CurrentCommentary
Summit setto be battle of the NGOs
JOHANNESBURG, South Africa,(UPI) -- The 1990s began with new hopes for democracy with thefall of the Berlin Wall; it ended with the debacle of the WorldTrade Organization meeting in Seattle in 1999.
Once political freedom apparentlywas achieved in the East, Westerners became initially apatheticby voting less in elections and then more distrustful of theirown political systems. Into this democratic void came increasinglyinfluential Non-Governmental Organizations. And at the upcomingEarth Summit, it's the NGOs that largely will be setting the agenda.
Most of the NGOs will promotespecific outcomes, such as eradicating poverty, reducing the powerof multinational companies, stabilizing climate change or increasingthe number of sperm whales.
This is often positive inthat in focuses the minds of the public and media on problemsthat need solving. But there are at least two problems with thisapproach. First, disagreement about what is the desirable outcomeleads to conflict, and second, concentrating on the outcome whiletaking the process for granted can lead to morally questionablesolutions and via them to widespread failure.
In brief: are command-and-controlmethods of government regulation the best way to safeguard theenvironment while allowing for economic growth? Or would market-basedmechanisms -- such as the market in tradeable permits for sulphurdioxide emissions --- be more sustainable in the long-run? Likelyareas of conflict at the summit are: ratification of various greentreaties, increasing, increasing the proportion of foreign aidthat is transmitted via NGOS, the precautionary restriction ofinternational trade, privatizing water, the rejection of geneticallymodified food aid, and the proper pricing of drugs that combatAIDS.
Most of the large NGOs (TheWorld Wildlife Fund, Greenpeace, Oxfam) are outcome-oriented,and they will often act in concert against big business and biggovernment. They will, however, seek allies among groups theyoften oppose in order to appear more balanced and centrist. Forexample, some NGOs see Shell and BP as temporary allies when theyare trying to embarrass Exxon into accepting that the climateis changing. Similarly, European Government officials will beregular green allies when fighting the U.S. Administration aboutthe Kyoto climate protocol. In the first example, Shell and BPwill not be expected to publicly oppose Exxon or fund the NGOs-- just to keep quiet while the NGOs do their work. In the lattercase, the European Union will fund groups knowing they campaignto pressure the United States to ratify Kyoto. Indeed, 10 percentof the EU budget is devoted to the funding of advocacy groups,and green groups now have an institutionalized role with the EuropeanUnion as suppliers of policy data and advice.
Already U.S. business pressureon President Bush not to attend the WSSD has aroused widespreadcriticism from the news media and some European officials. Someof these attacks were subtly orchestrated by NGOs, which claimedthey had been leaked letters to President Bush from think tanksand business groups. This made a good news story. In fact, theletters had been posted on numerous web sites and sent to over200 media outlets in the United States. The Times of London fellfor this one in an Aug. 16 article "Oil Lobby dismisses Earthsummit." Its story then generated much media activity inthe United Kingdom and elsewhere.
This type of media manipulationis quintessential NGO work, and they will control much media timeat WSSD. But although they make for good copy, where NGOs oftenfall down is in explaining persuasively how their targets areto be achieved. And when they do, it is usually by proposing large-scaleaid or government programmes. So a more interesting debate willbe between the outcome-focused NGOs and those NGOs driven by concernsabout how to reconcile green objectives with economic growth andthe concerns of other groups, including business.