London Times...Britain Blames US for failing World's Poor

[LovetoGiveRoses]

Britain blames US for failing world's poor
From Anthony Browne, Environment Editor, in Johannesburg

UN says failure at Earth Summit would fuel global terrorism

Deep tensions between Britain and the US have emerged ahead of the Earth Summit in Johannesburg, which remains shrouded in pessimism ahead of its official start today.
The summit is aimed at reducing world poverty through promoting environmentally sustainable growth, and although it is seen as the most important world summit for years, there are growing concerns that virtually nothing significant will be achieved.

As the gloom deepened in the corridors, it seems many delegates are staying away. Although 65,000 delegates had been predictected to turn up, the UN has downgraded its expectations to just 40,000, and by yesterday only 9,000 delegates and journalists had been accredited.

Last night it also emerged that inspite of the extra 8,000 police on duty, that a shot had been fired at a Swiss delegate in an attempted robbery in a hotel. It followed the earlier robbery on Saturday night of another delegate in a nearby room.

The UK has backed calls from developing countries for targets to reduce the number of people who don’t have access to drinking water, sanitation or electricity. The UN has warned that unless real progress is made, the world will be increasingly divided between haves and have nots, fuelling global terrorism.

However, the US yesterday made clear that it does not want any new targets and will not provide any new money to reduce poverty or help protect the environment. The head of the US delegation John Turner said yesterday: “We don’t see the need for any new targets.”

Although 100 world leaders have said they will attend the summit, President Bush has said he will not attend. The head of the British delegation, the Environment Secretary Margaret Beckett, yesterday showed growing frustration with American intransigence, which could derail the summit. She said: “It’s true that the American government is not doing as much as we would all like to see it do, but that’s doesn’t mean there aren’t lots of people in America who take these issues just as seriously as they deserve”.

(not the entire article).

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

I personally know a man (now retired) that spent his entire life, more than 30 working years, traveling around the world building clean-water facilities for the US government in poor countries. None of them survive now. It doesn't work. They aren't maintained, spare parts are sold for cash, things get ruined. It seems that the largess does nothing but enrich the local politicians.

We're sending hundreds of thousands of tonnes of food to Zimbabwe. We're sending hundreds of tonnes of food to other African countries as well.

I'm curious to see how the meeting in Johannesburg goes. I'm curious about what type of US programs will be announced there.

 

[JazzManJim]

Pretty typical, if you ask me.

We do more than anyone else ever has in all of history and it's not enough. It's never enough.

I expect to hear little but railing against the UNited States for being too wealthy, too greedy, too this and too that. I guarantee you that there will be no complement for us in it that doesn't contain the word "but".

And the world wonders why we're so cocky? Hell, if it weren't for us, no one wold complement us!

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

Britain : last updated, August 26, 2002 06:38

Earth summit gets under way

The Johannesburg Earth Summit is set to get under way with the promise that leaders will take action on the environment, debt and poverty. South African President Thabo Mbeki, speaking at the opening ceremony, said: "Out of Johannesburg and out of Africa must emerge something that takes the world forward."But the absence of US President George W Bush was threatening to overshadow the summit.

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

Pretty typical, if you ask me.

We do more than anyone else ever has in all of history and it's not enough. It's never enough.

I expect to hear little but railing against the UNited States for being too wealthy, too greedy, too this and too that. I guarantee you that there will be no complement for us in it that doesn't contain the word "but".

And the world wonders why we're so cocky? Hell, if it weren't for us, no one wold complement us!

Touch of Insomnia Jim? Me too. Poison Ivy is really itching.

 

[JazzManJim]

Touch of Insomnia Jim? Me too. Poison Ivy is really itching.

Yeah. But I don't have to work in the morning, so I can afford to stay up until the wee-est hours.

You know, I"m not looking forward to the news form this summit. I can only hear so much America bashing from the rest of the world.

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

Yeah. But I don't have to work in the morning, so I can afford to stay up until the wee-est hours.

You know, I"m not looking forward to the news form this summit. I can only hear so much America bashing from the rest of the world.

I'm afraid that's what it's going to be too. On simple security principles, I can see why the President isn't going. There are already violent protestors mucking things up.

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

CNN..

JOHANNESBURG, South Africa -- South Africa has warned demonstrators at the Earth Summit, which opens on Monday, to obey the law after a street protest eclipsed the battle behind closed doors for an elusive agreement between rich and poor states.

