seen in the fossil record. to exploit 'third world' natural resources. their eco-friendly feathers.
Of course, with Bush still in Washington, it's Reilly who's the one on the hot-spot at Ric with the unenviable job of defending the US environmental record - the country that is the world leader in global natricide.
Bush on the other hand has more than a few problems at home. He will not sign a convention that 'attacks the American way of life, attacks the American family, arguing that the wording of the convention would, it implemented, result in the loss of thousands of jobs in the US. With the US in deep recession, it's the last thing that Bush needs as he runs for re-election.
Bush's objection stems from the fact that developing countries have insisted on their right to share the profits generated from biotechnologies 300 Club CURRENT RATES of species extinctions are at best three, at worst four, times higher than in any other period of the history of life as It is a sobering fact and it is against this that all the malarky surrounding the Biodiversity Convention at Rio's Earth Summit should be judged.
Amidst speculation that George Bush and head of the US Environmental Protection Agency, Bill Reilly, disagree over whether or not to sign the convention, is the indisputable fact that it is certainly not in the interests of the US biotechnology industry and agribusiness to sign away their rights Reilly is really only concerned about the US presenting an acceptable face to world leaders at Rio who are vainly trying, in peacock fashion, to display The donalder pere fectly reasonable - even British government do not disagree with this (although they might have if the British biotechnology industry was a serious competitor to that of the US). But the other bone of contention - and here the US and British governments are in firm agreement - is that the wealthy nations of the world would, under the terms of the convention, be expected to provide financia, assistance to the South, on top of current aid, so that those countries could afford to conserve plant and animal species. No way • say John Major and George Bush can this be done with the world in recession.
Loose, woolly and exceed. ingly limited the Biodiversity Convention may be, but socialists should give critical support to its general framework.
If current trends continue into the twenty-first century, by 2052 half the species alive today would be lost forever. Any firs year ecology student could tell you what this would mean for the long-term stability of the earth's biosphere.
It is also not true that only 'third world' nature has to be conserved. There are wood. lands, forests, moors, grasslands, rivers, beaches, fells, hills and mountains that need to be protected from the polluting, urbanising ravages of capitalist development in the imperialist heartlands and former stalinist states.
But to make any Biodiversity Convention work to harmonise human with HOCU Kiobal ecological stability, requires the undamental challenging of a world economy based on competition in pursuit of profit.
No amount of noble stunts from Greenpeace and other Earth Warriors', Blue Peter apseals, liberal pleadings from onathon Porritt, or retreats into spiritually connecting with the on in Brighton. As a rosult of th Earth' will challenge the crux of the problem itself. Socialists haveto fight for a class response to the destruction of life on carth.
Only working class peoplenow a majority of humanity -have the power to challenge the parasites that own and control those industries, banks and governments that are stretching the blosphere to breaking point.
And that means constantly striving for the fullest active cooperation between socialists, workers and the oppressed the world over - the redrock of socialist internationalism.
As well as the highly successful