Global Policy Forum

By Jonathan Freedland

There is no pleasing some people. The organisers of the Johannesburg summit on the environment bent over backwards to persuade George Bush to accept their invitation. As the most accommodating hosts, they even changed the date to suit him, bringing it forward to avoid a clash with the anniversary of September 11. But still it was not enough.

Yesterday came the clearest signal yet that the US president, leader of the world's sole superpower and the planet's greatest single polluter, will snub the UN and the 65,000 delegates to this month's world summit on sustainable development by failing to show up.

He received congratulations on that from a clutch of US arch-conservatives, praising him for having the good sense to stay away. It is not official yet, but it seems Colin Powell will go in his place - confirmation, if it were needed, of the secretary of state's status as the human figleaf of the Bush administration, dispatched whenever Washington needs to put on its moderate, inclusive or "listening" face.

It all amounts to a clearer two-fingered salute than even the first Bush administration managed. Ten years ago Bush Sr dithered and delayed before finally showing up at the earth summit for a few hours. But now Bush Jr has decided to listen to those rightists who believed his dad made a mistake by flying down to Rio, giving in to the long-haired, granola-munching whiners of the environmental lobby. "Why would you want to go to a party when they want to throw pies at you?" asked Fred L Smith Jr of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, first to praise the prez. "The fortunate thing is, when 40,000 goofies get together not much happens."

That may be a crude summary of US attitudes but, coupled with the presidential absence, it suggests Johannesburg will provide the biggest demonstration yet of the new American disregard for the rest of the world. The summit will give eloquent expression to the Bush doctrine of go-it-alone unilateralism, in which America pursues its own interests first - with an avowed aversion to any multilateral efforts to make the world a better place.

There has been other evidence, such as Washington's refusal to sign up for the international criminal court. But just as Bush's tear-up of the Kyoto protocol shocked the world into realising the depth of the new administration's contempt for multilateralism, so the Johannesburg stayaway will reveal again the unilateralist heart of Republican thinking, confirming the coalition-building that followed September 11 was the exception, not the rule.

This poses a great danger for those who want to see results from South Africa. At a presummit meeting last month, European diplomats spoke openly of their fears that the US was bent on undermining the global get-together, replacing binding targets and timetables with mere "voluntary initiatives". Washington has also sought to have trade, aid and debt relief taken off the Johannesburg agenda - which would not leave much to talk about.

The summiteers are left wondering how they can hope to achieve anything if the world's sole superpower is at best barely engaged and, at worst, outright hostile? And this poses a wider challenge: for what can the nations of the world do in any sphere if the US refuses to play the international game?

They could try to battle on regardless, as they did at Bonn last year when they renewed the Kyoto protocol despite the US boycott. That is what influential US economist Jeffrey Sachs advocates. Ignore "Washington's arrogant disregard", he says.

But that kind of effort takes leadership. Most environmentalists can see only one candidate: the European Union. "This is as much a test of the EU as it is about America," says Kevin Watkins, senior policy adviser at Oxfam. "Is the EU capable of showing leadership?"

The US has left a vacuum and the EU alone has the capacity to fill it. Put together, EU nations have far greater voting strength on the World Bank and the IMF than the US (and more than Africa, Latin America and South Asia combined). It has the muscle if it wants to use it.

But so far Europe has not dared act as a coherent power bloc. And nor, says Watkins, has it set an example. With the honourable exception of Britain, the leading EU states have cut, not increased, their aid to poor countries and have not made good on their promise to help fund education in the poorest nations.

So the easy posture later this month will be to denounce the Americans for staying away from Johannesburg. A better move might be to ask whether the Europeans did enough while they were there.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Global Policy Forum distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.