Pope John Paul led appeals for the 10-day summit to safeguard the planet but there was widespread concern that 100 world leaders and thousands of delegates will not succeed.

Critically, U.S. President George W. Bush will stay away from the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD), which formally starts work on Monday in Johannesburg.

A small, brief but heavily televised street demonstration on Saturday night grabbed the spotlight and drew a clear warning to protesters from the South African police and government.

FACTOIDS
• During 1990s, 2.4% of world's forest destroyed
• World's population to reach 8 billion by 2025
• By 2025, 50% of world's population to face water shortages
• In 1981, fossil fuels generated 86% of energy; today it's 81%

Police fired stun grenades at anti-globalisation demonstrators who attempted to break through a cordon surrounding the summit venue in the Sandton suburb on Saturday. (Full story)

"We expect them to feel free to say and do what they like -- within the law...This summit is not a summit for anarchy," Foreign Minister Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma told a news briefing.

Thousands of police are on duty in Johannesburg and roadblocks are in place across roads leading to the venue as security chiefs try to prevent the violent demonstrations seen at other recent world summits.

Activists said the Johannesburg police were denying their right to free expression.

One demonstration leader, Reverend Desmond Lesejane, told Reuters: "Our voice will be heard and it must be heard. We are discussing many issues on saving the planet.

"We believe that world leaders must listen to what people have to say. We have learned to fight for our rights and intend to do so."

Ten years from Rio
The summit, a follow-up to a similar convention 10 years ago in Rio de Janeiro, will look at what progress has been made since 1992.

Its key aim is to save people from poverty while saving the planet from exploitation.

While many arguments remain over the effect of Rio some facts are undisputed.

The emissions of greenhouse gases -- widely but not universally blamed for climate change -- has continued to rise despite agreement at Rio to curtail them.


The biggest demonstration is planned for August 31
After Rio, the Kyoto Protocol was agreed in Japan setting limits on emissions. When George W. Bush won the U.S. presidency he rejected the treaty saying it was harmful to the U.S. economy -- despite the U.S. being the world's largest polluter.

Many of the world's other industrialised nations have ratified the treaty including all those in the European Union, which continues to support Kyoto's ambitions.

How successful Kyoto can be without the support of the U.S. remains in doubt.

In Johannesburg the key aim will be to identify ways of improving living standards based on sustainable patterns of production and ensuring that the benefits of globalisation are shared by all.

Summit secretary-general, Nitin Desai, told AP: "If we do nothing to change our current indiscriminate patterns of development, we will compromise the long-term security of the Earth and its people."

 

[RosevilleCAguy]

Britain blames US for failing world's poor
From Anthony Browne, Environment Editor, in Johannesburg

UN says failure at Earth Summit would fuel global terrorism

Deep tensions between Britain and the US have emerged ahead of the Earth Summit in Johannesburg, which remains shrouded in pessimism ahead of its official start today.
The summit is aimed at reducing world poverty through promoting environmentally sustainable growth, and although it is seen as the most important world summit for years, there are growing concerns that virtually nothing significant will be achieved.

As the gloom deepened in the corridors, it seems many delegates are staying away. Although 65,000 delegates had been predictected to turn up, the UN has downgraded its expectations to just 40,000, and by yesterday only 9,000 delegates and journalists had been accredited.

Last night it also emerged that inspite of the extra 8,000 police on duty, that a shot had been fired at a Swiss delegate in an attempted robbery in a hotel. It followed the earlier robbery on Saturday night of another delegate in a nearby room.

The UK has backed calls from developing countries for targets to reduce the number of people who don’t have access to drinking water, sanitation or electricity. The UN has warned that unless real progress is made, the world will be increasingly divided between haves and have nots, fuelling global terrorism.

However, the US yesterday made clear that it does not want any new targets and will not provide any new money to reduce poverty or help protect the environment. The head of the US delegation John Turner said yesterday: “We don’t see the need for any new targets.”

Although 100 world leaders have said they will attend the summit, President Bush has said he will not attend. The head of the British delegation, the Environment Secretary Margaret Beckett, yesterday showed growing frustration with American intransigence, which could derail the summit. She said: “It’s true that the American government is not doing as much as we would all like to see it do, but that’s doesn’t mean there aren’t lots of people in America who take these issues just as seriously as they deserve”.

(not the entire article).

