CSE: What was the outcome of the last preparatory meeting for the WSSD in Bali?

Salim: In Bali, there was an agreement on issues including health, education, regionalisation, etc. But not on the financing for its implementation. In Rio, in gross terms, it was agreed that 0.7 per cent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of developed countries would have to be contributed to developing countries for development as aid. But it has never reached that level. In 2001, it reached 0.33 per cent of GDP. Because of the shortfall, many of the programmes were not implemented. Due to that experience we now want to pin down exactly how to implement the programme. So, it is not only what we agree, but what needs to be done. Funding is not the only thing because it is only

US $ 50 billion totally but when you look at trade distortion, you see that the higher value added from the export of processed goods is actually gained by the developed countries from resources in the developing countries. Today, the producers of the developed countries gain through US $ 380 billion of subsidies on agricultural products only.

This is always what I explain to my friends in the North - its not aid that is significant, as trade.

CSE: Was this point put forward to the North at Bali?

Salim: Oh yes. And because of that, when we work on the means for implementation, we start with trade, aid, technology transfer, education, capacity building and so forth. This requires a transfer from the North to the South of technologies, a transfer of resources through trade, aid and investments. The developed countries have reservations on this.

According to the US, what is needed is not funds, what is needed is good governance and when the governments of the South show good governance through transparency, anti-corruption, rule of law, democracy and capacity building, the US will give them aid. But, what I told them is that we should be firm that good governance should not only be at the national level but also at the regional and international level. What do I mean by international level? For example, the World Bank. Is the World Bank transparent or democratic? The World Bank is one dollar, one vote. Not like the UN. Do we know how the World Bank decides? Who is it accountable to? So, I fully agree that we must have the five elements of good governance. But, it should be applicable at all levels. If we do that, then the US' power of determining aid is lowered. The World Bank is then moving away from the Minister of Finance of the US to the UN. It is the 'World' Bank and not the 'American' Bank. So, those who contribute the most must not manage it.

CSE: What is rationale behind the US refusing to accept good governance at the international level?

Salim: According to them, international institutions have their own rules. The WSSD is a UN conference and Bretton Woods is outside the jurisdiction of the UN. Secondly, they do not want to bring in other issues, which then goes beyond Monterrey. But, what is important is the principle that we want good governance and good governance is valid for all levels.

CSE: What are the key issues opposed by the North at Bali, that the governments of the South consider non-negotiable when they go into Johannesburg?

Salim: One is the 'common but differentiated responsibilities'. The countries opposing this say that this responsibility only refers to global environmental degradation. It does not say anything about development. So, every time you mention common and differentiated responsibilities, related to finance, related to trade, they say 'no' it has nothing to do with environmental degradation. The US is not honest, I think. The Rio principle says, 'in the pursuit of sustainable development'. If there still is disagreement, but the others agree, then what I like and what I ask the US is that we will put it on record that you have not agreed but you don't oppose it. So, they don't block it and then it will be done. Two, trade. At the Doha meeting, attended by ministers of trade, all multilateral environmental agreements that hamper trade were being adjusted. We are talking sustainable development. So we must also see to what extent trade is degrading the environment. This second point is considered beyond Doha by the developed countries. Now, the compromise that I would like to see is that 'without prejudging the outcome of the Doha negotiations' that the committee on trade and environment will look at trade and environment and environment and trade. Trade-distorting subsidies is the only point that the EU has a difference with G-77. The EU asked the G-77 whether they could have an agreement stating that the EU is making efforts to reduce subsidies and that they recognise that EU is already moving into the direction of removing trade-distorting subsidies. The gain that the G-77 will have by compromising on this is that the EU combines with the G-77. So, the text may not be as sharp as it was originally. But, I think the G-77 can live with that provided the EU supports them on other issues. Third is aid. But on aid, I don't see a big problem. The G-77 will agree to not going beyond Monterrey. The fourth is time-bound targets. But, the time bound targets that are irrational, which are not supported by clear-cut studies or initiation by conference of the UN, on that we may have difficulties (in retaining it). But time bound measures, for instance, the education for women, is supported by United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), meaning that UNESCO has a firm reason to propose that target. That must move on. Time-bound targets are mainly opposed by US Japan and Australia. If they can convince that a time-bound measure is irrational, not reachable, then it's okay.

CSE: Are there targets that you think are irrational and what are they?

Salim: There are some irrational targets. These would include the 10 per cent of renewable energy and access to improved sanitation by the year 2015. That's about it.

CSE: We are at a position where we see that the key issues that you mentioned are being opposed mainly by the US and its allies and hence the deadlock. How does the rest of the world get around this problem?

Salim: We have seen that the US is not involved in biodiversity. Not in bio-safety, not in landmine, not in the law of the sea nor in the international criminal court. So, their non-involvement is quite a list but the world moves on. What is more at stake is whether we want to develop a world in which multilateralism prevails or unilateralism prevails? So the crux of the issue at Johannesburg is not whether the US is involved or not involved, but whether we are demanding development based on multilateralism or unilateralism? If the US wants to join, it must join the process of multilateralism, if it doesn't, so be it.

CSE: But what about accountability? We need to make the US accountable for their actions.

Salim: Accountability is another point. But, we (the economies of the South) want growth and growth cannot happen if we link it with the American economy. Let's concentrate on our homework first of development sustainability and in that process ensure that any items or products from the US must follow the rules of the game of sustainable development that we set. Then, they have to be accountable. It will hit their economy.

CSE: So many countries in the developing world are financially dependent on the US. If each country looks at their own interest, they realise that they stand to lose if they vehemently opposed the US. The US can just go back doors and settle this. Now, how does one deal with that?

Salim: Look, you make a picture. You take the picture 2002 and you saw that conclusion. I make a film 2002-2025. The emphasis is shifting, shifting away from the United States. There are new champions of development growing in the world. It is Europe, it is Asia and everybody agrees that Asia is the future locomotive of the global development and everybody tells me its India, China and ASEAN, everybody. There is this shift from the Atlantic Ocean to the countries along the Pacific and the Indian Ocean rim. So when you base your analysis only on the static picture of today, yes, you are right. But if you look to the trend of growth, you are wrong.

CSE: Finally, do you believe that the WSSD will be a success, a success not for the North, not for the South, but a success for sustainable development, for the people of the world?