UNCTAD, forum for poor states under attack from rich nations

Dalforce 1941 SG

On the eve of its ministerial conference, a major battle is under way at the United Nations’ premier development organisation to preserve its mandate to work on macro-economic and finance issues.

THE United Nations’ most important development organisation, the UN Conference on Trade and Development (Unctad), is facing a serious impasse on the eve of its most important event, its 13th session, known as Unctad XIII, to be held in Doha, Qatar on April 21-26.

This general session, held once every four years, is to be attended by trade and other ministers, and some heads of government. Its theme is “development-centred globalisation”.

While the previous two or three conferences were rather tame affairs, it looks like Unctad XIII will be fiery, with the organisation’s future scope of work and influence at stake.

Unctad was set up in 1964 to support developing countries to strengthen their weak position in international economic structures and to design national development strategies.

It became a kind of secretariat on behalf of developing countries, providing a small pro-development balance to the huge organisations dominated by the developed countries, such as the OECD, the IMF and World Bank.

In the past two decades, however, the developed countries have tried to curb the pro-South orientation of the Unctad secretariat and its many reports.

The inter-governmental discussions became less significant, while Unctad’s pro-development mission was increasingly challenged by the developed countries.

This unhealthy trend seemed to have subsided in the past decade, but in the past two months the meetings in Geneva to prepare for Unctad XIII, have become a North-South battle ground.

Last week’s meetings ended in a near crisis, with the countries unable to agree on how to proceed with some key principles and with a draft of a declaration that the ministers are to adopt in Doha.

At an April 13 meeting, some developed countries did not even agree to “reaffirm” the mandate given to Unctad at the previous session (Unctad XII held in Accra in 2008). Instead, they wanted language to “build on” the Accra Accord.

This caused frustration to the G77 and China, the group of developing countries, which saw the move as an attempt to take away some of the issues that Unctad is working on. Refusal to reaffirm the Accra Accord seemed to be another measure to chip away at the influence of Unctad and its support for development.

Speaking on behalf of the G77 and China, Ambassador Pisanu Chanvitan of Thailand regretted that the accommodative stance of the group had been viewed as weakness or capitulation.

“The group hoped that the global economic and financial crisis marks for once and for all the end of the bad old days, and perhaps the dawn of an international regime of global economic governance based on the highest principles and ideals of the United Nations, including sovereignty, equality, and mutual respect,” he said.

“Instead, we see behaviour that seems to indicate a desire for the dawn of a new neocolonialism. We cannot, we will not, accept this.

“The G77 and China believed that Unctad XIII can contribute to a new beginning, and that the theme of development-centred globalisation could articulate a vision of development based on equality and equal respect for all.

“Unfortunately, the developing countries feel increasingly marginalised by our partners, especially when they seem to deny us our own priorities.”

The Thai Ambassador stressed that the Accra Accord must be reaffirmed. And while the G77 and China had already made “incredible compromises”, it now proposed that at the minimum the Doha conference could adopt the compromise text that the president of the conference (Ambassador Maruping of Lesotho) had issued.

In response, a group of developed countries regretted that they were being painted as being on the “bad side” and asked that their proposals be not “engineered always as a weapon in a North-South conflict”.

At the close of the meeting, Maruping proposed that negotiations resume today on the basis of his compromise text.

Meanwhile, an influential group of 50 former senior Unctad staff issued a joint statement criticising efforts by major developed countries to reduce Unctad’s mandate and deny it the right to continue to analyse global macroeconomic issues from a development perspective.

The signatories included former Unctad secretary-general Rubens Ricupero, two former deputy secretaries-general, Carlos Fortin and Jan Pronk, and several directors.

At a press conference on the statement, reported in the SUNS Bulletin, former Unctad director John Burley, warned of an attempt “to change Unctad’s mandate by denying the organisation the right to continue to analyse and report on global macroeconomic issues, including the role of global finance in development.

“We are angry because we feel that the two principles of the need for a plurality of views in the international system and the need to preserve Unctad’s freedom of speech, are being threatened.”

Yilmaz Akyuz, former Unctad chief economist, said that since the collapse of the Berlin Wall, the major developed countries “have become increasingly intolerant to diversity of views and indeed wanted the Washington Consensus to become a global consensus.

“They have seldom engaged in constructive dialogue in Unctad over policy options and ignored Unctad research findings even when they are proven right.”