"Fuck em", I sez. Lets turn 'em into colonies. Or test grounds. Either one works for me. I'm tired of being the scapegoat for every tin-pot dictator on the planet. Im tired of being told every other culture on the planet except my own is valid. Im tired of everything that goes wrong being some sort of American conspiracy or the result of American ineptitude.

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

USA Today - Earth Summit - World Section

08/25/2002 - Updated 05:08 PM ET

Hope for action on eve of World Summit

JOHANNESBURG, South Africa (AP) — Government officials, environmental activists and business leaders promised Sunday the upcoming World Summit on Sustainable Development will be about action to save the environment and combat poverty.


But some activists fear the world's wealthiest nations could sabotage any meaningful attempt to build on agreements adopted at the 1992 Earth Summit in Brazil.

"It's important for us that the vision that was captured at Rio is not eroded," said Goh Chien Yen, an official with the Third World Network.

The 10-day summit, which starts Monday, hopes to halve the more than 1 billion people without access to clean water and the more than 2 billion without proper sanitation. It aims to develop specific plans for expanding the poor's access to electricity and health care, to reverse the degradation of agricultural land and to protect the global environment.

"There is broad agreement that another summit full of words followed by no concrete action would be intolerable," said Hans Christian Schmidt, the environment minister in Denmark, which will be leading the European Union delegation to the summit.

But many environmental activists were disheartened that President Bush was not among the more than 100 world leaders scheduled to attend. They also blamed much of the difficulty in reaching agreement on the United States' resistance to setting specific targets and its demands that poor nations show good governance before receiving financial aid.

"(The United States) can be a catalyst for positive action or a constraint on international cooperation," said Achim Steiner, director general of The World Conservation Union, or IUCN.

The EU has also been criticized for refusing to drop subsidies that protect domestic industries and agriculture, an issue that infuriates developing nations struggling to get access to European markets.

Negotiators met in special pre-summit sessions Saturday and Sunday to try to resolve some of the contentious issues. U.S. and European officials said they were optimistic a deal could be reached.

"I sense a mood of people wanting to finish the text, come together and find an agreement early," said John Turner, a U.S. assistant secretary of state.

Many activists have lamented an "implementation gap" between the commitments made at the Earth Summit in Brazil in 1992 and the governments' inaction to achieve those environmental and development goals.

There have been several important environmental agreements signed since the Earth Summit, but the world has utterly ignored its responsibilities to its poor, said Christopher Flavin, president of the World Watch Institute, an environmental advocacy group.

"While there has been enormous economic growth ... the number of people living in poverty has hardly changed at all," he said.

The divide between the wealthy and the poor was brought into stark relief by the Sept. 11 terror attacks on the United States, said Jan Pronk, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan's liaison to the summit.

He said that ostracizing the poor will only breed more resentment toward the West.

"We have to provide a safe place for every person, in the future, on this Earth. A safe place, safe home, safe job," he said.

Thousands of activists planned demonstrations demanding action toward those goals. South African Foreign Minister Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma said Sunday that orderly, authorized protests would be welcomed, but illegal demonstrations would not be tolerated.

"The summit is not a summit for anarchy ... I hope nobody is coming here to test the law," she said.

Despite the lack of strong action in the past decade, the Rio conference was vitally important because it changed the world's attitude to the environment, said Nitin Desai, secretary-general of the summit. This conference must now turn that into concrete commitments to tackle poverty and protect the planet, Desai said.

"This is a summit that will really define whether we can change the way we act and not just the way we think," he said.

 

[RosevilleCAguy]

When the rest of the planet brings thier environmental standards up to ours, then maybe we should attend.

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

Roseville Guy...tanks are fun.

 

[RosevilleCAguy]

Roseville Guy...tanks are fun.

You have a bigger cannon than me....(pout)

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

Washington Times -

$800 million later, Brazilian bay
still stinks of sewage
By Michael Astor
ASSOCIATED PRESS

RIO DE JANEIRO — After a massive internationally funded cleanup of Rio's Guanabara Bay that followed the 1992 Earth Summit — and days before another Earth Summit in South Africa — one thing hasn't changed: The bay still stinks. Top Stories
• Iraq defends aid to bombers
• U.S. Attorney McNulty steps into the spotlight
• Washington doesn't just mean D.C. anymore
• Thieves steal 'Carol' in Dickens of a crime
• Losses expected by GOP in states

The 1992 summit cast such a spotlight on the bay that environmentalists were sure salvation was at hand.

