Washington, DC — African heads of state must work together at the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) to make a strong case that the continent's needs are a global concern, says Jan Pronk, the United Nations Secretary General's special representative to the Summit. In a post-September 11, 2001 world, an agenda that deals with the root causes of alienation and injustice in Africa are more important than ever, Pronk says. In an interview with AllAfrica.com, the former Dutch environment minister warned that because the focus of the international community is on the Middle East and South Asia, African heads of state will need to make a strong, concerted case for attention to their region.
But Pronk believes that case can be made. "It is very important that countries invest in justice, stability and the creation of possibilities for people, in order to take away a possible reason for people to feel excluded, to feel alienated, to feel pushed out of the global system. This might indeed help take away a possible reason for further violence," he says.
Speaking shortly before the conference opening in Johannesburg, Pronk acknowledged that there differences among countries about specific timeframes and deadlines remain, but he expressed optimism that these could be resolved. For example, he noted that after months of negotiations, the Bush administration in the United States has reaffirmed its support not only for bilateral assistance but for coordinated, multilateral aid.
Speaking to AllAfrica's Jim Cason, Pronk said that more high-level involvement and attention from the U.S. administration would be in America's interest. The WSSD, he said, "is not a conference where the United States is going to do something good for the rest of the world. It is a conference in the interest of the Earth and the people of the Earth, including the Americans," he said. Below are excerpts from the interview.
There is both a lot of hope and a lot of skepticism in Africa about the World Summit on Sustainable Development. Why is this conference important to the majority of people in Africa, and how do you convince people in Africa that, after the conference, their lives could be better, or could be different at least?
Many promises have been made and many have not been kept. That is why this Summit Conference, with heads of state and heads of government, is oriented not to making new promises but to the agreement on an action plan with the sole purpose of deciding on a time frame with regard to the implementation of past promises.
The past promises are both those which have been made ten years ago in the framework of the environmental issues [at the Earth Summit in Rio, Brazil] and two years ago, when the heads of state came together and agreed on the overall aim to cut world poverty by fifty percent within fifteen years [at the United Nations Millennium Conference of heads of state].
There was the conference in Brazil ten years ago, there was the Millennium Summit two years ago, why would Africans have faith that this conference is going to be better than those past meetings? The World Bank and many others are already telling us that many countries in Africa can't possibly make the Millennium targets that were set by the world leaders at the United Nations in 2000. What's the point of another meeting?
That is the reason why it is so necessary to work out an action plan which is indeed focusing on specific regions. That is the reason why this conference had been prepared in a different way from the one ten years ago [in Brazil] on the basis of regional pre-meetings. It is not top down, it is bottom up. That is one reason to have a bit more faith.
Second, the conference is going to be held in Africa. Which is a deliberate decision. You know there was the possibility to have it in Jakarta, or in Rio again or in South Africa, and it was a deliberate political decision to have it in South Africa in order to enable the international community to focus in particular on African issues. That is number two.
Number three is Nepad. It is a big step forward, because it has more relation with something that is indigenous, coming from Africa itself, not something which has been defined by others for Africa.
Number four, these particular sectors, in particular health, agriculture, water, perhaps more than energy and biodiversity are very strongly oriented toward African problems. Definitely so. If issues had been chosen which were more related to a further state in economic development it would have been perhaps different - they are strongly oriented toward the first stages after survival.
Finally, you may be aware that there are many discussions about specific commitments to be made on the basis of special programs, networks, etc. Many of them which are under discussion at the moment are very strongly related in particular to Africa, more than to other regions in the world.
These are five reasons - I do not want to be overly optimistic because I have a lot of experience in international negotiations and I am always myself also a bit skeptical - five reasons to have a bit more faith. But faith itself is not enough. You need African action in Johannesburg. Concrete African coordination in Johannesburg, as well, in order to make it possible for the international community not to neglect the African issues, which has also been the case.
You're saying African action? What do you mean by that?
I mean that it is extremely important that Africa, after Nepad, get its act together, and indeed - at a level of the heads of state and heads of government - makes clear to the international community that a coalition to be built in a situation of uncertainty after the violence of 11 of September should not deal [exclusively] with the issues which are being considered at the moment important in regional terms, which means South Asia and the Middle East. Africa should make clear that if the international community is going to build a coalition for sustainability, which is also taking away possible route causes of alienation and injustice, that African issues, lack of access to basic services, are as important as Middle Eastern issues and South Asian issues.
And there are a number of examples in order to make clear to the governments that a serious business is at stake. One is the food crisis in Southern Africa. It would be really a bad signal if at the conference itself it will not yet be certain that the additional $600 million will be available to cope with the southern African food crisis which will be very deep in the second half of this year.
