add comment

Comments: "So the rush is on to denounce the summit as a failure,"

Some lovely nice words here. And I agree somewhat - but on the other hand - USA has killed this summit on energy - a very importan part for future direction, We are back in the 60:s: most deals in dark rooms.

Posted by Bo B Melander on September 3, 2002 05:12 PM

Hear Hear!. it is certainly frustrating that progress is slow and sometimes backwards, however....awareness is critical and a summit is very good for that. Plus...it's better than nothing.

Posted by Andrea Hamann on September 3, 2002 05:46 PM

I don't recall hearing that Rio was ever called a success.

Posted by Ron Mader on September 3, 2002 05:47 PM

Rome wasn't built in a day... Constant, unrelenting and constructive pressure will be needed for many, many years to come. But the resilence and determination of people can be impressive once a set of problem have been acknowledged and goals set... this summit has been good at flagging the problems that exist. Now we need to push for concrete action which means Jo'burg +10 is going to be able to discuss the next set of problems not just the same old chestnuts!

Posted by Matt Prescott on September 3, 2002 06:02 PM

Lipscombe makes some insightful comments, especially '...the opportunity they present to inform, inspire and empower by raising our horizons...'.

The NGO denouncements should be seen, and reported, for what they are: spiteful obfuscation to conceal their own incompetence and their role in perpetuating poverty. A way forward for the press, a way to distance themselves from these failures and be useful to human kind, would be to inject some accuracy into their reports. Rather than supporting the fiction that the US, Japan and Canada 'killed the summit on energy', report that those countries with the support of the developing world resisted European attempts to deny poor countries access to energy.

The summit is not a failure, it is a breakthrough in focusing the world's attention on poverty in a way that makes it difficult to ignore. That NGOs and Europeans had their noses rubbed in their own messes is proper. In future they may find the honesty and courage to face the results of past actions and the consequences of their current proposals for developing countries and the majority of human kind who live there. Their self obsession and inward focus is no longer tolerable, too much has been seen, a human face was put on the misery resulting from Euro/NGO selfishness.

Posted by back40 on September 3, 2002 06:17 PM

Tony Vaux, a former emergency relief co-ordinator for Oxfam, has written an interesting book called the "selfish altruist" which makes it clear that well-intentioned aid agencies don't always do a very good job of listening to those they are trying to help or of effectively tackling long-term, entrenched problems. However, I don't think this observation, or yours, mean that all NGOs are incompetent or deliberately perpetuating poverty... Fine, there may be instances when this has been the consequence of short-term emergency relief but this also highlights what the public and governments all over the world are prepared to finance and the consistent preference for crisis management over long-term preventative measures or investment. It is true that the Europeans have a far from unblemished track record in their past and present dealings with the poor nations of the world but I don't think this means thaat they wish to make matters worse or to deny access to energy... One of the stated goals of the Kyoto protocol is to encourage the flow of renewable energy investment and expertise to developing countries and the europeans are keen for this to happen. If there is a more cynical basis to their support for the schemes the Europeans propose I am not aware of it and await clarification with interest. Matt

Posted by Matt Prescott on September 3, 2002 06:57 PM

Europeans can't even provide a tiny percentage of their own energy from renewable sources, and won't for a long time to come, if ever. The 'let them eat goals' approach is willfully blind to the present needs of the developing world.

Where are the NGOs pointing this out? If they are not all 'deliberately perpetuating poverty' then they are concealing the acts of those who are doing so. And for what? The fig leaf of Kyoto which will have trivial effects on climate but is a political wedge issue at home? That's just a political dodge.

Europeans and their NGOs (which are in the US too) must face the consequences of their actions and the hollowness of their rhetoric. They need to rise from their somnolent stupor and notice what the world is like, a world they and their fellow travelers have created or perpetuated.

The cynical basis for these positions is that they have nothing to do with either the environment or poverty, it has to do with an antiquated political ideology which infects them.

Posted by back40 on September 3, 2002 07:50 PM

I agree that the West (but not just Europe) need to put their house in order and I hope that the rich countries of the world will cease with their double standards and empty rhetoric. Most world leaders seem to find it easier to pontificate on global issues than turn round the domestic issues they are bogged in on a day-to-day basis... perhaps this is because they aren't widely seen as responsible for global problems or the implementation of appropriate solutions. This and other summits help to highlight world leaders' roles in the development path we all following and the responsibility of the rich nations to meaningfully follow-up on easily spoken fine words. Most former world leaders would be embarassed by the lack of progress since Rio but it doesn't have to be this way, especially if everyone remembers to hold their leaders accountable for what they have just said and in some cases even promised to go away and do. Matt @ www.earthsummit.info

Posted by Matt Prescott on September 3, 2002 08:11 PM

 Post a comment

All debates will be passively moderated, so postings may be edited. The Daily Summit reserves the right to remove any comments which use defamatory, libellous, racist, sexist or otherwise offensive language. The views expressed in discussion areas do not represent Daily Summit policy and are intended as a means of inviting debate on relevant issues.