After 10 strife-ridden days that pitted South against North the Earth Summit barely reached an agreement. Yehia Ghanem reports from Johannesburg Speaking at a press conference in Johannesburg during the Earth Summit Michel Letourneau, Canada's minister for indigenous affairs, reviewed the agreement reached between his government and the Crees, one of Canada's indigenous tribes. The two sides had finally reached a peace agreement some 300 years after the war between them ended. In the course of his presentation, Letourneau referred several times to the "peace of the brave", a term that was often thrown around during the Israeli- Palestinian peace negotiations. There was enthusiasm in Letourneau's voice as he reviewed the course of negotiations. This would set you thinking about the bitterness that brewed in our part of the world as the international community remains indifferent about the ordeal of the Palestinians. This is what led me to ask Ted Moses, leader of the Crees indigenous people, what kind of insight he can offer the Palestinians in view of the tragedies his people have suffered at the hands of European colonial settlers. His answer is worth quoting. "The European colonialists have been harsh to us, but we, over the past 300 years, did not know how to handle this conflict. This is why we were defeated. The Palestinians are a different story. They have the expertise and the officials capable of managing the conflict. We as indigenous people, and in view of our past ordeals, support the right of self-determination for all nations including the Palestinian people." Over the 10 days of the Johannesburg Summit, over 193 countries raised a score of economic, environmental and national issues. The Crees were only one of the many voices that were heard in this modern Tower of Babel. And not all voices had the same weight. The Third World contingent had a tough time getting across their view in this summit on sustainable development. I am writing this report just before the final document of the summit will be issued. There are signs, however, that this document will not match in its seriousness the 1992 Rio Declaration. One item that was approved was the provision of sewage facilities and drinking water for over a billion people in the Third World. This objective should be accomplished by 2015, but the summit did not agree on a specific mechanism for implementation. Other items on the agenda lack even a timetable for their implementation. This applies to the vague formulation concerning the development of renewable energy sources. And, as the Friends of the Earth noted in a statement, some of the commitments of the Rio Declaration were simply ignored. Environmental activists were unrealistic about their expectations, claimed Alec Arwin, South Africa's minister of trade and industry. Responding to the criticism of several attending NGOs, the minister said that his country did all it could to reach a "very good" deal. He explained that some of the sensitive issues, such as agricultural subsidies in the EU and the United States, were hard to resolve during the course of this summit. As for renewable sources of energy, both Japan and the United States agreed to work on that matter, but the nature of that issue makes it almost impossible to reach a specific agreement at this point. Its mere inclusion on the summit's agenda was a step forward, the minister said. Just 24 hours before the summit ended its work, Neitin Desia, secretary-general of the summit, declared that the delegates had reached an agreement on most of the disputed items on the agenda. This declaration came as a surprise, for many had predicted that the summit would end without a conclusive agreement on most of the tabled issues. Desia said that the summit came up with adequate plans to promote sustainable development. The success of these plans would, however, depend on the political will and commitment of governments and civil society. The main obstacle the summit faced was the failure of the delegates to reach an agreement on increasing the sources of renewable energy worldwide. Certain delegates were adamant that countries should gradually reduce subsidies to conventional energy sources, which they view as an impediment to sustainable development. The final wording of that clause, however, does not provide for binding commitments or specify a timetable for implementation. This wording sources say, was intentionally vague in order to satisfy the US, which opposes any serious commitment on that issue. Greenpeace criticised the outcome of the summit, but said that the convening of this, and similar summits, remains important because it limits the World Trade Organisation's monopoly of the global scene. A reliable source told Al-Ahram Weekly that the summit's final declaration will almost certainly include a strong statement about the Palestinian issue. The summit's working group on the environment is proposing a clause condemning Israel's systematic destruction of the Palestinian environment and infrastructure. The final statement is also expected to call for an end to Israel's aggression against the Palestinian people and the resumption of peace talks.
