Sadruddin Aga Khan.(Brief Article)(Interview)

Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan doesn't look much like a fire-breathing ecowarrior. With an Iranian passport, an American education, a Geneva address and a long career as a U.N. diplomat, he's not the sort of man one expects to rage about man's inhumanity, the spooky power of multinational corporations or the toothlessness of many U.N. institutions. But he does.

Uncle of the current Aga Khan, who is hereditary imam, or spiritual leader, of the Muslim Ismaili sect, the prince is a former U.N. high commissioner for refugees, and continues to serve as special consultant to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan. He spoke to NEWSWEEK's Carla Power from the Geneva headquarters of his Bellerive Foundation, an environmental NGO, about globalization and his take on the Johannesburg summit.

You've spoken out recently against the concept of sustainable development. Why?

The term itself reminds me of Mahatma Gandhi's response when someone asked him what he thought of Western civilization. He said, "I think it is a good idea." Sustainable development could be a good idea, particularly when we take it in the context of the noble intent for which it was originally coined: that we should not take more from the Earth than we give back. It implies solidarity between current and future generations. But I object to the way the term has been diverted to become a meaningless buzzword. It's become an alibi for human greed, for lifestyles that are anything but sustainable. "Sustainable" has taken on a different meaning: it now means what the market will bear, not the Earth.

What's changed as the meaning of the term has changed?

It's simply not working at any level, from conservation to alleviating climate change or global disparities. The ethical dimension is totally absent from the current thinking on sustainable development. For example, purse-seine fishing for tuna, which causes the cruel death of thousands of dolphins, may be technically sustainable, but it's not ethical. This shouldn't be written off as oversentiment for animals and nature. Even men and women are now referred to as "human resources." The ethical, social, spiritual dimension is completely obliterated by the present sustainable-development mind-set.

You've spoken out for the need for legislation to protect against the dangers of misuse of natural resources by corporations.