Habitat Conference—A Hope for Mankind?
By “Awake!” correspondent in Canada
THE word “habitat” means a place of dwelling, where we live. Mankind’s dwelling place or “home” is the planet Earth generally, and a person’s city or village and house specifically.
Today, mankind’s home is in bad shape and getting worse. Some say the survival of the human family is at stake. That is why the United Nations convened the “Habitat Conference” in mid-1976 at Vancouver, Canada.
“The world is a ship and everyone’s in steerage,” said environmentalist Barbara Ward at the conference. She emphasized the gravity of the condition of the earth as mankind’s home by referring to inferior conditions for living as “steerage.” On oceangoing vessels steerage passengers pay the lowest fares for the poorest quarters.
Many spoke of the conference as the turning point for the United Nations. Why? Because it was felt that the success or failure of the conference would determine whether the U.N. had any relevance to solutions of global problems.
The Goals
The planners of the conference tried to focus attention on the growing problems of urban dwelling. About a hundred years ago there were just eleven cities in the world with a population of one million. But it is predicted that by 1985 there will be 273 cities of that size, 147 of them in less-developed countries.
By the year 2000, if present trends continue, there will actually be more city dwellers than rural in a world population of between six and seven billion. This startling change in human habitat gives rise to many gigantic problems.
Think, for example, of the swallowing up of good farmland by the insatiable demands of growing cities—more and more people, but less and less land to grow food to feed them. Think, too, of the enormous inflation of land values as good land grows scarce. The sanitary disposal of human waste and the continuous supply of enough clean water are two more growing problems.
Think also of the developing nations. The vast majority of the world’s poor live in rural villages and urban squatter settlements of various non-industrial countries. Can the privileged people of earth be induced to help the deprived? The solutions to such problems were within the goals of Habitat.
It was in this latter respect that Habitat was meant to be different from the five other global conferences held under U.N. auspices in the last ten years. It was strongly oriented to solutions of problems, rather than merely defining them. Also, it was the largest and most representative conference ever held. Teams of delegates from some 140 nations gathered in Vancouver.
Weeks before the delegates arrived, Habitat talk filled the Vancouver newspapers. Street signs and billboards whetted the appetite for the ‘feast’ to come. Flags and pennants fluttered from poles and light standards. An optimistic spirit pervaded the air.
But there was also much skepticism about such a conference. One folk singer, as he plucked out a tune on his guitar, sang: “I’m wondering what they mean in all they say, talk-talk, talk-talk-talk.” His view expressed the sentiments of many.
Main Sessions
The main conference was held at Vancouver’s Queen Elizabeth Theatre. The meeting started on a note of idealism and hope. In the keynote address Prime Minister Trudeau of Canada said that mankind had entered into an “era of a community of interest vital to the survival of the species.” He urged the world to work toward a “conspiracy of love.”
Other hopeful steps were taken during the week. Resolutions were adopted calling for action against the following problems:
(1) The growth of slums and shantytowns.
(2) The unhealthy exodus of people from country to city.
(3) The excess profits of land speculators.
Other items adopted included a call for pure water for the entire world by 1990, the need to control the conversion of farmland to urban use, incentives to conserve energy and to develop new forms of energy, the encouragement of women to take a greater part in national activities, and the urging of more public involvement in decision-making.
Explosive Issue
However, there were storm warnings against expecting a continuation of goodwill and cooperation. These warnings had to do with the hoped-for consensus on the crucial Declaration of Principles prepared by a committee. Included in this declaration would be an indication of how the nations felt about such things as racial discrimination.
Earlier this year, the United Nations passed a resolution that condemned Zionism as a form of racism and racial discrimination. It was feared that this issue might disrupt the harmony of Habitat. Indeed, newspaper headlines warned against the gathering storm. One said: “Canada Hopeful Habitat Will Shelve Zionist Issue.” Another declared: “Israelis at Habitat Hope for Good Sense Politics.”
Yet the issue of Zionism generated a political storm that threatened to wreck the ship “Habitat.” As early as Day 4 of the conference, scores of “Third World” delegates walked out when the head of the Israeli delegation rose to speak. Moreover, there were demonstrations in the streets over other political issues. And in conference speeches still other political issues were injected into the proceedings. Obviously, the goal to exclude divisive political issues would not be achieved.
As the day approached for presenting the Declaration of Principles, some were still optimistic that a compromise would win general agreement. Feverish behind-the-scene negotiations on the wording of the declaration sought to avoid a split between the so-called “Group of 77” (an association of developing countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America) and the Western bloc over the Zionism issue.
Finally the storm broke. The “new majority” of “Third World” nations—the “Group of 77”—had now grown to a group of over a hundred nations. They voted to change the rules from a two thirds majority for passage of a motion to a simple majority. Moreover, they passed a hotly disputed amendment to the Declaration of Principles condemning settlements that consolidate occupations of “lands acquired through coercion and subjugation.” This reference obviously included the Israeli occupation of Arab lands.
On the final day of the conference, the amended Declaration of Principles was presented for approval. At that, ship “Habitat” split apart. Fifteen nations, including Canada, the United States and Israel, refused to vote for the declaration. The chief Canadian delegate called the final result “a matter of very deep regret and sadness.” The United States delegate said: “Continuation of this sort of tactic doesn’t bode well for my country’s support and participation in future U.N. conferences concerned with global problems.” Of course, other nations had differing opinions in this matter.
Once again a major U.N. conference had demonstrated that political fact is a Grand Canyon dividing ideals from reality. In the end, it was a badly split image that Habitat produced. True, many had expressed compassion for the world’s poor. But this ideal was badly obscured by the rivalry of nations. The Canadian prime minister’s hoped-for “conspiracy of love” had turned into a conspiracy of hate. A local columnist stated: “Did we hear—will history hear—the death-rattle of the United Nations as we know it?”