The Summit That Sold the World -
WSSD The Final Analysis

Plates of oysters and fleets of Mercedes were not the real story last week in Johannesburg, though frankly the PR at the summit was pretty awful. Neither was the Blair-Mugabe spat, although real land reform could and should have been more central to the agenda. The real story was how a collection of world leaders sat down with the express intent of neglecting, letting down and manipulating the world’s poor. The summit to save the world turned out to be the summit that sold the world.

By the end of the negotiations rich countries, particularly the US, looked so bad that not even trump card Colin Powell could make himself heard above the din of disgusted protestors. The hosts looked acutely embarrassed by the collective grieving that followed the summit and the UN itself has emerged from summit scarred and tarnished.

That is not to say the past ten days of bluff and bluster was all in vain. There were some commitments and initiatives that will actually help poor people. But there remain some negative themes that characterised this summit not to mention the hidden agendas of attendees. So what were these main themes?

Theme one: private money is the key to development. In short, the private sector through “partnerships” and other arrangements will deliver public services and economic development to the poor. Despite the fact that there is no real evidence for this on the ground, the conference fully endorsed the approach.

Theme two: corporate influence. multinational corporations’ fingerprints were all over the text and the negotiations. The only real victory was some vague wording on corporate accountability but no commitments or timetable were set. Meanwhile, big companies such as Rio Tinto and Thames water were accredited to the official UK delegation ensuring unfettered access to negotiations and ministers.

Theme three: the US appears not to care about either poverty or the environment. The Americans had a very negative agenda at Jo’burg in keeping with its record at recent international conferences. Progressive EU positions were flogged off cheaply and US negotiators came across as highly experienced bullies. They were very keen to promote anything voluntary and very shy of anything that commits them to anything.

Theme four: no new money. This conference, we were constantly told, would not be pledging extra funds – about the one promise that governments managed to keep. The fact is that without more money for development, aid based on social justice rather than aid as a means of opening up markets, the much-heralded 2015 Millennium Development Goals targeting poverty will not be met.

There was an overarching theme, too – namely big summits like this can’t and won’t work if one of the main players rejects multilateralism in favour of pushing a big business agenda. We have repeatedly seen the US at recent summits act as a spoiler and a wrecker. As a negotiating force the EU is too weak to stand up to them and the under-resourced unwieldy bloc of G77 developing countries, remains too divided.

Future summits will need to be far more focussed to have any chance of success. More work needs to be done to ensure nation states decide what they want at home and on a regional basis before they come to the summit.

And in terms of access, individual businesses should in future be excluded from the negotiating process and kept at arms length from summits themselves. NGO’s, trade unions and social movements like the landless people and other anti-poverty and grassroots groups need better access and a louder voice through UN structures.

And lastly, and most importantly, the world needs to think seriously about isolating the US as long as it rejects a multilateral approach. This might mean excluding them from key negotiations until they sign up to a more positive agenda. The latter is highly unlikely while the White House remains stuffed full of ex-corporate grandees. But without a concerted stand against US intransigence, the future of expensive world summits and conferences is in doubt.

Public perceptions are extremely important and at present summits on the Jo’burg scale are considered a waste of time. The G8 will no doubt continue to stage lavish annual meetings that will do little bridge their remoteness from civil society and the needs of the poor.

The UN, therefore, urgently needs to find a formula that feels less like a big jolly. Despite the tabloid media view of these events, ministers and officials do actually work extremely hard at these events.

World leaders have a credibility problem. The real issue for the media should not be about hotels and gourmet food (these people eat well all year round) but rather what action is being taken and in whose interest?

People are now really starting to question the creeping corporate/US agenda. Action-oriented grassroots groups such as War on Want’s South African partner, the Anti Privatisation Forum, are challenging this agenda on the ground. Other groups are saying that regulatory mechanisms should be put in place at an international level.

A concerted campaign is needed by progressive groups to make big business truly accountable. If Johannesburg achieved one thing it is the growing realisation that corporate interests are seldom in the public interest.