledgement that
the global economy causes harm.
# 82: "establishment of an international mechanism to stabilize
commodity prices for coping with the instability of commodity prices and
declining terms of trade…" This language is desired by poor nations that
reveals a key fight with industrialized nations. After following IMF/World Bank advice, many nations focus on
exporting only two or three commodities.
But because so many nations followed IMF policies, an enormous
over-production has created a glut in global commodity markets, resulting in
continually diminishing earnings for nations that produce commodities. When combined with WTO rules that prohibit
governments from limiting exports to drive up prices, deregulated global
commodity markets are a social and ecological disaster. A new round of international commodity
agreements needs to be put back on the global agenda and WSSD is one place
where that fight is being taken up. The
US strongly opposes any reference to such mechanisms.
# 87: "imbalanced and inherent asymmetry in WTO Agreements"
This language is also advocated by poor countries suffering under current trade
rules, but against he US wants to avoid any negative references in official
outcomes that may require them to change WTO rules.
# 88: "implementing the WTO TRIPS (intellectual property rights)
Agreement …to address public health problems affecting many developing and
least developed countries…" is what the US wants to reaffirm the global
patent regime that makes essential medicines unaffordable for poor nations
dealing with HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, and other epidemics.
# 122: "ensure coherence and mutual supportiveness between rules of
WTO rules and the rules of MEAs…" is proposed text. The US says "coherence" implies that
the MEAs would be subordinate to WTO. This
is a central issue of governance at play in Johannesburg, where the world’s
Environment Ministers must declare that the fate of the MEAs not be decided
by the WTO alone (See From
Doha to Johannebsurg).
EXPORTING ENRON ENVIRONMENTALISM
Needing to present some
"deliverables" in Johannesburg, the US is trying finalize a package
of voluntary, public-private "partnerships" for WSSD. The summit’s Secretary General Nitin Desai
has said that "partnerships should not be a substitute for new government
commitments," calling them "coalitions of the willing." But the question Johannesburg is ignoring is
what to do with the "unwilling." That is, the rogue corporations and
governments who flout public opinion and international law. They are the real
problem and WSSD has shown no political will or meaningful discussion about
what to do with them.
The US narrowly defines the
problem as "not enough people having access to essential services,
therefore we must deliver them to raise standards of living." While this is an important part of the
equation, it falls way short because: 1) it views the solution as being more
"growth" of the kind that is already testing social and ecological
limits; while 2) ignoring the wasteful over-consumption of resources in the
industrialized nations.
One of the most striking elements
of the US delegation’s rhetoric is their belief that the problems facing the
world are indeed enormous, although their prescriptions may only exacerbate the
very problems they seek to resolve. In
fact, what they propose as solutions are the same policies that are currently
proving disastrous the world around.
The Bush Vision is to accelerate, with tax-payers’ dollars, the
privatization of essential services like water and energy, through partnerships
with no mechanisms for accountability.
Call it "Enron Environmentalism."
Historians may look back at the
inscrutable contradictions of this moment: just as corporate corruption has
engulfed American financial markets and politics weeks before the global summit
(with accusations of personal fraud charged against top Bush administration
officials), US negotiators still manage to dominate the WSSD proceedings with
lectures to other nations about the need for "good governance" and by
insisting that the world should trust unregulated corporate initiatives. But if you can’t trust them with your pension,
how can you trust them with the planet?
By prioritizing partnerships in
Water, Energy, Health, Agriculture, and Biodiversity (WEHAB), the Bush team is
vowing to deliver more "services" via an agenda that can best be
described "Cochabomba Plus",
referring to the Bolivian city where the privatization of water delivery
services increased prices by as much as 300%, igniting a popular uprising that
has become a global flashpoint against privatization. The proposed "energy deliverable" would aim to "by
2015 significantly reduce the number of people without access to secure,
reliable, affordable, and cleaner energy services." Although this may sound laudable, it would
be achieved by privatizing energy services, which is entirely in line with US
proposals to open up energy services worldwide in the WTO.
While some of these initiatives
may be market development opportunities for US corporations, pursuing some of
them may not be so profitable. To
ensure that the private sector does profit from them, the US is establishing
what President Bush is calling his version of a "global Marshall
Plan:" the Millennium Challenge Account.
The MCA would increase US overseas development assistance by nearly 50%,
but conditioning that aid only to those nations that first open their economies
to unregulated US trade and investment.
To institutionalize a shift in UN
functions, the US wants the CSD to focus on new partnerships by making it the
"convenor" business deals with the UN’s seal of approval. Partnerships are not new, and they have
never required official government involvement. So there is no reason to use the world’s only inter-governmental
forum to sponsor them. Unless the
intention is to ensure that the CSD does not undertake something that addresses
corporate power.
"WHAT’S AT STAKE IN JOHANNESBURG?"
Corporate greed is decimating our
future security, and that of generations to come. Just as privatization and deregulation has allowed CEOs to
swindle billions from small investors, so too has it allowed them to steal the
natural capital upon which all life depends.
As critics of corporate globalization increasingly get asked the
question, "what are your alternatives?" they are finding that key
elements of an alternative international system are being attack in WSSD. In the emerging international system, which
is today dominated by institutions that favor corporate rights, the Bush Vision
is a stealth strike on the few structures that can protect people and the
planet. If one can recognize that the
UN process (originating with its 1972 Stockholm meeting to the 1992 Rio summit
to the 2002 Jo’burg summit) and its numerous products (the MEAs) are existing
international instruments to counterbalance corporate globalization, then it is
easy to see that the survival, and future prospect of, real alternatives are
what’s really at stake in Johannesburg.
by Victor Menotti
International Forum on
Globalization
www.ifg.org