& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

US and Environment
Nothing would be more damaging for the global protection of environment and. for that matter, for the success of the Earth Summit scheduled next month in Brazil than for the Untied States and developing nations to get into an adverse relationship Unfortunately, this seems to be happening in two different settings.
In Kuala Lumpur where the second Ministerial Conference of Developing Countries on Environment and Development has just ended, the United States has rejected the setting up of a new fund for this purpose, as proposed by the conference, saying it preferred to work through the existing mechanism, such as the Global Environmental Facility (GEF). This mechanism, operated by the World Bank, with funds provided by industrialised countries, dispenses support for sustainable development for the Third World. The position taken by the Kuala Lumpur meeting is that GEF would be inadequate to underwrite any action plan that might be adopted by the Earth Summit in Brazil. In this sense, some would say. the Earth Summit would only be a conference — perhaps a grand conference — without producing a practical mechanism that can be put Into effect
Meanwhile, at a conference In Paris, the Untied States has refused to Join the rest of the industrialised west in accepting a treaty commitment to stabilise the emission of "greenhouse gases" at 1990 levels by the year 2000. On this subject. Washington's position Is that the pledge is unnecessary, since Its own national programme. now in force, has started achieving "satisfactory" results. This position Is challenged by several other industrialised countries, the UN experts and. of course, the Third World.
These developments cast a shadow over prospects of the Earth Summit. Unless Washington changes its views on the two issues — namely, on the creation of a new fund for environment and development and on the acceptance of a treaty commitment on the release of gases which damage the ozone layer — Its moral position will be Just Indefensible as its political one. After all. rich nations currently provide about 0.3 per cent of their GNP. on average, amounting to $ 50 billion a year as Official Development Assistance (ODA), when debt-ridden Third World countries are forced to pay a great deal more to developed nations only as Interest on their loans.
Whatever differences have cropped up between some developing countries, led by Malaysia, and industrialised nations at the Kuala Lumpur conference. over the causes of pollution and the sovereign rights of Third World countries to conserve and manage their own forest resources, the issues invoked must indeed' be treated as global concerns. It is no longer the question of any superpower assuming leadership In this "do or die" battle for the planet. It Is now very much a matter of reaching a broad-based consensus Involving all nations.
Herein Iles a challenge facing the United Nations — most certainly its Secretary General Boutros Boutros Ghali — to make the Earth Summit a success. Having won a measure of credibility with the Untied States as well as with other nations, rich and poor, the Secretary General must treat it as a matter of the highest priority. Instead of arranging yet another pre-Rlo summit-style conference. Dr Ghali must hold private and candid talks with leaders who hold the key to the success of the Brazil meeting. If the Egyptian-born diplomat cannot produce a consensus through these informal consultations, he should not look forward to the summit In Brazil with any measure of optimism.