The World Today

Issue: August & September 2002

In this issue:

Johannesburg is the venue for the World Summit on Sustainable Development in August and September. If the wish were father to the deed, governments and international bodies would even now provide the means to improve the lives of the world’s poor without destroying the environment. But will Johannesburg fall foul of vested interests and political hot air?

Articles

Informal partnerships may be one of the most significant outcomes of the Johannesburg summit. They are politically attractive as they have the potential to enable governments to work together on implementing the sustainable development projects they have signed up to, without requiring them to enter into detailed formal agreements.

There are those who go to international meetings hoping things will change. There are the cynics who believe summits change nothing. Then there are those who say it’s right to be sceptical, but one should never assume the worst. Johannesburg might yet spring a surprise. But don’t hold your breath.

The World Summit on Sustainable Development is happening in South Africa, where crucial research is conducted on technologies for poorer countries. But the problem with initiatives like this is that they concentrate on individual technologies for health, agriculture and communications but seldom address the broader issue of technology itself.

Holes in the ozone layer get bigger and the earth gets warmer. Sea levels are rising significantly. And yet potentially the most serious physical problem facing the twenty-first century lies elsewhere – the supply of good quality fresh water – a major item on the World Summit on Sustainable Development’s agenda in Johannesburg.

It is hoped the Johannesburg summit will produce solutions to problems associated with energy consumption in the world’s poorer countries. How can demand for energy and economic development be reconciled with the need to safeguard people’s health and safety against pollution and the depletion of their resources?

Buried inside the World Summit on Sustainable Development’s agenda in Johannesburg is another explosive issue – genetically modified crops. Some governments are pressing ahead with these regardless of widespread fears that they are an environmental disaster. In March India gave the go-ahead for commercial planting of genetically modified cotton – a move that’s provoked more polarised reaction.

Also in this issue

President George Bush called for a ‘war’ against terror after September 11. But is war the right way to deal with the likes of Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda?

We are close to a year on from September 11. The main consequence is clear: the attacks on mainland America have provoked the United States into a new strategic campaign, likely to dominate US foreign policy for a long time to come. The impact will be protracted not only because of the broad ramifications of this policy, but because the very goal – the elimination of an enemy, unseen and drawing on considerable support – will remain elusive.

In reflecting on how our world has changed since September 11, one obvious conclusion is that although the President of the United States may arguably be the most powerful person in the world, he is as much driven by world events as he is able to control them.

Israeli actions against the Palestinians, US bombing in Afghanistan and the intervention of Russia’s armed forces in Chechnya all have something in common: the fight against terrorism.

The coalition against terrorism, if by that is meant an alliance between states to combat attacks like those on the United States, coming from the same source or a similar one, is a strange creature.

Since the events of last September, there have been countless attempts to explain what happened.

Money can be as lethal as bullets and explosives.

It would appear to be a contradiction in terms – a regional nuclear power defeated by terrorism. But it is at least one way of interpreting the parlous state of affairs in the Middle East.