Secondly, there ought to be a real financial contribution to the global health fund on aids, which is affecting Africa very strongly both in terms of basic services as well as economically. By doing so, on food and health, the international community could make clear that African issues are very high on the priority list and the African countries should demand that.
But several of the developed countries, including the United States, are saying they do not want new deadlines, no new timeframes, no new agreements on specific financing. How are you going to make this a conference about implementation in that context?
Definitely, a couple of decisions still have to be made. It is not just a gallery play, the Summit, it is a political meeting where political decisions will have to be taken. But everybody is agreeing that these political decisions ought to be political decisions - not on new plans, not on new promises, not on new targets - but on timeframes, deadlines, as far as the instruments are concerned. I have become more optimistic.
This is the first time in the framework of the United Nations that we did not try to close the deal before the summit, so that the heads of state would only come to the summit to do two things, to reconfirm the deal and to make commitments on the basis of the deal. Now they have to come for three things: firstly to agree, then to reconfirm, thirdly to make commitments on that basis. And that is risky.
That's the reason why a couple of weeks ago we were a little bit afraid that several heads of state would say we should not be associated with the risk. But we have done our very best, the United Nations and several other people, in order to convince heads of government, heads of state that it is all the more necessary to come to Johannesburg now. And many are coming.
The list of heads of state who have said they are coming includes all of the G-8 group of industrialized countries except one country and many countries in Africa. How do you view the decision of president George W. Bush from the United States not to attend?
The Europeans are coming anyway, the Asians are coming, so it is quite an impressive list. But without president Bush it is going to be a bit different. On the other hand the international community and the heads of state themselves should not make their own decision to go to Johannesburg depend on the decision of one president.
It is necessary to continue to say to the American president two things. Firstly, this is a Summit conference, which is a decision not by the United Nations Secretariat but by the governments themselves, including your government. So live up to your promises.
Secondly, please understand that this is a conference which is definitely very strongly also in the interest of the American people. It is not a conference where the United States is going to do something good for the rest of the world. It is a conference in the interest of the Earth and the people of the Earth, including the Americans.
What are the two or three outcomes that would define this conference as a success. For instance if they succeed in coming up with a deadline for increasing access to sanitation, or for spending. What are the most important targets?
The most important thing is an action program with regard to the five sectors which are defined as the focal sectors by the Secretary General. These five - water, energy, health, agriculture and biodiversity - are the result of many discussions with many countries asking them, "What do you consider the most important sectors?"
All of the five are related to both "people development" and environment. So we need, in each of these five sectors, concrete action programs with concrete policies, aims - with regard to environmental protection and with regard to access of poor people to the resources concerned. And also a follow up system to make clear that the promises, the commitments in each of these five sectors are going to be kept in the fifteen years following the conference. Because we are discussing a period until 2015. That in my view is crucial.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
It is more important after September 11 last year. Now it is very important that countries invest in justice, stability and the creation of possibilities for people in order to take away a possible reason for people to feel excluded, to feel alienated, to feel pushed out of the global system. This might indeed help take away a possible reason for further violence.
We also have to concentrate on sectors which are crucial for the new generation. We will get another billion people trying to find a home, a place and a job in the world between now and 2015. They need also access to water, energy, access to primary health care - and they need a job in order to make it possible for them. This again means that it is crucial for world peace and world stability, including also world peace and world stability as far as the northern countries are concerned. It is also in their interest.
Do you have any sense of how much money you would like to see come out of this Summit? We understand there is a plan for multilateral approach to assistance, called type one aid, and for announcements of bilateral assistance through what are being called "type two" mechanisms. Do you have a commitment that countries such as the United States which traditionally have prepared to give their assistance bilaterally, will be prepared to join in a multilateral plan for sustainable development?
Don't say individual bilateral. Type two is everything going beyond multilateral assistance, that is also networks, groups, combinations of groups of countries also with private business. We have had discussions with the U.S. because the U.S. was so keen on type two that some countries were afraid that they would lose interest in type one. Because type one, of course, is related to unanimity, to a consensus, to a multilateral approach.
Our discussions over the last half a year have been fruitfull to the extent that we can expect that, even if President Bush would not come, the Americans will make clear that they are both interested in a multilateral consensus and in type two. That is a political result of intensive political discussions over the last couple of months.
It is a very difficult discussion, because multilateralism is at the moment under discussion. The United States sometimes is strongly in favor of a multilateral approach and then sometimes, take for instance climate or the criminal court, is trying to deal with the issue in a different manner. That is not to be the case in Johannesburg as far as the plan of action is concerned. I think we can with confidence assume that the plan of action which is going to be agreed upon in Johannesburg will also be confirmed by the United States and that is important.
