Feb 27, 1992

UNCTAD-VIII: OUTCOME SEEN AS A TURNING POINT IN UNCTAD HISTORY.

CARTEGENA DE INDIAS, 25 FEBRUARY (CHAKRAVARTHI RAGHAVAN) – The final texts adopted here at UNCTAD-VIII "mark a turning point in the history of UNCTAD", Secretary-General Kenneth Dadzie told a press conference here after the conclusion of the Conference.

Dadzie said that it was too early to venture a definitive evaluation of the outcome but a tentative evaluation would show that it was a conference of convergence with a remarkable unity of purpose among delegations and governments.

The atmosphere and the substantive content of the outcome were no less striking he said, praising the constructive, non-confrontational and positive approach of all participants.

While the results would not give complete satisfaction to everyone, they commanded the support of everyone and all the States had undertaken to give full effect and in good faith to the results of the conference, both at the national and international levels, and in all competent forums including UNCTAD.

Dadzie was asked whether the U.S. had not in fact negotiated in bad faith, when at the end in her speech U.S. delegate Melinda Kimble had in effect expressed reservations on a number of points on the work programme and policies and measures which the US had negotiated with others and accepted by consensus.

Dadzie said that in her speech Ms. Kimble had herself characterised the outcome as a remarkable achievement and that she was only pointing to what she perceived as inconsistencies in the two parts.

Since negotiations were going on in parallel tracks, it was not always possible to make the outcome of one group congruent to the outcome in the other, he added, referring to the debt problem as a case with one group calling for "strengthening" of the international debt strategy while the other had spoken of "evolution".

Dadzie said that in Geneva they would be preparing the terms of reference for the new bodies, derived from the specific work programmes and activities, and this would be done with the agreement of all, including the U.S. delegation.

He would not therefore exaggerate the U.S. position.

(However, several Third World participants later said that the US with its very large delegation and presence had been fully coordinating the negotiations in different groups, and in some instances in fact advised one group of what the other was doing, in an effort to influence the outcome. All the points in the work programme and in policies and measures, to which the U.S. had now virtually expressed reservations, they said, were agreed to by the U.S., and suggested that on second thoughts, Washington must have decided to resile, thus raising serious questions about how the restructuring exercise would fare at the April Board meeting).

Asked about the idea of an international bank to take charge of environment and sustainable development as also to write down the debt of the Third World, Dadzie said that he wished there were something like that. But the question was more complicated than it would seem and would have to be pursued in other fora than UNCTAD.

Asked about the "trade" mandate of UNCTAD now, Dadzie underlined the complimentary roles of UNCTAD and GATT, with the latter as the body where negotiated commitments and obligations would be made. UNCTAD's role he said was one of analysis, reflection and consensus-building.

There was concern among some that the Conference should not pronounce itself on issues being negotiated in the GATT and the Uruguay Round and it was "not unreasonable", Dadzie added.

The deputy Secretary-General of UNCTAD, Yves Berthelot noted that the Board would be addressing trade issues at one session every year and there would also be ad hoc working group meetings where some substantive trade issues would be discussed. He referred to the mandate given to UNCTAD over restrictive business practices and promotion of competition and suggested that if discussions showed a convergence for some new policies and rules, these could be negotiated in the GATT.