add comment

Comments: The political declaration, first draft,

"It comes in the form of trade barriers and technology restrictions that block markets for poor people around the world. It just happens to be enthusiastically and vigorously defended by Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund, Friends of the Earth, and other environmental organizations."

I would love to know on what basis this statement was made... everything I have read by the ECO Equity coalition (which is a good share of their output) has argued FOR the opening up of western markets and the transfer of technology...

Sounds like dogmatic NGO bashing to me...

Posted by Matt Prescott on September 8, 2002 06:38 PM

Schulz is talking about all the technologies Eco Equity members wish to deny to everyone, not just developing countries, and market protections through subsidies that are advocated to help organic/small/favored producers in Europe. Those restrictions have a disproportionately damaging effect on poor people who have fewer options and a greater need for rapid action since they are dyeing like flies rather than comfortably dithering in Europe and the USA.

Schultz is a member of a small minority and can be safely ignored since Europeans will never give up their comforts for dark skinned starving peasants. They will blame others and make all kinds of excuses for their own role as they have always done. I'm reminded of a Ken Macleod future fiction novel where the actions of NGOs are seen from that future perspective as 'the green death'. I hope we can behave more ethically in this time and avoid that future but it seems increasingly unlikely.

Posted by back40 on September 8, 2002 10:58 PM

Back 40 although I respect the cohesion and rigour of your thinking I don't understand your hang up about Europeans versus all other developed country nationals... What is the basis of this loathing? Most Europeans are extremely decent, if fallible, people and you have a tendency to generalise about them being vindictive, etc.

Posted by Matt Prescott on September 9, 2002 04:33 PM

European governments and media are the most hypocritical about issues of environment and poverty. To make progress the world can help the European people see themselves as others see them so that they can use that perspective to improve their governments.

Europe is the center of environmental extremism yet has the least effective environmental policies. These are linked phenomena. Part of the reason for this is that environmentalism in Europe is often a wedge issue for extremist political agendas, and even the more moderate politicians green wash nonsensical behavior with no fear of being confronted for their duplicity. Part of it is due to the self-obsession and inward focus of Europe during this period as it attempts to rebuild the old Holy Roman Empire. While Europeans may see themselves as multilateralists others sees them as unilateralists, a single entity, the EU, trying to 'punch above its weight' in world affairs. In terms of population and GDP Europe as a whole is just one other nation, like the USA or India or China.

Consider the nonsense Schroder has been spouting about climate change and European flooding. Even the BBC reports that this is rubbish but Schroder is not held accountable for his cynical use of tragedy to advance his political prospects. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2190585.stm In other parts of the world politicians who green wash their political agendas are confronted. Their supporters defend them but the public hears all sides of the subject and is better able to make informed judgements. What neither Schroder nor his opponent will discuss is the draining of wetlands, straightening of river meanders, building in flood plains and increase of runoff due to intensive agriculture and urban development. These are the reasons that a normal but infrequent rain pattern resulted in floods but they can't say that and expect to win an election. Such truthfulness is punished in Europe.

Europe is the bad boy of world politics on issues of the environment, poverty and increasingly, race. The world suffered from European extremism all during the last century and continues to be a tinder box threatening to once again plunge the world into chaos. Worse, Europe exported its troubles to former colonies. One of the major causes of poverty in developing countries is the residual of their infection with "English Disease", command economies, though they may have gotten the infection from any of a number of Eurasian carriers. The measures Europeans advocate to deal with the environment and poverty are more of the same failed ideas that created the problems in the first place.

Europeans fail to understand their part in world problems preferring to blame others, especially the USA, for everything. Your error Matt is to deny it all, excuse European behavior and feel unfairly criticized when these hard truths are noted. Yet it is precisely this that must be done to improve the world environment and deal with world poverty in a humane and ethical way. However much Europeans may whinge about it, they are the problem and it needs to be said.

Posted by back40 on September 9, 2002 08:31 PM

Back 40, I appreciate you taking the time to explain your views.

However, I do not feel that the ping-ponging of blame will help us, or the rest of the world, to get very far.

As far as I am concerned no nationality is universally right or wrong... or to blame. All parties must take responsibility for doing their bit while the mistakes of history should be learnt from and where possible remedied.

If you lived in the EU you would be aware of the remarkable and virtually continuous discord between the nations that make up the EU. I am sure that there are similar levels of discord within the US but I would not try to argue that the federal government is wrong to attempt to represent American interests on the international stage... yet you seem to feel the european nations have no right to seek collective representation or agreement where they can?

I also don't agree that the Europeans are the only ones to be self-obsessed, hypocritical, to not understand that average values will not allow you to predict individual events or to have representatives who will say that fail to protect the environment or people...

On a different note a slightly fuller, though still far from complete, list of the last century's extremism would include the Cambodian, German, Japanese, Rwandan and x other variants. Each abhorrent in their own right but none the unique preserve of any one nationality, religion or geographical region.

I have never denied that Europeans are flawed and fallible - all humans are both of these. They are therefore neither above reproach nor beneath contempt and your characterisation of a diverse and complex set of peoples (and their political structures), although interesting as an alternate world view, does not persuade me or even suggest a meaningful way forward.

Posted by Matt Prescott on September 9, 2002 11:50 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.