[ba-unrev-talk] Fwd: [issues] News from Johannesburg
>From: elohimjl <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>>From: Ari Lampinen <email@example.com>
>>To: Inesnet <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>>Subject: 9/11/02: USA evolved as #1 rogue nation
>>USA Today had a cover story on August 14 2002 on the sentiments of
>>Bush administration policy across the world. It included a photo of a
>>demonstration in London with a large US map with text "#1 ROGUE NATION".
>>Orwellian language was also used by International Herald
>>Tribune in its editorial on September 7-8 2002 on the results of the
>>Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development: they quoted somebody
>>as calling USA and OPEC alliance as "AXIS OF OIL". Behind this, as the
>>editorial puts it was that "the conference was diminished by the
>>unenthusiastic participation of the United States" and the OPEC/USA cartel
>>succeeded in their goal "to oppose clear and binding targets to
>>increase the use of solar and wind power".
>>The renewable energy issue was the last one to be agreed in the WSSD Plan
>>of Implementation. It was the most important thing for the Bush
>>administration not to have any targets and timetables for the energy
>>sector transformation towards sustainable development. Because the opposite
>>was a top priority for the EU this issue was settled only after US succeeded
>>in getting G77, i.e. the group of virtually all developing countries to
>>support its stand in exchange of having targets included for health
>>sector, another major theme of the summit where US had blocked concrete
>>action until the tradeoff.
>>As one EU negotiator put it, the USA is the main stumbling block of
>>The continuation of the selfish unilateralism of the Bush administration
>>and its faithful mate Australia was recognized by the audience of the final
>>plenary of the WSSD in September 4, in the reactions to the speeches of
>>parties given after the adoption of the Plan of Implementation. All except
>>the two countries received applauds. Australia was the only country whose
>>final speech received total silence. And the USA was the only one that
>>was greeted with spontaneous boos from the audience of ministers, diplomats
>>and stakeholders from almost 200 countries. This was the second time I
>>witnessed this code of diplomatic conduct: in Bonn climate conference
>>last year, when the political concensus of the Kyoto protocol details was
>>reached with USA the only country out of 179 parties to disagree, the US
>>speech was the only one receiving booing and all the other were applauded to.
>>In its intervention after the adoption of the WSSD Plan of Implementation
>>USA made several reservations including:
>>- USA does not recognize the Rio principle #7, i.e. common and
>> differentiated responsibilities. It means that USA regards unfair that
>> they would be expected to do more than developing countries to fight
>> environmental and development problems.
>>- USA does not recognize the United Nations target of 0.7% of GDP to
>> official development aid, or any other ODA target.
>>- USA interprets that the text regarding corporate accountability
>> improvements does not require any new actions.
>>- USA announces that it will not accept any of the biodiversity text to
>> evolve into legally binding commitments. And they also gave the
>> impression that this applies to rest of the text as well.
>>And USA announced that they take sustainable development very seriously.
>>The official plenary speech of Colin Powell earlier the same day had the
>>same attitude and it was interrupted several times by loud booing. The
>>Wall Street Journal described in its editorial September 6-8 these
>>incidents the following way: "How little interest some of the delegates
>>had in a rational discussion of their first principles was on display
>>Wednesday, when US Secretary of State Colin Powell was jeered and
>>interrupted as he attempted to address the US approach to environmental
>>issues and economic growth." For Wall Street Journal the purpose of
>>the WSSD was to "develop international environmental bureaucracy" in the
>>name of "phantom threats" with the result of "keeping the poor from
>>improving their lot".
>>It is necessary to note that the business and industry sector did not
>>share the US views in the WSSD. On the contrary, they strongly promoted
>>corporate accountability and targeted actions in most areas.
>>Thus, it is exceptionally small minority of people that the Bush
>>administration has so strongly devoted to serve, with exceptionally little
>>consideration of the rest.
>>Finnish society for environmental sciences
XML Topic Maps: Creating and Using Topic Maps for the Web.
Addison-Wesley, ISBN 0-201-74960-2. (02)