Blair at the Davos conference yesterday. This is what we are up against on climate change.
DAVOS SPEECH
26JANUARY2005
Interdependence is the governing characteristic of modem international politics,
Us obvious corollary is unity of purpose in the international community. Yet the
past few years have been marked by division. The trauma of September 11 l and
its aftermath; wars in Afghanistan and Iraq; MEPP stalled and slid back:
disagreement over the Kyoto Protocol on clunate change; and a feeling of
helplessness as we watch the continent of Africa unique among the continents of
the world, see its poverty intensify, and its peoples ravaged by conflict, famine and
disease: all have contributed to a sense of alienation and discord.
In 2000 when [ last addressed this Forum, the international atmosphere was
unified, even benign. Yet in truth, the same issues were present; the unity often
based in false hope.
Today the issues seem more raw. But they are also clearer. There is no pretence
about the problems or the division. The question is: can we find an agenda that reunifies
us'?
Curious as it may seem, given my introduction, T believe we can There is no
shortage of goodwill to resolve the problems if the perception of them is plain.
The remarkable response, not only of Governments hut most of all of people to the
Tsunami shov-s there is an abundance of the human sentiment of soli dan ty. Bill
Gates's donation of $750 million - more than many countries' entire aid budgets -
to tackle the killer diseases of Africa, demonstrates the possibility of business
compassion.
But there is a more ftuidamental political reason for optimism, \Ve may disagree
about the nature of the problems and how to resolve them, but no nation, however
powerful, seriously believes today that these problems can be resolved alone.
Interdependence is no longer disputed.
President Bush's inauguration speech last week, marks a consistent evolution of
US policy. He spoke of America's mission to bring freedom in place of tyranny to
the world. Le.ive aside for a moment the odd insistence by some commentators
that such a pica is evidence of the "neo-conservative'" grip on Washington - 1
thought progressives were all in favour of freedom rather than tyranny. The
underlying features of the speech seem to me to he these. America accepts that
terrorism cannot be defeated by military might alone The more people live under
democracy, wnh human liberty intact, the loss inclined they or their states will be
to indulge terrorism or to engage in it This may be open to debate - though
personally I atiree with it - but it emphatically puts defeating rhe causes of
terrorism alongside defeating the terrorists.
2 6 - - n i 2003 18:24 FAX ©002
Secondly, by its very nature, such a mission cannot be accomplished alone, It is
the very antithesis of isolationism: the very essence of international engagement. It
requires long-term co-operation.
And it is based on enlightened self-interest. Freedom is good in itself. But it is
also the best ultimate guarantee that human beings will live in sympathy with each
other. The hard head has led to the warm heart
Xone of this means the hard head won't still be applied. America, as is perhaps
inevitable being the world's only superpower, who in the end is expected not just
to talk abut the world's problems but to solve them, approaches all issues with a
propensity to question what others assume, treat the pressure of pressure groups
with resistance arid ask others to share responsibility as well have it demanded of
America.
But no-one could say the inauguration speech was lacking in idealism.
However, if America wants the rest of the world to be part of the agenda it has set,
it must be part of their agenda too. It can do so, secure in the knowledge that what
people want is riot for America to concede, but to engage. The hard-headed
approach should stay - the one that says; don't assert it, prove it, face up to the
difficult realities as well as the easy platitudes. But difficult reality does not only
come in one ibnn.
So there is common ground as to interdependence. There is a wish to re-unify. It
is absurd to choose between an agenda focussing on terrorism and one on global
poverty, especially as in part at least, they are linked
What would be the subject matter of a common agenda?
First, obviouslv. to maintain vigilance and cooperation against global terrorism.
Second, to take the high flown principles we set out in the United Nations Charter
about human rights and freedom and as and when we can. seek to increase the
number of people able to live in democracy, subject to the protection of the rule of
law. We do nut accept the right of states to abuse their citizens, and though
progress lo du^ end may for good cause, be slow, we are explicit about our
ambition for humanity to reach this goal, This does not mean that we seek to
impose democracy on every state or interfere in other nations' proper internal
affairs But it does mean we know that dictatorship is, in the long run,
incompatible with human progress Incidentally, when people of talk of ^Westernstyle"
democracy, in my view there is no such thing: there is democracy or there
isn't. The notion of democracy being a "Western idea" is a nonsense, and
mythology as. most recently the people of Afghanistan have powerfully
demonstrated
26-'01 2005 18:24 FAI ©003
And, whatever divisions there were over the decision to remove Saddam from Iraq:
we can sureh all agree that we should support the brave Iraqi people who want to
vote on 30 January and should be free to do so without violence.
