What Should We Do About
the United States?

A Statement by US NGOs at the Fourth Preparatory Meeting
for the World Summit on Sustainable Development

Bali, June 6, 2002

Some say it was a joke; but for most NGOs and many delegates to the Fourth Preparatory Meeting of the World Summit on Sustainable Development, Chairman Emil Salim's question "what should we do about the United States?" is no joke.  

Most US-based NGOs, environmentalists, consumer advocates, women, youth, community leaders and other public interest organizations here in Bali to promote sustainable development are frustrated and embarrassed with the actions and attitudes of our government.   Instead of representing our interests and concerns, we find our current government defending the interests and agenda of big business.

Where is the "turning point?"

Ten years ago, our government signed Agenda 21, acknowledging our country's responsibility within the larger community of the planet to work towards achieving a higher quality of life for everyone -- the primary goal of sustainable development.   As a program of action, Agenda 21 represented a series of commitments to take concrete steps towards eliminating poverty, achieving sustainable production and consumption, and reversing the trends of environmental degradation and the widening gap between the rich and poor.   Signing Agenda 21 committed countries to "changing the course" of their policies and investment of resources so that future generations would not be stuck with increasing debt and ecological devastation.   The Earth Summit in Rio was supposed to be a historic "turning point," one in which the developed countries agreed to "take the lead."   

Ten years later we find greater environmental degradation, a deepening gap between the rich and poor, increasing consumption and pollution, despite gains in efficiency and new technologies and a widening of public awareness and concern.   Clearly, we are far from the turning point, especially in the United States -- the country in the best position to take the lead yet unwilling to show leadership.   While continuing to be one of the world's biggest consumers of the planet's natural resources and one of the biggest polluters, the United States government refuses to change course.   Giving lip service to the concept of "sustainable development" we see our government rigidly defending a way of thinking and course of action that benefits the short-term interests of business at the cost of greater social and ecological decline.  

Lack of leadership on sustainability

Instead of setting a good example by taking responsibility for its leading role in consumption, pollution and waste, we watch our delegation highlighting the obligations of the rest of the world.   The rest of the world, however, watches us add to a long list of bad examples:

  • After ten years the US administration has yet to develop a national sustainable development strategy, maintains no National Council or Office of Sustainable Development, and has made little effort to integrate sustainable development policy throughout US policy and programs.  
  • Instead of cleaning our own house, we watch our current government undermining efforts to move towards sustainability.   Refusing to sign the Kyoto agreement, actively resisting efforts to strengthen CAFE standards of fuel efficiency, and offering huge new subsidies to big agribusiness in the recent Farm Bill are just three examples.  
  • While the US claims to promote transparency and access to information, the White House continues to defend its right to secrecy as in its meetings with big oil and energy companies in shaping the national energy plan.
  • While claiming to promote reducing and eliminating harmful subsidies, the US has increased its subsidies to the big energy companies in order to expand fossil fuel and nuclear energy production, in contrast to little more than token support for sustainable energy sources.

Passing the buck

Rather than taking leadership both at home and in shaping an international action plan to implement Agenda 21, the current US government position shifts its responsibility to business.   This shift of responsibility for sustainable development to business lies at the heart of what the US promotes as "good governance."   Clearly the right to water, to food, to land, to a healthy environment, and other rights-based concerns are swept aside by the US, making way for the rights and priorities of big business.   In the arguments about foreign aid, the US meaning of good governance is clear:   The objective is to create a friendly climate in developing countries to attract foreign investment; this means strengthening the legal rights of investors and corporations in their dealings with foreign governments and communities.  

This shift of responsibility to big business also lies at the heart of the current controversy over the US emphasis on "partnerships" as the "concrete outcomes" they see coming from the World Summit process.   While NGOs and others have been engaged in "partnerships" for years, the recent emphasis on these initiatives in the World Summit on Sustainable Development has clearly distracted attention from the fact that governments, especially in the developed countries and particularly in the case of the United States, have not only not "changed course" in implementing their Agenda 21 commitments, but are avoiding responsibility to make up for this lack.   Instead of a stronger commitment to bridging the "implementation gap" we see governments, led or pushed by the US, to passing the buck to the corporate sector, celebrating partnerships and the voluntary principle -- while seeking to remove the precautionary principle, the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and other key elements of Agenda 21.

Good governance or poor leadership?

Throughout their negotiations over the Action Plan for the Summit, the US delegation has consistently argued for language promoting privatization, property rights protecting the interests of   foreign investment and corporations, and a voluntary approach for corporations in contrast to language promoting stronger regulations and compliance mechanisms to ensure responsible corporate behavior.   Rather than promote corporate accountability mechanisms and structures to address the harmful social and environmental impacts of globalization, the US continues to strengthen the very obstacles to sustainable development responsible for the "implementation gap."   In many ways, the message behind the US promotion of "good governance" is good globalization.

The buck stops here

People all over the world concerned about US promotion of the rights and priorities of big business over the rights and priorities of individuals, communities and the ecosystems supporting life on this planet are asking:   What should we do about the United States?   This is a key question for US NGOs here in Bali who will soon return home as well as for each person living in the United States.  

As concerned citizens and residents of the United States, we accept our responsibility to help "change the course" in realizing the commitments of Rio to achieving sustainability.   If the current government of the United States will not demonstrate this leadership, it is up to its people to take the lead.

 

 

Website concept, content & design managed by: