POWELL SAYS SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IS COMPELLING ISSUE FOR THE UNITED STATES

The Washington File ^ | Aug. 12, 2002 | Colin Powell

[madfly]

08/12/2002

Byliner: Powell Says Sustainable Development
is Compelling Issue for the United States

(Powell article in special edition of U.N. publication) (2090)

(This byliner by U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell appeared in an August 12 special edition of the United Nations Environment Program magazine "Our Planet" and is in the public domain. No republication restrictions.)

(begin byliner)

Only One Earth

Colin L. Powell

The World Summit on Sustainable Development comes barely 20 months after we welcomed in the new century. Despite the stories and images of trouble we read in our newspapers and view on our television screens, this is a time of great opportunities to expand peace, prosperity and freedom. The spread of democracy and market economies, combined with breakthroughs in technology, permits us to dream of a day when, for the first time in history, most of humanity will be free of the ravages of tyranny and poverty.

We live in a century of promise. Our responsibility now is to turn it into a century of hopes fulfilled, a century of sustained and sustainable development that enriches all our peoples without impoverishing our planet. When we talk of sustainable development, we are talking of the means to unlock human potential through the interlocking threads of economic development based on sound economic policies, social development based on investment in health and education, and responsible stewardship of the environment. Sustainable development is for the United States, and for me personally, a compelling moral and humanitarian issue.

But sustainable development is also a security imperative. Poverty, environmental degradation and despair are destroyers - of people, of societies, of nations. This unholy trinity can destabilize countries, even entire regions. A decade ago, at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 172 countries adopted a wide-ranging blueprint for action to achieve sustainable development worldwide. While there have been ups and downs, and progress has been uneven, we have seen real improvements since then.

For example, over the past decade, the proportion of people in developing countries struggling to make ends meet on less than $1 per day has dropped from 29 per cent to 24 per cent. Infant mortality has declined by more than 10 per cent, and mortality among children under five is nearly 20 per cent less.

Countries that have opened their economies have done better than those that remain closed. A World Bank study found that over the course of the 1990s, the 24 developing countries that increased their global trade and investment most also increased income per person much more than those that did not - six percentage points more, in fact. In those countries, the number of people living on less than $1 per day dropped by 120 million between 1993 and 1998. We have also seen the conclusion and implementation of important environmental agreements, such as those to reduce substances harmful to the air we breathe and to control the spread of deserts.

But, while we have progressed along the road to hope, we have far to go in a world where one person in five still suffers in extreme poverty, where a baby's chances of surviving to adulthood still depends on the accident of where he or she is born, and where illegal logging still devastates forests.

Mapping the way forward

Over the past nine months, a series of major conferences and negotiations has helped map the way forward. The Doha Development Round of World Trade Organization negotiations, the World Food Summit review conference in Rome, and the G8 Summit in Canada all forged stronger agreement on the path to development. The 'Monterrey Consensus', adopted by leaders and ministers from 171 countries at the United Nations Conference on Financing and Development, was an historic affirmation of the need to mobilize all sources of development financing, which also proclaimed the centrality of 'sound policies, good governance at all levels, and rule of law' to sustainable development. As Hernando De Soto has so aptly said, 'the hidden architecture of sustainable development [is] the law'. The next stop on this long road is the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg.

The United States will be taking three very important messages to Johannesburg. First and foremost, we are committed to supporting sustainable development. President Bush left no doubt on this score in his March 14 speech at the InterAmerican Development Bank, when he stated on behalf of the American people that: 'the advance of development is a central commitment of American foreign policy'.

We will also carry the message that sustainable development must begin at home, with sound policies and good governance. Both official assistance and private capital are most effective when they go to governments that rule justly, invest in their people, and encourage economic freedom.

Official assistance is important. That is why President Bush announced that the Administration will seek Congressional approval to increase America's core development assistance by 50 per cent over the next three years, resulting in a $5 billion annual increase over current levels. These additional funds will go to a new Millennium Challenge Account that will fund initiatives to help developing nations that are strongly committed to good governance, the health and education of their people, and good economic policies that foster enterprise and entrepreneurship.

But, as important as official assistance is to improving people's lives, trade and private capital flows are even more significant. Trade dwarfs aid. America alone buys $450 billion in goods from the developing world every year, some eight times the amount developing countries receive in aid from all sources.

Official development assistance is also only a fraction of private capital flows. In 1999, for example, the private sector accounted for 82 per cent of the nearly $300 billion in long-term resource flows to developing countries. Attracting this money isn't easy. Capital is a coward. It flees from corruption and bad policies, conflict and unpredictability. It shuns ignorance, disease and illiteracy. Capital goes where it is welcomed and where investors can be confident of a return on the resources they have put at risk. It goes to countries where women can work, children can read, and entrepreneurs can dream.

Seizing opportunities

But good policies alone are not enough. People must be able to seize the opportunities. So the third message we will take to Johannesburg is that governments, civil society and the private sector must work in partnership to mobilize development resources to unleash human productivity, reduce poverty, promote healthy environments and foster sustainable growth.

We are already deploying the power of partnerships. For example, the United States and South Africa have initiated the Congo Basin Forest Partnership. This innovative partnership with non-governmental organizations (NGOs), industry, and other governments, will help slow and even reverse deforestation in the Congo Basin. It will not only create national parks where none before existed, but will also ensure the livelihoods of those living in and around the forest and strengthen the ability of governments to enforce their forest conservation laws.

The New Nigeria Foundation is a unique partnership linking oil companies, NGOs and local communities on issues ranging from information technology to agriculture. The Water for the Poor Alliance marries the resources and leadership of the Conrad N. Hilton Foundation with civil society and USAID to provide potable water to 400,000 rural West Africans.

We also support the Access Initiative, in which the World Resources Institute has partnered with more than 25 civil society organizations in nine countries to assess how well governments are providing access to information, permitting public participation, and providing justice to their citizens. America's vision for Johannesburg is to build on these three messages - commitment, good policies and partnerships - by inviting developed and developing nations to join us in opening our economies and societies to growth, for growth is the key to raising people out of poverty. We will also invite developed and developing nations to join us in providing freedom, security and hope for present and future generations, while providing all our people with the opportunity for healthy and productive lives.

And, recognizing that we have only one home, and it is Earth, we will invite developed and developing nations to join us in serving as good stewards of our natural resources and our environment.

To this end, we will initially work for concrete actions in seven areas essential to sustainable development - health, energy, water, sustainable agriculture and rural development, education, oceans and coastal management, and forests. We will work to unite governments, the private sector and civil society in partnership to strengthen democratic institutions of governance, open markets, and mobilize and use all development resources more effectively.

We are already doing a great deal in these areas. For example, the United States has provided $500 million to the Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, TB and Malaria; launched a $500 million Mother and Child HIV/AIDS Prevention initiative for Africa and the Caribbean; doubled funds for the African Education Initiative for training and scholarships; and increased funding for agricultural development assistance programs by 25 per cent.

In our budget request for Fiscal Year 2003, we have asked for $4.5 billion for climate spending, an increase of $700 million over this year. This request includes funding for basic science, technology research and development, business and agriculture incentives, and international activities. President Bush has also taken the lead in creating a new international norm to increase the use of grants instead of loans for the poorest countries, especially in assistance from multilateral development banks. This approach, endorsed by the leaders of the industrialized countries at the recent G8 Summit, will complement existing initiatives to help alleviate the crushing burden of debt facing highly indebted poor countries.

Combining assets

But in all of these areas, we can and must do more. We need governments, businesses and the organizations of civil society, individually and in partnerships, to work in support of these pressing human needs. That is why we established the Global Development Alliance to combine the assets of government, business and civil society to work in partnership on implementing sustainable development programs. Sustainable development is a marathon, not a sprint. It does not follow from a single event like the Johannesburg Summit, important as it is, but from a sustained global effort by many players over a long period of time. Sustainable development requires institutions, policies, people and effective partnerships to carry our common effort beyond Johannesburg and far into the future.

The United States is committed to building a world where children can grow up free from hunger, disease and illiteracy. A world where all men and women can reach their human potential free from racial or gender discrimination. A world where all people can enjoy the richness of a diverse and healthy planet. And a world of hopes fulfilled for all God's children

(end byliner)

(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov) NNNN

[martian_22]

The "Sustainable(controlable) Development" concept has always gone hand-in-hand with "Active Population Control" discussions and implementations.

You can't have one without the other. IMHO

[lavaroise]

What is sustenaible development indeed? What it is not would be healthier to know. After all, the beauty of checks and balances is to acknowledge one's sins and "save" that way. But this is beyond the "promises" of this system apparently.

[lavaroise]

The spread of democracy and market economies, combined with breakthroughs in technology, permits us to dream of a day when, for the first time in history, most of humanity will be free of the ravages of tyranny and poverty.

Do you find that reasonable? Turning Saddam into a lamb with sustained development? I don't think so. People have got to be nuts to think this. Turning this idea into some kind of god is messianic false prophetic nonsense.

Moreover Powel's piece of tripe does not explain anything. It only is a bunch of vague claims without any string of logic. A poorly written advocacy at that.

Next in line is the environment factor that seems central in this. I am sorry, but the only thing central is that man has dominion over the environment and not the other way around. Man did not develop from the cave man to fly on the moon by worrying about displacing animals.

These people just think they are better than the ancestors, it is progressist crap masquerading as being pro-business. All it will do will depress business because people do not operate well when they are not given the basic dominions they were endowed with when born. Last but not least, any business can be sustained by one thing and one thing only: plain Bible honesty and morals. Forget the math, the economic forecasts, the ENRON miracles and the consumption/production theories.

In fact, what is the sustainable development? All it is, is a reduction of man's life to a pure consumer/producer, just like your average animal (hint: very bad for the environment). The only geneticaly superior entity on this planet (produces and consumes little) is the tree. You want good production/consumption? Kill animals and people, reduce the population, and plant trees. There, that's sustainable development. A consumerist Marxist obsession on consumption/production and equalities in consumption and production.

[cva66snipe]

The spread of democracy and market economies, combined with breakthroughs in technology, permits us to dream of a day when, for the first time in history, most of humanity will be free of the ravages of tyranny and poverty.

Ah, the the mating call of the Socalist Do Do Bird same sound different bird.

[Ben Ficklin]

Sorry to say but your reply jumps around to so many subjects that is difficult to respond to all that you said.

The world trend towards more democratic processes and market economy began under Thatcher/Reagan and has progressed quite well.Besides the current problems in S. America the largest threat to this trend is in the US.

As for your question as to the meaning of sustainable development, there is none. There is also no definition for "Civil Society". There will be 65,000 different definitions of sustainable development in Johannesberg. As Henry Lamb pointed out, there are major differences between sustained and sustainable development.

[dixiechick2000]

Thank you for letting me know about this.

"Global Spin Zone, sigh"

Agreed, sadly.

"SCREW THE UN"

Definately!

[GOP_1900AD]

In a formal sense, not that I am aware of. I would imagine that there are informal contacts though.... same deal with WND and some of the other linked sites / sites who shared content.

[GOP_1900AD]

A few comments. You make a hearty appeal for adoption of Christian fiscal and business principles. My guess is that most people haven't a clue about this appealing alternative to the current heavily corrupted version of Reformation era business practices. The highly necessary debt financing developed by the Dutch and later adopted by Britain, originally needed to develop the New World (and vehemently opposed by the Vatican and the Spanish Inquistion - to their own ultimate detriment) has since been overblown to the point of chaos. Something has got to give. I think we all know that at some level, some are simply more in denial about it than others.

At the same time, those who in one breath praise capitalism and "free markets" and then in the next breath talk about all the little fishies, about social safety nets and about eco-tourism (remind you of "The Lexus and the Olive Tree" by Thomas L. "1960s Marxist Dressed Up In A Pin Sriped Suit 3rd Way Devotee" Friedman?) are actually practicing the ultimate in stealth Gramscian Marxism by increasingly layering the goals of "social justice" (or, an even better term, thanks to Thomas Sowell, "cosmic justice") onto capitalist ones. These people are dangerous and must be stopped.

Ironically, when confronted with assertions that geopolitics, nationalism and the middle class still matter, these same folks then don their "free trade" mantle. The incidious thing about "free trade" as currently defined is that along with the economic openness and standarization package, we also get the externally applied social micromanagement, destruction of conservative (with a small "c") culture and unilateral disarmament packages. After all, once one has signed up to truly global economic management, how can they defend, at a bottom line level, things such as Borders, Language, Culture and National Defense? Of course, one cannot since none of these things are "value added to" in the classical accounting sense.

It's a mad, mad, mad, mad world....

[madfly]

bttt

[R. Scott]

But – but – we have to have a one world government or we won’t be able to join the Federation of Planets!

[RISU]

"Sustainable" is code speak for "Preserve the elite and the status quo".

[philman_36]

But this is beyond the "promises" of this system apparently.
The promise is subject to transmogrification.

[madfly]

bttt

[madfly]

bttt

[valkyrieanne]

Please, please, please NO Colin Powell on the ticket in 2004. Please.

[madfly]

bttt

[alrea]

Sustainable development is the globalists code word for controlled development

another code phrase in the article: doubling the funds

[maui_hawaii]

What is the definition of 'controlled development' as you use it?

