1 After the Johannesburg summit: Now that neo-liberalism has lost its hegemonial status, how to deal with geopolitics? Joachim H. Spangenberg Vice President, Sustainable Europe Research Institute, Executive committee member, INES Published in: INES International Network of Engineers and Scientists for Global Responsibility, INES Newsletter 39, 2002: 1-9. The Rio+10 World Summit for Sustainable Development WSSD is over, and the summit results have been met with mixed feelings. What did it actually achieve? Although very little was expected, a lot was at stake: according to the EU Environment Commissioner, the very concept of sustainable development as a new policy paradigm (Wallström 2002). Clearly, the summit fell short of meeting the World’s needs, let alone stand up to its official motto “People, Planet and Prosperity”. But – mostly unnoticed - it demonstrated the decline of neo- liberal politics, a major change in international politics, while at the same time raising the challenge of geopolitics. According to the World’s mightiest nation, no longer economic interest but its national interest should shape the New World order. The victory over neo-liberalism: a Pyrrhic victory? ("another such victory, and I am lost!" King Pyrrhus after his victory over the early Roman empire) Most prominent in the public judgements about the World Summit on Sustainable Development is not the progress made regarding political or – more successful – scientific paradigms, but its deficits: a wide spectrum of non-binding agreements, many of them bound to turn out to be just window dressing, no monitoring by clear indicators except for the few clear commitments, uncritical overemphasising of free markets and economic instruments (which are regressive in their effect, i.e. lest effective on the richest people most in need to change their pattern of consumption, Spangenberg, Lorek 2002). For all its merits (see below) it is rather obvious that the WSSD did not provide solutions to the World's most pressing problems. Peace and security were non-issues in the conference, the role of transnational corporations was discussed without any substantial result. No step forward beyond the existing agreements was achieved regarding development finance, debt forgiveness, climate protection, desertification, forest principles and biodiversity protection. Poverty in the North went mainly undiscussed, any no blueprint for a sustainability-oriented system of international institutions was developed. Altogether, the conference results do not satisfy the needs of global sustainable development, as the progress achieved on substance is ridiculed by the growing problems. Nonetheless the concept of sustainable development still makes a difference; it has proven to be remarkably robust and able to mobilise international decision makers rallying to its support. First of all, although nobody was enthusiastically heading towards Johannesburg, many did not dare to come empty handedly. As a result, the year before the WSSD saw national and regional sustainability plans, business sustainability codes and sustainable development councils established at a pace unknown since the mid-1990s. This alone would have justified a (rather more limited) follow up conference, and given all the promises in the Plan of Implementation it is more a result of individual frustration than of political insight to call for an end to big scale conferences now, dismissing their important function for policy implementation out of hand.