World leaders, their nostrils assailed by a particularly nasty example of the ills they came to debate, vowed to open their pocketbooks.

The Inter-American Development Bank and Japan's Overseas Economic Cooperation Fund have since poured nearly $800 million into cleaning up the bay.

"Here we are, 10 years later, with lots of money spent and very little to show for it," said Rogerio Rocco, coordinator of the Blue Wave Coalition, an environmental group.

A recent audit by the Japanese fund found the program ineffective and far behind schedule.

Each day, 470 tons of raw sewage are dumped in the bay, along with about 10 tons of solid garbage, 5 tons of oil and an unknown quantity of industrial waste. In four of eight areas tested, sewage had almost entirely replaced seawater.

"If everything worked like it was supposed to, the whole thing could be cleaned up in 20 years. But the way it's going, it will take 30 or 40," Mr. Rocco said.

The 147-square-mile bay has been identified with this city ever since explorer Gaspar de Lemos sailed in on Jan. 1, 1502, mistook it for the mouth of a huge river and named the spot Rio de Janeiro, Portuguese for "River of January."

For centuries, its pristine waters attracted vacationers and beachgoers. The Portuguese royal family had a bathhouse here, and bay islands were coveted for weekend and summer homes.

Then, in 1961, Brazilian oil giant Petrobras built a refinery on the bay. Three years later the shrimp catch was down 40 percent, said Lise Sedrez, a student of the bay's environmental history.

Within a decade, Miss Sedrez said, Guanabara was so polluted that few people swam there.

The first phase of the cleanup began in 1993. A 10-year plan called for building two new sewage-treatment plants, improving existing ones and installing more than 3 million feet of sewers in communities around the bay.

Once in place, the theory went, this system would be able to treat 55 percent of all sewage flowing into Guanabara.

Today, of the bay's eight sewage-treatment plants, only three are fully operational. The others work intermittently or not at all. One plant was inaugurated twice, by two different governors, but still isn't connected to a sewer line.

"They inaugurate sewage-treatment plants, but they don't build the systems to bring the sewage to them," state Environment Secretary Liszt Vieira said.

Rio de Janeiro state's sanitation secretary, Agostinho Guerreiro, conceded that only about 15 percent of the sewage that spills into the bay each day is treated. He blames past administrations.

Simply building sewers is not the answer. Many of the communities along the bay's 82-mile shoreline and the 35 small rivers that feed it are stilt-house shantytowns, not easily equipped with sewers.

Sewage is not the only problem. Two years ago, a ruptured pipeline at a Petrobras refinery spilled at least 340,000 gallons of crude into the bay, killing birds and fish and devastating mangrove swamps.

Elmo Amador, coordinator of the environmental group Bay Alive, said state money that should have gone toward cleaning up Guanabara Bay was instead spent on vast saltwater swimming pools to score points with voters.

Today, as in 1992, the smell is noticeable from the moment one leaves the airport.

Yet hundreds of fishermen still eke out a living in the bay, and scientists say most of its fish can be eaten safely.

"We get by any way we can," fisherman Cicero Gueiros said. "The pollution is terrible. Twenty years ago, you'd see dolphins all the time. Now they're a rare sight."

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

I wonder why only 3 of the 8 plants are working? LOL. I'm not wondering, I know why.

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

And we are supposed to enlarge programs like this?

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

Le Monde de France

Au deuxième Sommet de la Terre, économie rime avec écologie
Jusqu'au 4 septembre, Johannesburg accueille la conférence mondiale sur le développement durable. Elle réunit les délégués de plus de 100 pays, des ONG et des entreprises. Dix ans après Rio, le mode de croissance des pays du Sud reste un enjeu vital, comme le montre l'exemple de Djakarta.
Le deuxième Sommet de la Terre présente l'aspect d'un grand spectacle planétaire : cent chefs d'Etat, quarante ou soixante mille artistes du débat, des tonnes de brochures, de tracts, de rapports, des manifestants révoltés et des policiers énervés, des écologistes critiques et des chefs d'entreprise responsables, un consensus émouvant pour sauver la planète et rasséréner les pauvres, des négociateurs hagards...

On ne sait pas encore si la performance fera des étincelles, mais il reste fascinant de voir comment un obscur processus diplomatique, égrené au long des années à travers des réunions ignorées de tous aux quatre coins de la planète, se transforme soudain en une énorme machine de spectacle. Un maître de la communication comme le président du conseil italien, Silvio Berlusconi, l'a bien compris, qui a conditionné sa participation au Sommet, qui s'ouvrira officiellement le lundi 26 août, à la question de savoir s'il s'agit d'un "show".

