THE US AGENDA AT THE SUMMIT

"The U.S. and its friends might as well come from Mars for all they care about the future of our planet." Daniel Mittler, Friends of the Earth International, after the PrepComm IV talks in Bali. [ Ministers Fail to Agree Earth Summit Plan; PlanetArk news story, June 10 ]

"And so the official American policy line is to steer away from multilateralism, as it implies actions by Americans, and to turn the agenda of change around to one of expansion of the American way of life. In this thinking the US is closely followed by the nations of the JUSCANZ group (Japan, US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand) and quietly by some EU member states." Peter van der Gaag, ANPED.

“The Bush vision for Johannesburg shows more strategic foresight than almost anything the unilateralist, free trader has proposed in any international arena to date. What has been revealed ‘on the road to Johannesburg’ is a grand plan to permanently incapacitate the United Nations as an institution to meaningfully address the twin crises of global poverty and ecological decline.” Victor Menotti, International Forum on Globalisation. [ Exporting Enron Environmentalism: The Bush Vision for Johannesburg ]

The United States put emphasis on the role of national governments in contrast to multilateral agreements and international governance. The Bush administration is shifting responsibility to the individual countries, and is hence undermining the role of the United Nations, a tendency that has recently been seen in the international arena. The U.S. government opposes any language calling for binding decisions and favored voluntary solutions, hence the preference for Type II outcomes and the support for Kofi Annan's "Global Compact". The US government continues its withdrawal from multilateral agreements and singles itself out of the international arena.

The common membership in the UNECE region in itself provides for close cooperation in the preparatory phase, and some basic strategies of the U.S. resemble those of the EU. More specifically looking, the strategy of the U.S. government seems to show good will but avoid concrete commitment and actions. Critics insinuate the U.S. goals are to weaken the ability of the United Nations to establish an effective global environmental regime, to open new markets for the U.S. companies by forcing developing countries to privatise their public services; such as water, sanitation, or energy, and to use the World Summit to establish codes of conducts of good governance for countries that want to receive development aid – as they tried in Doha and Monterrey -- and the U.S. focus on the development opportunities that present themselves as a result of economic growth, the development of new technologies and the mobilisation of capital.

At PrepComm IV, the United States have been heavily attacked by Civil Society for hijacking the process and applying a cynical and coercive approach to the process -- consistent with its recent record of stalling progress and using strong arm tactics in UN negotiations. The U.S. have already declared that they would not support ANY concrete plan of action at Johannesburg. Instead, the United States went to Bali intending to focus on further progress with voluntary Type-II-Agreements instead of working on beefing up the Draft Plan of Implementation. The U.S. delegation argued that the history of international agreements has proven how little effect they have, and that the United States is in favor of real action through partnerships with business and civil society organisations. The U.S., who had not sent any high-level government official to the ministerial segment, kept on blocking any formal commitments, targets and trimeframes that would bind the U.S. government internationally. In accordance with its argumentation during PrepComm III, they avoided clarification in the Draft Plan of Implementation concerning the definition of “Sustainable Development”, the notion of “Common but Differentiated Responsibility” (Principle 7 of the Rio Declaration) as well as of the “Precautionary Principle” (Principle 15). It objected to any financial commitments, and emphasised the role of national governments. In addition, the U.S. insisted on linking any financial development aid with “Good Governance” measures in developing countries, strongly opposed by the G77/China.

In Johannesburg, the US delegation was the main stumbling block to reach meaningul agreements on concrete action to boost sustainable development. US Secretary of State Powell was booed, heckled and jeered as he tried to defend America's environmental record: "the US is taking action to meet environmental challenges, including global climate change". President George Bush himself refused to attend the World Summit.