| Read my Dreambook! Sign my Dreambook! |  |
Nowadays, we often hear rather impressive words like "globalization, multiculturalism, internationalism in education, worldwide sustainable development" and so forth. But, what are these big words really referring to? Do these words have any significance at all? If we look at them closely, probably we will find relatively inconsequential. The 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Jeneiro, Brazil, injected "sustainable development" into global vocabulary. More than anything else, large number of bureaucrats talked about the mega-budgets which was supposed to maintain the ongoing debate of global sustainability. However, this new class of international bureaucracies increasingly appears out of touch with the needs of people. If this is not true what else could there be to talk about? More than a third of the world's population of almost 6 billion lives under "poverty measure" which means less than $300 annual income. Despite the continuously useless verbalization by various bureaucrats, the global cohort of poverty is still rising rapidly. How could "sustainable development" be possible when two-third of every development dollar goes into sustaining internationalbureaucracies?
The core idea reinforced in Rio was that developing and industrialized countries should work together to promote economic growth as well as preserving global environment. For this reason, the rich or so-called developed world would offer increased financial and technical support to alleviate the worldwide problem of poverty. Instead, little has been offered beyond recognition enclosed in arrogant rhetoric about interdependence and globalization. The net flow of aid to developing nations has dwindled to barely $50 billion yearly from a high of $70 billion a decade ago. It has been recognized that only four countries (Sweden, Norway, Denmark and the Netherlands) have lived up to the promise of Rio. They have allocated 0.7 percent of their Gross Domestic Products (GDP) whereas the so called world's economic super power, the United States, spends not more than 0.1 percent of it's GDP on foreign-aid. Meanwhile, during the Rio Conference, the rich countries recognized that "sustainable development" would be very costly because of eco-efficient industrialization involves additional costs for the developing countries. However, the Rio's meeting has only created a new class of povertycrats and developmentalists and, in fact, fourfold increased in debt for the poor nations.
A few months back, the Kyoto (Japan) Conference on Climate Change sounded the "death-knell" of the much propagandized idea of "sustainable development." One of the most astonishing points accentuated in Kyoto was that "developing countries were unprepared to accept the limits on the industrial emissions, on the basis that such limits would inhibit their economic development." Another argument put foreword was that developing countries want to follow their own domestic protocols concerning economic growth. Rather than international bureaucrats, local leaders are going to have to work hard to meet rising expectations from the domestic constituencies in the face of increased urbanization and growing population. Since the Kyoto meeting, the developing countries finally realized that the rich countries are not about to help the underdeveloped nations defray high costs of "sustainable development" through increased aid.
Seven years after the Rio and a half-year after the Kyoto conferences, the conclusion is that it's back to business-as-usual. It undeniably shows that ultimately countries will always act in their own-interest "even it means reneging on flashy promises made at worldwide talk-shows" like the Earth Summit or the Kyoto Conference. Many have hoped that "sustainable development" was a matter of getting bureaucrats to keep their promises, and increased financial and technical aid for consequential grassroots development programs, which would have a noteworthy impact on people. However, nobody really conspired a mechanism to authentically implement those commitments, instead, the bureaucracies that were created after Rio had other "sushi's" to ingest, and other five star hotels to thrill.
It's unfortunate that "sustainable development" maybe dead but we should
not misestimate the povertycrats and the developmentalists. Surely,
there will be other "balderdash-declamation" on poverty soon and of
course there will be an international conference, too.
| Read my Dreambook! Sign my Dreambook! | |