Le spectacle a aussi sa scène off, le Forum des ONG ouvert dès vendredi 23 août, et ses off du off, les sans-terre qui se mettent à manifester.

Car c'est d'abord d'une représentation qu'il s'agit, la représentation d'une culture planétaire en formation, culture du respect indispensable de l'écologie du Globe, dans la nécessité de nourrir mieux les milliards de pauvres qui y côtoient leurs congénères au ventre bien rempli. A cet égard, la reconnaissance du terme de "développement durable", sa promotion au rang de slogan mondial, quels que soient l'ambiguïté et le flou du concept, signifie qu'un tournant est pris : après des décennies où la croissance économique était jugée comme l'étalon du progrès, malgré les protestations des écologistes, la communauté internationale, les milieux économiques, les responsables politiques affirment que la croissance doit se faire dans le respect de l'environnement et avec le souci de la santé, de l'instruction et de la justice.

UN PLAN D'ACTION

L'enjeu symbolique de l'événement est le plus important. Son enjeu politique ne l'est cependant pas moins. Il s'agit, implicitement, de démontrer que la guerre contre le terrorisme n'est pas le premier problème planétaire actuel, mais passe après la question du clivage Nord-Sud et de la pauvreté douloureuse dans laquelle survivent près de la moitié des humains. Le Sommet a été ainsi avancé d'une dizaine de jours, pour ne pas coïncider avec l'anniversaire du 11 septembre 2001. Il s'agit aussi de démontrer la capacité collective de gérer les problèmes de la planète et de l'opposer à la vision unilatérale de la principale puissance, les Etats-Unis, dont le président George W. Bush a annoncé qu'il ne viendrait pas à Johannesburg.

En ce sens, une part essentielle de la négociation portera sur le fait de laisser ou non déborder le Sommet de son programme initial et largement rhétorique, pour en faire la poursuite des conférences de l'Organisation mondiale du commerce (OMC) à Doha, en novembre 2001, et de la conférence de Monterrey sur l'aide au développement, en mars 2002. Pour les Etats-Unis, mais également pour l'Union européenne, comme l'a indiqué au Monde Poul Nielson, le commissaire européen au développement, il n'est pas question de rouvrir ces négociations : Doha a décidé du contenu des discussions à poursuivre dans l'OMC sur le commerce, Monterrey l'augmentation de l'aide au développement, assujettie à des critères de "bonne gouvernance".

Pour les pays riches, Johannesburg ne doit donc pas parler de ces questions, mais en rester au plan d'action, c'est-à-dire la définition précise de ce qu'il faut faire. Etats-Unis et Europe divergent ici, l'Europe acceptant que ce plan contienne des objectifs précis - par exemple l'accès de tous à l'assainissement des eaux, ou la proportion de 10 % de l'énergie mondiale en 2010 remplacée par les énergies renouvelables -, tandis que les Etats-Unis renâclent à de tels engagements à caractère contraignant. En revanche, nombreux au sein du G 77, le groupe hétéroclite des pays du Sud, pensent que Johannesburg doit aborder les questions de Doha et Monterrey. "Le monde en développement demande un accès aux marchés beaucoup plus important, et c'est quelque chose qui jouera un rôle important à Johannesburg", a averti Shiv Mukherjee, le représentant de l'Inde au Sommet. La négociation pourrait se cristalliser sur ces sujets.

Le plan d'action comporte 153 paragraphes, décomposés en 615 alinéas, sur tous les sujets concernés - pauvreté, consommation, ressources naturelles, globalisation, etc. En moyenne, l'accord a pu être trouvé, lors des travaux préparatoires, seulement sur 25 % des alinéas. Les domaines pour lesquels l'échec est le plus élevé sont le financement (89 % des alinéas sans accord) et le commerce (85 %).

La question des subventions aux exportations agricoles, qui fragilisent les agricultures des pays du Sud, pour leur part non assistées, est, par exemple, l'un des points les plus sensibles

Commerce, environnement, développement, c'est désormais tout un.

Hervé Kempf

Plus de 100 dirigeants, 22 000 délégués

Plus de cent chefs d'Etat ou de gouvernement sont attendus au Sommet mondial pour le développement durable à Johannesburg (Afrique du Sud).

