At the summit itself the so-called G7 nations, the richest and most powerful capitalist states confronted the 128 poor or moderately well-off states over what (if anything) was to be done to defend the ecology, and who was to pay.
Off-stage, the 'anti-summit', the the Amazonian Yanomani indians, ecology groups like Friends of the Earth and voluntary groups like Oxfam.
At thesummit each government was allotted equal speaking time, but this was fake" equality, covering up the refusal to do anything substantial Decisions were called for on four documents:4 convention on global warming • The Rio Declaration • Agenda 21 investigate the real workings of the summit it is useful to examine each of these in turn, and then look at what was left out.
The global warming convention simply called for action limit the emission of carbon dioxide, the major cause of the 'greenhouse effect The hopelessly inadequate aim of this was to get a consensus to limit CO2 emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000. But in order to get the US to sign it was watered down further.
So despite the fact that over 100 nations signed, this will have little effect. Other greenhouse gases like methane were not even discussed.
The Biodiversity Treaty most clearly highlighted the conflic between the Western capitalist countries and the rest. The G7 countries claim the right to patent species 'discovered' and developed by pharmaceutical companies. Enormous potential profits are involved in this The other nations claim the right to a share of the profits produced from their land; especially since the "discoveries' are often from information supplied by indigenous who have known and used these species since time immemorial.
The US would of course not agree to this and would not sign. Even among those signing there was no agreement Fund the convention.
Brazil's former environment June 27, 1992 No. 24 secretary, sacked for speaking out against his government's policies said of the convention were of the greatest threats to humanity, handing control to a few huge corporations and ruining countless smali farmers The Rio Declaration, which the US found itsell able to sign, was merely d long and pretentious declaration of pious principles, which committed no one to anything Agenda 21 aimed to outline how the principles of the Rio declaration could implemented. It is concerned with the elimination of poverty, hazardous waste disposal, the environment and health.
Although it is not legally binding or the signatories, the US objected to several clauses and would not sign. The key proposal is that cach nation should contribute 0.7 percent of its gross domestic product to the objective of eliminating poverty and defending the environment. At present only the Scandinavian countries do this.
Some G7 nations have pledged to reach this target by 2000, others only as 'soon as possible'.
Agenda 21 established the Global Environment Facility (GEF) to help implement its aims, but in fact this will be really a satellite of the World Bank. The poorer countries rightly have little confidence in it.
Also a Sustainable Development Commission has been established to report on progress to the UN; but it is unlikely to have any enforcement Overall the poor countries considered Agenda 21 to be soft on key issues of development and the environ ment, particularly arms spending, the massive third world debt, and the role of the multinational corporations.
There was no agreement on protec tion of the forests. But the debate brought out crucial issues in the fate of the forests. The rich countries want the forests defended, but the countie detendo is to pay for the loos of revenue and trade.
As might have been expected, there was no agreement on the debt of the poor countries to the rich. Just the in forests and grow cash crops for export, rather than basic foodstuffs for themselves.
Instead of dealing with the debt, the rich countries concentrated on population control.
Population control is a double-edged issue. Yes, of course women in these countries should have both the right and the means with which to choose how many children to have. But again at the root of the population exlots of children to support older people where there is no wellare state.
Carefully kept off the agenda of the summit were the crucial issues of the role of the transnational corporations, arms spending, the plight of indigenous peoples, the real causes poverty and urgent questions like the crisis in Africa, where millions face death through drought and starvation.
Debating this was left to the Global Forum, which drew up 33 treaties of its own, outlining the principles of sustainable development and conquering poverty.
The summit achieved nothing, but the very fact that it happened showed the fact that the key issues of the future of the planet have impinged on the consciousness of tens of millions of people.
The spectacular role of the United States as the world's most anti-ecological nation reveals the truth of the matter. Destruction of the environment cannot be separated from poverty and the irrational structure of wealth and production. In the end, only socialism will save the planet.
John Major insists that a recovery is underway - but the economy remains deep in slump, with unemployment rising. JAMIE GOUGH diagnoses the deep malaise of British capitalism. THE HORRORS MOUNT. Total British output has declined for two years. Both the depth of the recession and the real level of unemployment, approaching four million, are the worst since the 1930s.
Companies have been net borrowers for the last four years- another post-war record. The balance of payments remains in deficit despite the recession. an unprecedented and ominous sign of she weakness or manuracturis Government spending is heavily in deficit and will remain so for many years, threatening entry to European Monetary This catastrophic situation shows the failure of 17 years of austerity.
The Tories' greatest economic achievement was to expand produc tivity between the of 1978 and at around the British rate during the post-war boom.
To some socialists, this failure comes as a surprise. The left has seen capital's attacks on the working class as capable of reviving British profits by shifting inane from workers to firm Major defeats Capital has inflicted some major defeats on labour. Strikes are at their lowest level since 1891. So why is capital in a worse state than ever? economy remains in crisis. Slump rather Than sow crowin in output was avoided in the 1980s only by the creation of vast indebtedness of firms, consumers and governments.
This prevented the devaluing capitalist assets, and in fact inflated the value of many. hares and property. But destruction o capital values is a necessary part of how capitalist economies are revived -increasing the exploitation of workers is not enough So far, capital hasn't swallowed enough of this bitter medicine. The accumulated debts now weigh dangerous. ly on the economy, as Canary Whart shows. The widespread bankruptcies may snowball Worídwide capitalist confidence is low. In this international context it is inconceivable that Britain, which is structurally one of the weakest imPortanist could have revived' - even, let's say, to its performance in the boom years. Features socialisation is always a problem for