Akyuz said that Unctad has always taken interest in policy with significant effect on development and developing countries.

“It has done so by taking a broad perspective, focusing on interdependence of issues, and in several areas, Unctad has been well ahead of the curve in anticipating problems and proposing feasible solutions.”

Providing some examples, Akyuz said that Unctad was the first organisation in the 1980s to argue for the need for debt relief in Latin America, several years before it became part of the official wisdom to the Brady Plan.

It was the first one to argue in the early 1990s for the need for the relief of debt of poor countries to the Bretton Woods Institutions, something which was taboo at the time but then it came to be accepted by the mainstream in the HIPC (Heavily Indebted Poor Countries) initiative.

According to Akyuz, Unctad was also the first to argue for orderly workout mechanisms for sovereign debt, more than a decade before it came to be put on the agenda of the IMF.

“Again, Unctad has been well ahead of the curve in predicting and analysing financial crises in emerging economies and recognising the need for reform of the international financial architecture and to manage international capital flows,” said Akyuz.

“Now the major OECD governments are trying to silence the secretariat once and for all at a time when we need a broad-based, participatory debate on the governance of international finance or even the governance of global economic system of the kind that the UN system allows is desperately needed. This will not do any good to anybody,” he said.

Asked to elaborate on the areas that the major OECD governments are trying to stymie Unctad’s work, Akyuz said his understanding is that “they don’t want to see the word ‘finance’ in the agreed text defining the mandate of Unctad”.

He further said that his impression is that they want to keep the issues regarding finance that they take up in the IMF and the G20 out of the UN system, and not just Unctad.

In their statement, the former Unctad staff members said that Unctad has always been a thorn in the flesh of economic orthodoxy. Its analyses of global macro-economic issues from a development perspective have regularly provided an alternative view to that offered by the World Bank and the IMF controlled by the West.

“Now efforts are afoot to silence that voice. It might be understandable if this analysis was being eliminated because it duplicated the work and views of other international organisations, but the opposite is the case – a few countries want to suppress any dissent with the prevailing orthodoxy.”

They stressed that developing countries in Geneva are struggling to resist the strong pressure piled on them by OECD countries and to defend the organisation. The developed countries in Geneva have seized the occasion to stifle Unctad’s capacity to think outside the box.

The former Unctad staff depicted the developed countries’ move as “if you cannot kill the message, at least kill the messenger”.

These developments at the UN’s premier development institution are disturbing, to say the least. It is hoped that the developing countries can strongly defend the organisation that has supported their development efforts through many decades, and that the developed countries can allow Unctad to continue and expand its work for the benefit of the international system as a time of global crisis.

http://thestar.com.my/columnists/story.asp?col=globaltrends&file=/2012/4/16/columnists/globaltrends/11111177&sec=Global%20Trends

Unctad was right about Mexico's meltdown and the dangers of derivatives, yet rich countries apparently want to muzzle it...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/poverty-matters/2012/apr/16/rich-countries-want-to-muzzle-unctad?newsfeed=true

Speaking Out in Defence of UNCTAD
By Gustavo Capdevila

GENEVA, Apr 12, 2012 (IPS) - The reason the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) is under attack is that rich countries do not want an organisation that carries out independent analysis, Rubens Ricupero, UNCTAD secretary general from 1995 to 2004, told IPS.

In recent weeks UNCTAD has come under fire from powerful industrialised countries that wish to modify its mandate, which since its creation in 1964 has been the defence of the interests of poor nations.

According to officials in countries of the global South, the nations of the industrialised North see the agency's advice on finances, the environment, food security, intellectual property and development as running counter to their own free market and free trade agenda...

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=107416

The G-77 awakes

By Vijay Prashad

The crisis continues at the preparatory conference for the 13th meeting of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) to be held from April 21-26 in Doha, Qatar.

It began when the North, led by the US delegation and the Swiss ambassador, refused to allow the United Nations agency any latitude for a discussion on the toxicity of finance and its reform. At the 4th BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa)summit in New Delhi last month, the powerful "locomotives of the South" promised to back the UNCTAD summit, and implicitly offered support for UNCTAD's critical position on finance-driven globalization...

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/ND17Dj06.html

Dalforce 1941 SG

Russia and China support the formation of a multipolar model of international relations, call for building a fairer global economic system and speak against the expansion of military alliances, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Sunday.