Ils rejoindront plus de 40 000 personnes : 22 000 délégués (dont 15 000 des ONG) et plus de 2 000 journalistes. Plus de 20 000 autres personnes assisteront aux événements parallèles.

La réunion vise à faire le bilan du précédent Sommet de la Terre, qui s'est tenu à Rio de Janeiro (Brésil) en juin 1992.

Le Sommet s'achèvera le 4 septembre. Les chefs d'Etat et de gouvernement se retrouveront les deux derniers jours pour adopter la déclaration politique et le plan d'action.

Le plan d'action définira des mesures concrètes visant à créer les conditions d'un développement durable de la planète. L'énergie et l'eau sont deux thèmes prioritaires de ce plan.

1,1 milliard d'humains n'ont pas accès à l'eau potable. 1,6 milliard n'ont pas l'électricité. 2 milliards subsistent avec moins de 1 euro par jour.

Les entreprises seront associées au plan d'action à travers des partenariats sur des réalisations précises. Cinquante dirigeants de firmes multinationales participent au sommet.

Le 1er septembre, un "jour des entreprises" est prévu. Il sera précédé, la veille, par une grande manifestation de protestation.

Qu'est-ce que le "développement durable" ?

Ce vocable en vogue désigne un développement économique qui accroît le bien-être sans détruire l'environnement naturel. Le terme a été lancé par le rapport Bruntland, remis en 1987 à l'Organisation des Nations unies. Il y est défini comme un développement "qui répond aux besoins du présent sans compromettre les capacités des générations futures à répondre aux leurs". Le concept est issu du constat que la prospérité des pays du Nord s'est édifiée sur la destruction de nombreux écosystèmes ou sur leur pollution. Si les pays du Sud devaient suivre le même chemin, la biosphère atteindrait un niveau de dégradation intolérable. Il s'agit donc de définir un schéma de développement qui ne prenne pas la voie suivie par le Nord. Clair dans son principe, le développement durable est plus difficile à préciser concrètement : s'agit-il simplement de mieux gérer les ressources non renouvelables ? De maintenir constante la valeur du capital naturel ? Et comment définir les besoins des générations futures ?

Jacques Chirac emmène Nicolas Hulot

De retour de ses vacances à la Réunion, Jacques Chirac, a préparé, jeudi 22 août, le Sommet mondial sur le développement durable de Johannesburg, avant de rejoindre, le lendemain, le fort de Brégançon, sur la côte varoise, l'une des résidences de la présidence française.

Le chef de l'Etat se rendra en Afrique du Sud du 1er au 3 septembre, à la tête d'une importante délégation. M. Chirac sera accompagné de trois ministres, Roselyne Bachelot (écologie), Pierre-André Wiltzer (coopération) et Tokia Saïfi (développement durable), ainsi que d'une vingtaine d'élus, parmi lesquels Serge Lepeltier, secrétaire général du RPR, et de diverses personnalités, dont Nicolas Hulot, l'aventurier vedette de la télévision, qui est l'un des inspirateurs de son discours sur l'environnement.

 

[RosevilleCAguy]

If only it wasn't for the greedy, inept Americans, everything would work right.

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

We give more in sheer volume. Someone was complaining the other day, I think PP man (he does a lot of complaining) that we don't give as big a % of GDP as some other countries do.

One of the big holdbacks for us giving aid is the requirement that the recieving country implement changes (for example, that they don't just let the politicians steal the money). We are critisized for that.

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

Orange Country Register/NY Times

World leaders to tackle poverty, pollution
Dispute on aid efforts likely to dominate summit that begins today.

August 26, 2002

By RACHEL L. SWARNS
The New York Times


JOHANNESBURG, South Africa -- The smoke settles over the rickety shacks and shabby houses as soon as this city wakes. Thousands of poor people without electricity burn scraps of wood in rusty tin cans to keep warm. Others burn coal in old stoves that belch soot and fumes into the cold morning air.

Poverty in crowded cities like this one and - in sleepy villages as well - is threatening the air, the waters and the forests of the developing world. Today, the U.N. World Summit on Sustainable Development opens here to try to focus the world's attention on the environment in these poor countries.

The 10-day meeting is expected to attract more than 100 presidents and prime ministers from Africa, Europe, Asia and Latin America, who will hammer out a plan to protect the globe's atmosphere, lakes, forests and wildlife, and focus on the link between poverty and environmental degradation. Officials hope to build on the ambitious - but poorly executed - agenda set at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro 10 years ago.