[lavaroise]

It means killing people because the environment supposedly cannot support them when we all know the environment is not central but engineering is central to development. Dominion over nature and not the reverse.

http://www.sierratimes.com/02/08/19/arsf081902.htm

U. S. Department of Energy promotes "sustainable development" in accordance with United Nations' scheme
By Sue Forde, Citizen Review Online
Published 08. 18. 02 at 20:26 Sierra Time

The U. S. Department of Energy has joined in promoting the concept of "sustainable development", as revealed by their website. One of the "solutions" offered is "relocation" of property owners. This is something we are seeing on a local level here in Clallam County, Washington.[1]

“Sustainable Development” was first introduced by Maurice Strong, socialist, senior adviser to the Commission on Global Governance and driving force behind the concept of “sustainability”. When introducing the term at the 1992 Rio Conference (Earth Summit II), he stated: Industrialized countries [Americans] have “developed and benefited from the unsustainable patterns of production and consumption which have produced our present dilemma. It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption pattern of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning and suburban housing – are not sustainable. A shift is necessary toward lifestyles less geared to environmentally damaging consumption patterns.”[2] Strong also explains in an essay that the concept of sovereignty has to yield in favor of the “new imperatives of global environmental cooperative.”

Following are some alarming excerpts from the U.S. Department of Energy's website:

http://www.sustainable.doe.gov/disaster/disintro.shtml ...Development continues unabated in the riskiest of areas, along the coasts and floodplains in the U.S. Communities in these high-risk regions, by definition, are not sustainable. Residents cannot count on the communities' survival for generations to come. Some live in fear that the next rain or wind storm could mean the end of normal life. These are people and communities at risk, locked in a costly, life-threatening gamble with the environment.... ...Sustainable development offers a way out. For some communities, the only solution is relocation, moving entirely off the floodplain, out of harm's way. For others, sustainable development means restricting new construction in particularly vulnerable areas, elevating structures to remove the threat of flooding, or building smarter, stronger buildings that are more hazard-resistant... ...While at first glance this facet of sustainable development may seem unrelated to disaster prevention, in truth they're intricately tied. An increasing body of evidence points to human energy use - specifically the burning of fossil fuels - as a factor in global climate change. Global climate change, in turn, may be at least partially responsible for the increased number and severity of storms. By making efficient use of energy resources, disaster-prone communities that employ sustainable development are also doing their part to slow global warming and temper the very storms that threaten them.... ...Striving for sustainability is a daunting task, even for those communities that aren't disaster-prone. Changing the way we use resources and approach development is slow-going and often frustrating...

The Dept. of Energy bases much of its rhetoric on the false premise that humans are the cause of "global warming" - when in fact, global warming is a theory, not scientifically proven. See Global Warming Models Labeled 'Fairy Tale' By Team of Scientists.[3]

The insurance industry has been pulled into the game of “Sustainable Development”, too. The website states: “Increasingly, the insurance industry is taking an interest in global climate change as a possible contributor to the dramatic rise in costly natural disasters. Industry leaders share with advocates of sustainable development a desire to mitigate weather-related damages and make communities stronger. Insurance and The Natural Sciences: Partners in the Public Interest, a speech presented in September 1996 by Franklin W. Nutter, president of the Reinsurance Association of America, further explains this ‘insurance connection.’”

As a “public/private” partnership, the move toward fascism continues.[4]

The Dept. of Energy website refers the reader to the United Nations for more information. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, through Global Change, a magazine about climate change and ozone depletion published by the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security.

Action you can take:

Write to President Bush and request that he reverse the "Sustainable Development" trend in the agencies he controls. Find contact information here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/

---

[1] See ‘Contentious’ river property owners unwilling to sell, but some feel they have no choice and Citizens speak out against river buyout; county to proceed with grant application anyway

[2] Agenda 21 stresses “ Improving human settlement management; Promoting sustainable land-use planning and management; Promoting sustainable energy and transport systems in human settlements, to name a few – in other words, “managing humans” is the goal at a global level.

[3] See also Another Study Debunks Global Warming. Two new studies of temperatures and ice cap movement in that same area indicate that is not the case. In fact, Antarctica is becoming colder. Dr. Peter Dorman and his team of scientists have determined that since 1986, temperatures have been dropping an average of 1.2 degrees Fahrenheit per decade and similar downturns have occurred since 1978 in the McMurdo Dry Valleys of east Antarctica. When the scientists noticed that “glacial ice wasn’t melting, streams weren’t flowing, lakes were shrinking and microorganisms were disappearing, they decided to expand their data collection and discovered that “Antarctica as a whole had gotten considerably colder." The study seems to confirm what 17,000 scientists have previously determined; there is no “global warming.”

[4] Fascism defined: “a governmental system with strong centralized power, permitting no opposition or criticism, controlling all affairs of the nation (industrial, commercial, etc.), emphasizing an aggressive nationalism.” (The American College Dictionary, c. 1951, P 438)

[Tailgunner Joe]