Lavrov’s statement comes ahead of a visit by President Vladimir Putin to China on June 5-7. Putin will discuss bilateral relations on June 5-6 and take part in a meeting of the Council of the Heads of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization Member States on June 6-7.

“Russia and China support the establishment of a multipolar model of international relations, the formation of a fairer and democratic political and economic system, the strengthening of the UN central coordinating role in solving pressing issues on the international agenda,” Lavrov said in an interview with China’s official news agency Xinhua posted on the ministry’s website.

Russia and China speak against the policy of the expansion of military alliances and the deployment of missile defense systems on a bloc basis, and also the ‘attempt by some states to ensure security at the expense of other states,’ he said.

Lavrov said Russia and China intended to continue strengthening mutual trust, stimulating intensive contacts at the highest and high levels, supporting each other in the defense of their sovereignty, state unity and territorial integrity of the two countries.

Russia and China intend to bring up their bilateral trade to $100 billion by 2015 and double this volume by 2020, Lavrov said.

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20120603/173818607.html

Dalforce 1941 SG

Updated: 2012-06-18 11:34

LOS CABOS, Mexico - Chinese President Hu Jintao on Sunday urged leaders of the Group of20 (G20) members to give developing nations a bigger say in global economic governance.

Hu made the remarks while meeting Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi to discuss theexpansion of all-round cooperation between China and Africa on the sidelines of the G20 LosCabos summit, which is scheduled from Monday to Tuesday.

China hopes the summit could discuss the development gap between the North and theSouth, regard the developing nations' contribution to the world economy and their legitimatedemands in an objective perspective, and take measures to ensure the development space forthe developing world, said Hu.

The summit will focus on global growth and stability as the fragile world economic recovery isbeing threatened by the eurozone crisis and other problems.

Ethiopia and some other non-G20 members have been invited by host Mexico to attend thesummit.

The Chinese president also said it is an urgent task to promote development in Africa....

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/HuvisitsDenmark/2012-06/18/content_15509094.htm

Dalforce 1941 SG

Vijay Prashad

Born in 1961, the Non-Aligned Movement is now over 50 years old, a decade or so younger than the United Nations. Unwilling to remain hostages to nuclear warfare and to nuclear détente, the new states of the 1950s wanted to chart out an independent path — not as proxies for an American-Soviet Cold War. The five major initiators of the movement, Egypt, Ghana, India, Indonesia, and Yugoslavia, had either just emerged from colonial rule or had broken away from alliances that appeared one-sided to them. It was this independence that they named “non-alignment.” After the Non-Aligned Movement summit in 1961, India’s Jawaharlal Nehru and Ghana’s Kwame Nkrumah traveled to Moscow while Indonesia’s Ahmed Sukarno and Mali’s Modibo Keita went to Washington, carrying an “Appeal for Peace,” asking the major powers to return to the negotiation table. Peace was their watchword, because, without a reduction in threats and arms spending, social development would have been severely compromised.

The movement was part of the ensemble of the Third World Project, which included the bloc of the South in the United Nations (the G77) and the experiments in new kinds of social development in the Global South. It thrived in its first two decades, building to a fever pitch of expectation with the 1973 UN Resolution for the crafting of a New International Economic Order. This was to be “non-alignment” in the domain of politics and economics.

Ten years after the New International Economic Order, at the 7th Non-Aligned Movement Summit in New Delhi, anxiety filled the movement — storm clouds were on the horizon, and many delegates saw them. The previous year, Mexico had fallen into bankruptcy. In Boston, the head of the World Bank (and former head of Bank of America) Tom Clausen said, “For the first time since the Second World War, the momentum of Third World development has, for the most part, been broken.” Forty-two countries were locked in repayment negotiations for debt payments they could not sustain. “The IMF either eases off and loses credibility,” said a senior US official, “or it insists and the debtor stops paying.” The IMF insisted, countries declared bankruptcy and had to accede to Structural Adjustment Programs that stripped them of their independence so as to regain financial liquidity.

The debt crisis of the 1980s broke the back of the Third World Project, and it shattered the confidence of the Non-Aligned Movement. The institution, which represents two thirds of the world’s governments, continued to function — but barely. Non-alignment as a guiding doctrine became fodder for nostalgia, as indebted countries began to forge links with a resurgent West in light of the collapse of the East. Bilateral free trade agreements with the US and Europe came alongside IMF programs for austerity; military deals that allowed US bases on formerly proud anti-colonial soil provided the infrastructure for the emergence of US primacy. The Non-Aligned Movement met, but it did not propose anything.

