EARTH SUMMIT: Patient EU cajoling may have brought the US close to a deal at the World Summit on Sustainable Development, writes Frank McDonald, in Johannesburg
Few could forget the impact Al Gore's appearance made at the Kyoto climate summit five years ago. And, until the weekend, it looked as if it would take the arrival here tomorrow of US Secretary of State Colin Powell to paint the world's only remaining super-power out of the dark corner.
The US had boxed itself into that corner on a whole series of contentious issues, including energy, sanitation, climate change, trade, globalisation, corporate accountability, aid for developing countries and good governance (which is UN-speak for measures to minimise corruption).
What the Johannesburg summit must do before it ends this week is to agree a global plan to implement commitments already made by the 180-plus participating countries at the first Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro 10 years ago, this time with specific targets and timetables, to give them real meaning.
The US opposed setting deadlines. This put it at serious loggerheads with the European Union and most of the developing countries.
The EU, in particular, insists that there must be time-frames; otherwise, the Johannesburg implementation plan won't be worth the paper it is written on.
South Africa's President, Thabo Mbeki, who is drafting the summit's political declaration, has also underlined the need for "specific decisions and time-frames" in the context of a "practical programme of action" to address the issues. "All the nice words have been said. Now the time for action has come," he said.
Some of the delegations involved in the frenetic round of negotiations at the heavily-guarded Sandton Convention Centre agree. Brazil, for example, is championing an ambitious proposal that 10 per cent of the world's energy should be generated from renewable sources, such as solar and wind power, by 2010.
The US, addicted as it is to fossil fuels, opposes the idea, as do other oil-producing countries, and this remains one of the thorniest issues to be resolved.
Saudi Arabia even tried to recruit Arab states to denounce Morocco for "breaking ranks" by joining Mexico and oil-rich Norway in support of Brazil.
The US was also unenthusiastic about the EU-supported goal of halving the number of people without access to basic sanitation by 2015. Now there is talk that the EU and developing countries will compromise on renewable energy targets in return for a commitment to set a sanitation target.
On the issue of globalisation, the EU agreed to demands from developing countries and environmental lobbyists for some international framework to ensure a certain level of corporate accountability.
Perhaps with Enron and Worldcom in mind, the US delegation eventually went along.
The late change in the US position, apparently after being cleared with the White House, was a considerable turnaround, as both the EU and the US favoured voluntary partnerships. But the EU changed its stance after coming under fierce pressure from environment and development groups.
According to Oisín Coghlan, who is representing Christian Aid at the summit, the essence of their argument was that voluntary partnerships between global corporations and local communities were "great for good companies that want to do better, but couldn't make bad companies good".
However, the environment and development groups have not succeeded in persuading either the EU or the US to modify their view that world trade takes precedence over environmental protection. In any case, neither bloc sees this summit as a forum for serious talks on trade; that's for the WTO.
Also at issue are the so-called "Rio Principles", which world leaders agreed at the first Earth Summit.
The most contentious is the principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities"; in other words, everyone has a duty to look after the planet, but in proportion to their impact and economic power.
The US is seeking to row back on that, too.
Last June, at the preparatory round of talks in Bali, Indonesia, its delegation insisted that this principle, which environmentalists see as non-negotiable, be put in square brackets in the draft text for Johannesburg, and that's where it still languishes today.
But there's nothing new about the US reneging on international agreements.
Not only did President Bush pull out of the Kyoto protocol on climate change, but his delegation in Johannesburg has sought to replace all references in the draft summit text with vague allusions to this critical issue.
Throughout the first week there was intense irritation within the EU and among developing countries about stances taken by the US, particularly in seeking to renege on what it signed up for in Rio a decade ago. After all, Johannesburg was meant to advance the agenda as "Rio+10" rather than "Rio-10".
Inevitably, there will be trade-offs in the final days of the talks.
One senior Irish delegate said yesterday: "I don't get the impression that it will fall apart because of a failure to resolve any single issue". As a result, he was "reasonably optimistic" that a deal of some sort would be hammered out.
Over the past few days and nights - and, as usual at UN summits, Johannesburg has its bleary-eyed aspect - negotiations have been largely conducted by an informal ministerial committee representing the US, the EU, Japan and the developing countries, including such major players as China and India.
But Friends of the Earth has cautioned against taking the word of UN spin doctors that progress is being made because 95 per cent of the draft text has been agreed. This was "just a word-counting trick" which had been used before at the failed climate summit in The Hague in November 2000.
"Negotiations on many key parts of the text seem to be heading away from any 'green' result", it says.
"Weasel words such as 'moving towards' and 'if possible' are qualifying targets . . . For example, the text offers a feeble pledge to move towards minimising the harmful use of chemicals by 2020."
A new impetus will be injected into the talks with the arrival here of heads of government. Some have already flown in, others are expected today and more will arrive tomorrow, including the Taoiseach, Mr Ahern.
By then, however, the British Prime Minister, Mr Tony Blair, will have left.
Johannesburg's talk radio station has a huge illuminated billboard on the motorway approaching Sandton. "Castro, Gadaffi, Mugabe and Blair - There goes the neighbourhood".
The overall cost of the summit has been estimated at $50 million, or about half the cost of an American B1 bomber.