Feb 27, 1992

UNCTAD-VIII: U.S. RESERVATIONS IMPLY A BACK-TRACKING.

CARTEGENA DE INDIAS, 25 FEBRUARY (TWN) – A speech in the final plenary by U.S. delegate Ms Melinda Kimble was interpreted by several Third World delegations as implying that the U.S. was now having some second thoughts on the compromises for consensus and would try to go back on them at the April Trade Board meeting over the terms of reference of the new bodies.

The U.S. statement came as the last one in the plenary, after the adoption of the documents and the report, and during the speeches of thanks and assessments.

Ms. Kimble put a positive assessment on the outcome by saying that it was rare that one could leave a meeting of this nature with a feeling of genuine accomplishment. Through a long, arduous but rewarding process of negotiation, she said, "we have agreed on a key package of institutional reforms and a program of work that should lead to a revitalised UNCTAD, one that will make a genuine contribution to economic development around the world".

After praising the outcome and need to follow up the agreement with detailed measures to give practical effect to the reforms, she underscored the importance of the April meeting of the Trade Board for adapting "realistic terms of reference" for the new and existing bodies that would carry out UNCTAD’s mandate.

She then referred to what she called "a number of misunderstandings and discrepancies", claiming that it was perhaps inevitable in negotiating a text of this length, and particularly over the last frenetic days before its adoption an that because of some "unique constraints" imposed on participants, the inconsistencies could not be eliminated.

She then put on record what she called elements that created difficulties for the U.S.

While the procedure adopted had led to a good overall outcome, it had not enabled them to reconcile fully the paragraphs in parts IV and V of the Cartagena commitments (policies and measures and economic cooperation among developing countries) with the new work program in Part III (institutional matters).

(Delegates later noted that the work programme was all in Part IV and that Part III only dealt with the structures).

Ms. Kimble added: "We understood that these paragraphs would be deleted from parts IV and V and handled entirely in the context of Part III. Retaining these in part III in a largely unchanged fashion despite the clear substantive difficulties and inconsistencies raised by a number of delegations could add to the difficulty of rationalising and implementing fully the agreed work programme".

She referred in this connection to paragraph 99 in the work programme for UNCTAD to explore the issue of structural adjustment for transition to disarmament; to para 141 to the review by the Board at its spring session of global developments in evolution of production commodities and services; to para 185 which has provided a large work programme for the secretariat in services.

She also objected to para 117 which has provided the secretariat with a role in analysing and making proposals and for discussions on debt and resources for development; and to para 222 about the convening of an expert group meeting to review issues of commercial debt of least developed countries.

These paragraphs suggesting an UNCTAD role in debt was not acceptable to the U.S., nor could it support UNCTAD convening a global meeting on commercial debt.

Having claimed that she was only expressing reservations arising out of inconsistencies in part III (institutional matters) and Part IV (policies and measures), Ms. Kimble went on to argue that even part III contained language with "an overly ambitious view of UNCTAD's role in the area of debt", referring in this regard to paragraphs 59 and 63. The first calls for UNCTAD to aim at providing constructive approaches to matters where other fora had powers of decision or rule making. The second, in calling for reorientation and adaptation of UNCTAD, has set out areas to serve as orientations "for developing both fresh approaches to long-standing issues and insights to pursuing relevant new lines of work".

In areas where other organs have competence, like GATT and IMF, she said we must recognise that reality and not spend as in the past too much time in pointless debates in UNCTAD.

The draft-Final Act of the Uruguay Round reflected the outcome of a carefully balanced negotiation and would provide for a comprehensive multilateral trade organisation (MTO) which would incorporate far-reaching Constitutional reforms, rules on services and intellectual property under the same umbrella.

Rather than compete with this, either through oblique and sometimes not so oblique references to old resolutions and recent status reports from the UN, UNCTAD should welcome the strengthening of the multilateral trading system under GATT, she said.

This was a reference to the fact about the compromise reached over the issue of UNCTAD's role in the international trading system where much of the formulations of the Third World were eliminated.

An earlier paragraph had referred to the ongoing UN general assembly discussions in the UN and GATT on strengthening institutional arrangements in multilateral trade and proposals in the Uruguay Round for the establishment of an MTO; and the compromise text then said "The Conference reaffirms UNCTAD’s mandate and important role in the international trading system".

She also objected to another para in the structures under which any work not specifically assigned to one of the newly created standing committees or ad hoc committees would be assumed by the Board. She said she had not seen the formulation until it was adopted, while in the task force it was clearly stated that any work not assigned was "suspended" and not to be assumed by the Board.

The work of all present committees are suspended, and we are not adding new commitments and working groups to UNCTAD's present program. We are creating totally new structures and work programmes to be undertaken within existing resources and UNCTAD secretariat would have to undergo structural adjustment, she said.

She also dismissed any possible role for the working group on inter-relationship between investment and technology to promote work previously carried out in the committee on transfer of technology. She added that this applied equally to "environmentally sound technologies", notwithstanding a specific paragraph in the policies and measures giving a specific mandate to UNCTAD in this behalf.

Most delegates said that while they wanted to see the text of Kimble's remarks, it was made available only in the evening after delegates had left the conference center, and some of them Cartagena. This showed some lack of good faith and that the battle would be joined again in Geneva.