The tide began to turn in the early 2000s. In 2003, the movement’s chair, South Africa’s Thabo Mbeki attempted to create a peaceful solution against the US rush to war against Iraq. Massive street protests across the South (and in the North) seemed to be on the side of a peaceful settlement (including the 20 March protest in Egypt, which emboldened the antiwar activists toward Kefaya, a core part of the anti-Mubarak resistance from 2004 to 2011). The US pressured South Africa to expel Iraq’s ambassador — but failed. It did, however, go to war, disregarding the word from the street and from the Non-Aligned Movement.

In 2003 again, the US and Europeans refused to honestly discuss development and trade. They insisted that subsidies to northern agriculture did not violate their own free trade nostrums. This incensed the South at the Cancun meeting of the World Trade Organization. Brazil, China, India, South Africa, the group of the Least Developed Countries and the African, Caribbean and Pacific bloc resisted pressure from the World Trade Organization Commissioner Pascal Lamy to “steer” the organization to a “compromise,” which would mean victory to the North. The South prevailed, and Lamy lamented, “The World Trade Organization remains a medieval organization,” which meant that it was not pliable to Northern direction.

The experience of the Iraq War and Cancun led to the creation of a new group, the IBSA Dialogue, which included one country from each of the Southern continents, India, Brazil, and South Africa. Complementarities in these countries led them to increase trade among themselves, and to work together at international forums for their interests and that of the South in general. Over the course of several meetings, the dialogue framed a new intellectual agenda, now not so much non-alignment as regionalism and multi-polarity. Brazil brought the Latin American experience to the table — notably the process that led, in 2004, to the creation of the trade bloc, the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas, and, in 2010, to the creation of the political bloc, the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States. The 14th Non-Aligned Movement Summit in Havana in 2006 saw more discussion of regionalism than at any meeting previously. There was renewed buoyancy as several countries had already come to this idea independently. Regionalism and multi-polarity became the central intellectual themes of the BRICS, when China and Russia joined Brazil, India and South Africa to create a new major world grouping. BRICS accounts for 40 percent of the world’s global GDP.

Regionalism and multi-polarity were at the heart of the 16th summit. Side deals enhanced regional economic development, and provided the basis for regional political alliances without US primacy. For example, at this summit’s sidelines, Afghanistan, India and Iran began a process to shore up their mutual links through the south-eastern Iranian port of Chabahar. US-occupied Afghanistan imports 50 percent of its oil from Iran, despite US and European sanctions. Parochial US aims to isolate Iran are simply not feasible in a multipolar world. Solutions to the Syrian crisis have defeated the US and the Europeans, but a new regional opening from Egypt, via the Contact Group, offered a glimmer of hope. It is true that Egypt’s President Mohamed Morsy seemed sectarian in his speech at the summit. Equally, Iran is eager for a rapprochement with Egypt, not only to undo 30 years of mutual disregard, but also to be a player in the Arab Spring. The regional advantages are apparent to these countries, which is why even Saudi Arabia and Turkey are willing to become part of this process. They need each other. As clients of US primacy, they have gained very little — only a threat of regional war. As regional actors committed to regional solutions, there is, at least, hope.

Non-Aligned is simply the historical word in the movement’s name. But it does not define its politics. Its emergent politics are no longer for non-alignment but for regionalism and multi-polarity. The IMF predicts that in 2016, the US will no longer be the world’s largest economy. Debt crises in the North and austerity solutions will equally put pressure on its ability to foist its military power across the planet. The Chinese, who will have the largest economy, are committed to multi-polarity. This is why the new intellectual orientation of the Non-Aligned Movement — regionalism and multi-polarity — is actually much more realistic than a re-assertion of Northern domination.

There will not be another American Century. We are at the dawn of a new multipolar experiment.

Vijay Prashad is the author of Arab Spring, Libyan Winter (AK Press, 2012 and Turkish edition, Yordam Kitap, 2012). His book The Darker Nations: A People’s History of the Third World (2007) was chosen as the Best Nonfiction book by the Asian American Writers’ Workshop in 2008 and won the Muzaffar Ahmed Book Award in 2009.

http://www.egyptindependent.com/opinion/new-non-aligned-movement-multipolar-and-regional

South-South cooperation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South-South_cooperation