Embattled US goes on offensive at Earth Summit

10.00am

JOHANNESBURG - Hitting back at critics who brand it the uncaring tool of greedy big business, the Bush administration showcased hundreds of millions of dollars in US aid projects at the Earth Summit on Thursday.

But Third World activists and environmentalists, as well as opposition Congressmen, cried foul, saying the money was not new and involved partnerships with corporations that would profit more than the poor billions in Africa, Asia and Latin America.

"You get this love-hate thing. It's just part of being the most powerful nation in the world," said Andrew Natsios, Administrator of US foreign aid body, USAID, who accused other countries of being big on talk but short on real action.

US Congressman George Miller called partnerships "a recycled idea and recycled money". Others said a go-it-alone stance on issues like global warming could undermine President George W Bush's anti-terrorism coalition.

But US officials insisted the former Texas oilman was fully committed to the summit goals of easing poverty through environmentally friendly growth, despite his decision not to join 100 other leaders in South Africa for next week's finale.

Hoping to defuse mounting anger over a big role for business at the 10-day summit and the reluctance of rich states to do more for the poor 10 years after pledges made at Rio de Janeiro, police said they had reached a compromise to let thousands march on Saturday from a nearby slum to the plush summit venue.

"The marchers want to underline the symbolism of the two worlds -- the poverty in Alexandra and the opulence of Sandton," South African Safety and Security Minister Charles Nqakula said.

Paula Dobriansky, US Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs, rejected the idea the Americans were being "demonised" at the summit. She said: "We are very excited about partnerships ...We see this as a commitment on the part of all."

"This is a call for action. This is a call for initiative."

UN organisers said they were notified of 218 international partnerships in areas from healthcare to renewable energy, which can involve governments, companies, local authorities or others.

The United States has pledged US$970 million ($2.09 billion) over three years for projects to provide clean drinking water, while projects highlighted on Thursday included US$53 million to save forests in Africa's Congo basin and US$43 million for energy initiatives.

But some environmentalists say partnerships may let business profit from providing privatised services like electricity or water, while letting governments shirk their responsibilities.

Critics said rich nations are trumpeting partnerships at the World Summit on Sustainable Development to cover up a lack of new government funds or clear timetables for an assault on everything from Aids to promoting green sources of energy.

One US official conceded much of the cash had already been budgeted for: "And some of it's been moved around," he added.

"Governments are supposed to be working up an action plan with targets and timetables and the means of implementation," said Greenpeace climate policy director Steve Sawyer.

"We can talk about partnerships after they've done that."

But US delegates defended their resistance to efforts by developing nations and, in some cases, Washington's European allies to introduce firm new targets and deadlines into a broad plan being negotiated for signature by leaders next week.

"Americans are practical people. They make pledges, the United States carries them out. Other countries don't do that. They make statements and nothing happens," USAID's Natsios said, noting firm targets were meaningless if, like most of them set in Rio a decade ago, governments failed to respect them.

In fact, negotiations on the wording of a lengthy, though not legally binding, "implementation plan" to be signed next week has made some progress on incorporating new targets -- including on Thursday a deadline of 2020 for toxic chemicals to be made and disposed of without endangering people's health.

Talking of efforts to define how much energy should come from renewable sources -- a thorny issue for oil firms and Opec states -- Mexican Environment Minister Victor Lichtinger said: "If we don't have targets, we are not going to be able convince people inside our governments and inside our societies."

About 95 per cent of the plan has been agreed, the UN said -- including a reaffirmation of a world trade deal asserting the right of poor countries to consider pressing public health needs like Aids when considering the patent rights of drug companies.

One in nine South Africans has the HIV/Aids virus but many lack access to expensive new drugs from foreign firms, prompting demands here and in other poor states for cheap local versions.

But there was little sign of agreement on calls from developing countries for a stronger commitment to an end to the subsidies paid to Western farmers and manufacturers that help keep out otherwise cheaper imports from the Third World.

Farm subsidies in the West total about six times the US$54 billion given each year in aid to developing countries.

US demands that good government and democracy should be a counterpart to aid handouts, calls for multinational companies to be held accountable for their actions around the world and debate on the benefits of "globalisation" were also unresolved.

British Environment Minister Michael Meacher said ministers might have to get involved in breaking deadlock among officials.

"I think it will be resolved," he told Reuters. "But...there are still differences over targets, governance, human rights."

- REUTERS

Johannesburg Summit