Leaders from the United States, Europe and developing nations have already agreed that reducing poverty must be a central element of the plan. But the question of how to do that and to ensure the survival of the globe's natural resources has left rich and poor nations bitterly divided. The dispute is likely to dominate the political negotiations here.

In this continent of immense natural beauty and desperate poverty, the debate could hardly be more relevant. In the 1990s, Africa had the world's highest rate of deforestation as poor people cleared trees for farmland and firewood. Acute respiratory infections, which often afflict families that rely on coal or wood for heating, kill or disable about 30 percent of children in sub-Saharan Africa, the United Nations says. Meanwhile, pollution is worsening as millions of Africans abandon rural villages for urban shantytowns.

Poor countries say they cannot safeguard their natural resources unless they can strengthen their economies. They want wealthy nations to commit 0.7 percent of their gross national product to aid developing countries; to reduce or eliminate taxes on agricultural goods from poor countries and to halve the number of people without access to sanitation by 2015.

Some wealthy nations, including the United States and some members of the European Union, are resisting. American officials say they have already agreed to increase foreign aid to the poor and that developing nations should eliminate corruption and strengthen democratic institutions before more aid is committed.

The United States, the world's biggest polluter, has also refused to commit to time frames for reducing greenhouse gas emissions or for converting to renewable energy sources, despite pressure from the developing world and the European Union.

The European Union has agreed to discuss targets for increasing foreign assistance, but opposes time frames for eliminating agricultural subsidies, which protect its farmers from foreign competition.

Environmentalists and advocates for the poor, who have poured into this city by the thousands, have already been marching to draw attention to keeping the link between poverty and environmental decay high on the agenda. Much of their anger is directed at President George W. Bush, who will not attend the meeting.

"The north-south dispute over money and trade is an old one, but it's particularly acute at the moment," said Mark Malloch Brown, administrator of the U.N. Development Program. "There's distrust on both sides."

Meeting organizers said they believe that the differences will be resolved. They note that the nations have already agreed on nearly 80 percent of the summit's action plan.

They have already agreed to offer incentives for investment in cleaner forms of production, to provide additional resources to keep deserts from spreading and to try to reduce by half the number of people living on less than $1 a day by 2015. But none of these commitments are groundbreaking; the commitment on poverty, for instance, was adopted two years ago at the Millennium Summit at the United Nations.

Officials assembled here agree that developing countries must focus on good governance and democracy, and curb pollution within their own borders. But the South African president, Thabo Mbeki, who has led Africa's push for more foreign aid, has said leaders should also take a strong stand for the environment with commitments to alleviating poverty.

 

[RosevilleCAguy]

Re: Orange Country Register/NY Times

World leaders to tackle poverty, pollution
Dispute on aid efforts likely to dominate summit that begins today.

August 26, 2002

By RACHEL L. SWARNS
The New York Times


JOHANNESBURG, South Africa -- The smoke settles over the rickety shacks and shabby houses as soon as this city wakes. Thousands of poor people without electricity burn scraps of wood in rusty tin cans to keep warm. Others burn coal in old stoves that belch soot and fumes into the cold morning air.

Poverty in crowded cities like this one and - in sleepy villages as well - is threatening the air, the waters and the forests of the developing world. Today, the U.N. World Summit on Sustainable Development opens here to try to focus the world's attention on the environment in these poor countries.

The 10-day meeting is expected to attract more than 100 presidents and prime ministers from Africa, Europe, Asia and Latin America, who will hammer out a plan to protect the globe's atmosphere, lakes, forests and wildlife, and focus on the link between poverty and environmental degradation. Officials hope to build on the ambitious - but poorly executed - agenda set at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro 10 years ago.

Leaders from the United States, Europe and developing nations have already agreed that reducing poverty must be a central element of the plan. But the question of how to do that and to ensure the survival of the globe's natural resources has left rich and poor nations bitterly divided. The dispute is likely to dominate the political negotiations here.

In this continent of immense natural beauty and desperate poverty, the debate could hardly be more relevant. In the 1990s, Africa had the world's highest rate of deforestation as poor people cleared trees for farmland and firewood. Acute respiratory infections, which often afflict families that rely on coal or wood for heating, kill or disable about 30 percent of children in sub-Saharan Africa, the United Nations says. Meanwhile, pollution is worsening as millions of Africans abandon rural villages for urban shantytowns.