Third, there i< (he urgent need to breath new life into the MEPP. The terms on
which America will take this forward are increasingly clear. An independent
Palestinian state must be viable not just in respect of territory- but in tts institutions
of statehood-democracy, security and economy. The Palestinians wish for this
We should support them in doing it. If that happens, then, the disengagement from
the Gaza and part of the West Bank, by Israel, can be the first not the last step to
such a Palestinian state.
Then fourth and fifth are the two issues we have set aside for our Presidency of the
G8: climate change and Africa.
Why do tt? Not just because they matter. But because on both there are
differences that need to be reconciled; and if they could be reconciled or at least
moved forward, it would make a huge difference to the prospects of international
unity; as well as to peoples lives and our nature survival.
We live in a world where 300 million Africans still don't have access to safe
drinking watei Not deprived simply of the relative luxuries of clothing or sheller
or electricity, but the most basic requirement of existence clean water. Three
thousand African children under the age of five die every day from malaria. Six
thousand people die each day from AIDS.
In the Congo alone, over five years, almost three million people have died in its
war torn territory
We know all of this. So what can be done? And given past history and Africa's
continuing suffering, what different can be done? The .Africa Commission,
established la^r May by me and half of whose membership is .African, has at its
heart two guiding principles.
First we cannot confront the endemic perpetual cnsis of African poverty on any
basis other than a partnership between African Governments and those of the
developed world. The old donor/recipient relationship is patronising and
unworkable, But we need to help African leadership grow further, building
democratic arid institutional capacity that allows .African nations to govern
effectively, create proper political, legal, fiscal and commercial systems of sound
government and root out corruption. There are some positive signs. Democracy in
Africa is spreading and is now the norm. African institutions, like the African
Union and the New Partnership for .Africa's Development axe growing stronger.
26.-01 2005 18:25 FAX
But commitment by the developed world is rightly conditional. It is help on the
only basis thai works: help not as charity but as a route to independence from it.
Secondly when the Commission reports in March, some months before the GS, it
will be seen that the report is more than a re-statement of conventional wisdom. It
will attempt systematically and comprehensively to deal with all aspects of
Africa's plight. Of course it will state what is'necessary overtime on aid and debt
relief There is no doubt a substantial uplift in aid is needed. That is why Britain
has proposed a doubling of aid. The international Finance Facility is one way to
finance this, with the minimum possible impact on countries' budgets. Britain has
now agreed a timetable to achieve the UN 0.7 per cent aid target. But 1 know
there are other options that will be put forward. We need 100 per cent debt relief
for the most highly indebted nations and President Chirac, I know will make
proposals for raising further money,
tf a financing package such as the IFF is agreed, it will enable us to mobilise SSObn
globally and v, itliin this S25bn for Africa. The MiJlenmiun Development Goals,
agreed to by all the international community, can't be met without such help- As
2015 approaches, so will the inadequacy of present provision be more manifest.
The killer diseases - HIV/AIDs/TB/malaria, are desperate, urgent requiring money
expertise with, of course, in-country health care systems capable of using them.
But ths plan does not stop there. It is clear about the obligation of good
governance It will be frank about issues of trade: we must open our markets, cut
our subsidies, including on controversial items such as cotton and sugar; and we
must help buiid African economic capacity to allow poor countries to manage trade
reforms in a way that makes them richer not poorer.
As much as anything else, we must confront the challenge of conflict resolution.
\ot until a continent, rich in resources, ceases to be a victim of wars of plunder
will Africa ba\ e any hope of utilising the help given. This capability to mten'ene
and keep the peace has to be built in Africa itself Today in the Sudan AU
peacekesping forces do their best. Without them, progress would be impossible.
But if there wns the proper capability with sufficient numbers offerees, well
equipped and trained, so much more could have been done. So much more must
be done in future conflicts.
I do not pretend every part of tins report will be to everyone's liking. But I hope
its essential principles can be accepted and I hope also to propose at the time of the
G8 a mechanism to ensure that what is agreed, is then followed through and acted
upon.
In respect of Africa, the problem is universally acknowledged. In respect of
climate change it isn't. There are facts that are accepted. The five hottest years on
26'01 2005 18:25 FAX
record have occurred in the last seven years, and ten hottest in the last fourteen. It
is over eighteen years since the world recorded a "colder-than-normaT month.
Snow cover has decreased 10 per cent since the 1960s.
Ever since Arrhenius first predicted global wanning in 1896; it has been fiercely
debated. I arn not a scientific expert. I only see that the balance of evidence has
shifted one way Some argue this warming is part of a natural cycle such as, by
contrast, the mini ice age in the Middle Ages. But glaciers are now in retreat that
have not retreated since the last Ice Age, 12,000 years ago. The impact of climate
change predicted by modellers is uncannily coming to pass, not least in the
European summer of 2003.