Poor countries say they cannot safeguard their natural resources unless they can strengthen their economies. They want wealthy nations to commit 0.7 percent of their gross national product to aid developing countries; to reduce or eliminate taxes on agricultural goods from poor countries and to halve the number of people without access to sanitation by 2015.

Some wealthy nations, including the United States and some members of the European Union, are resisting. American officials say they have already agreed to increase foreign aid to the poor and that developing nations should eliminate corruption and strengthen democratic institutions before more aid is committed.

The United States, the world's biggest polluter, has also refused to commit to time frames for reducing greenhouse gas emissions or for converting to renewable energy sources, despite pressure from the developing world and the European Union.

The European Union has agreed to discuss targets for increasing foreign assistance, but opposes time frames for eliminating agricultural subsidies, which protect its farmers from foreign competition.

Environmentalists and advocates for the poor, who have poured into this city by the thousands, have already been marching to draw attention to keeping the link between poverty and environmental decay high on the agenda. Much of their anger is directed at President George W. Bush, who will not attend the meeting.

"The north-south dispute over money and trade is an old one, but it's particularly acute at the moment," said Mark Malloch Brown, administrator of the U.N. Development Program. "There's distrust on both sides."

Meeting organizers said they believe that the differences will be resolved. They note that the nations have already agreed on nearly 80 percent of the summit's action plan.

They have already agreed to offer incentives for investment in cleaner forms of production, to provide additional resources to keep deserts from spreading and to try to reduce by half the number of people living on less than $1 a day by 2015. But none of these commitments are groundbreaking; the commitment on poverty, for instance, was adopted two years ago at the Millennium Summit at the United Nations.

Officials assembled here agree that developing countries must focus on good governance and democracy, and curb pollution within their own borders. But the South African president, Thabo Mbeki, who has led Africa's push for more foreign aid, has said leaders should also take a strong stand for the environment with commitments to alleviating poverty.

I think we need to begin oppressing people.

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

My friend that I mentioned above who worked internationally laughed at the fact that two people that he knew from two different painfully poor countries somehow managed to eek out enough savings from the aid that their countries received to build million dollar estates in Connecticut. I myself, in wonderment at ones thriftiness, was eager to hear his financial advice for his incredible ability to purchase a multi-million $ home on a salary of $25,000 per year. The stone wall around his property costs more than $1M itself. Forget Merrill-Lynch advisors, I want to learn more from this fellow.

 

[RosevilleCAguy]

My friend that I mentioned above who worked internationally laughed at the fact that two people that he knew from two different painfully poor countries somehow managed to eek out enough savings from the aid that their countries received to build million dollar estates in Connecticut. I myself, in wonderment at ones thriftiness, was eager to hear his financial advice for his incredible ability to purchase a multi-million $ home on a salary of $25,000 per year. The stone wall around his property costs more than $1M itself. Forget Merrill-Lynch advisors, I want to learn more from this fellow.

I beleive the first step is to be born into a dirt poor, piece of shit nation.

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

So, question for the day.....

If we are able to somehow squeeze any money out of our economy.....do we:

1) Give it away to poor countries and expect the same results we always get (the money is stolen by the political leaders in that country)?

or

2) Focus on improving our schools, providing equal opportunity at home and giving the poor in our country a better chance to participate more fully in our economy?

 

[Ally C]

Who cares?

Lots of newspaper quotes, mandatory expectations of anti-American sentiment expressed by Americans; but little or no heartfelt emotion or mention of the masses of humanity living in abject squalor and on the verge of death.

While there's often much debate over perpretators of war crimes and how to punish them, there's not nearly enough action (never mind words) against those foreign officials who use much needed aid to line their own pockets.

Sadly, I don't see much (if any) hope for improvement. The fact that protestors are receiving as many column inches in the press as the proceedings of the conference itself isn't surprising. Any and all such conferences held *anywhere* in the world attract anti-globalization/anti-capitalist protestors. Nothing unusual there then. As for the lack of trust expressed in certain foreign powers to administer aid effectively, well, look at the Enron scandal (among so many other notable examples). While this might not be a strict comparison of like for like, the ethical and financial implications are closely linked. With the respect to ideas of 'human nature', they're identical.

A pre-emptive throwing of stones in the big glass house we all share says more about why things are in such a mess than any amount of newspaper quotations ever could.