So it would be true to say the evidence is still disputed. It would be wrong to say
that the evidence of danger is not clearly and persuasively advocaled by a very
large number of entirely independent and compelling voices. They are the
majority. The majority is not always right; but they deserve to be listened to.
However, behind the dispute over science is another concern. Political leaders
worry they are being asked to take unacceptable falls in economic growth and
living standards to tackle climate change.
My view is that if we put forward, as a solution to climate change, something
which involves drastic cuts in growth or standards of living, it matters not how
justified it is, it simply won't be agreed (,o. But fortunately that need not be the
case. Science and technology cannot alone provide the answer. But they certainly
provide the means to ensure that we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions without
damaging our economy. Indeed over time they provide the prospect of significant
business and economic opportunities.
For example, in Europe all nations have ratified the Kyoto Treaty It will come
into force on February 16. The European trading scheme is in place. This will be
a powerful dm er to more sustainable means of energy generation, industrial
production and to business activity.
So what do we hope for the G8 whose countries, after all account for 65 per cent
of global GDP and 47 per cent of global C02 emissions0
First to set a direction of travel Whether because of the risks associated with
climate change or related issues of security of energy supply, we need to send a
clear signal that whilst we continue to analyse science - and die conference in
Exeter next week will help - we are united in moving in the direction of
greenhouse gas reductions. 1 support the Kyoto Protocol. Others will not and that
position is understood. But business and the global economy need to know this
isn't an issue that is going away. My clear view, for what it is worth, is that the
debate will be how and on what tune scale it is confronted; not whether 1 intend
26-IU 2005 18:23 FAX
to make progress on this with the EU Presidency later this year as well as through
the G8.
Secondly, through the G8 process I want to develop a package of practical
measures, largely focused on technology to cut emissions And here 1 don't just
mean research into new technologies, important though that is. I also think we need
to work much harder to 'find ways to implement the vast range of low-carbon
technologies that have already been developed. Energy efficiency. Renewable
energy sources. Cleaner fossil fuels. Avoiding waste, All of this can be done, a.nd
often at a much lower cost than we realise.
Thirdly, the GS need to work in partnership with the rapidly developing economies
like China, India, Brazil and South Africa to find a way for them to grow and
develop as lov- carbon economies, I was struck by the fact that by 2030, coat plants
in developing countries could produce more carbon emissions than the entire
power sector m the OECD does now. Developed and emerging economies must
work together over the coming months smd years to reach a new consensus on how
we deal with the challenge of climate change-
It is through this fresh injection of political will by the G8 and the emerging
economies alike, that these differences can be broken down and a new global
consensus reached.
So that is what we will try for.
Whatever the difficulties in moving this agenda forward, they are worth it. If we
succeed there is a chance of an emerging consensus that would give so much hope
and heart to so many
The alternative is the international comiTiunity with competing agendas. That may
help the political art of grandstanding but it won't present constructive solutions.
And the result of it, or to put it more specifically the danger of it, is that the world
decides on an approach that recognises this fragmentation is inevitable, even
welcome, in this way, different poles of power develop to balance each other
American and its allies here. Europe there. China, Russia, India, the larger nations
of Asia and Latin America creating their own poles or moving towards shifting
pulls of attraction or repulsion depending on the issue
Of course these poles can interact, in theory they can form partnerships from time
to tune. But kt us be clear this would riot be a new global alliance. It would be a
global acceptance of division; no amount of interaction will disguise that and
different poles of power can just as easily choose to rival each other as co-operate
with each other
26 '111 2005 18:26 FAX
This year offers a unique set of opportunities. 1 am committed to using the UK's
G8 and EU Presidencies to try to make a breakthrough on Africa and climate
change. The LTV Summit in September will review progress on the Millennium
Development Goals including the Sachs Millennium Project report proposals, and
discuss the Secretary General's High Level panel report There is the World Trade
Ministerial in December; and the meeting of the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change at the end of the year. All of these opportunities
must be used to the full.
I started this speech with talk of dates.
It is 60 years ago tomorrow that Russian troops liberated Auschwitz. That day
when the Ml horror of the holocaust was revealed to the world, was perhaps
Europe's lowest point. Devastated by war, disfigured by evil, divided by the Iron
Curtain, the 2'"^ century saw dark days indeed for this Continent
On May 13( last year, Europeans from North, South, East and West celebrated as
ten new countries joined the European Union. Now 450 million Europeans are
enjoying peace, freedom and democracy.
We should ne\ er underestimate the capacity of people to make a difference and
nse to new challenges
The question is whether the hopes of the people are matched by the will of their
leaders. I will do my best to ensure it is. 1 trust you will join me in that challenge. |
