8:15 AM Mar 11, 1996
UNCTAD MEMBERS WANT NEW NEGOTIATING TEXT
Geneva 11 Mar (Chakravarthi Raghavan) -- Developing and developed countries, Russia and the east European transition economies and China may have some varying, and even sharply differing ideas on the future role of the UN Conference on Trade and Development, but joined together, though for different reasons, in scrapping a pre-conference draft text before them as a basis for negotiating a final document for UNCTAD-IX. The draft conference room paper by the secretariat came in for sharp criticism at the Trade and Development Board's resumed meeting Monday morning, in executive session, as a Committee of the Whole. The meeting had a large and active participation of delegates. Developing countries were critical of the text for its imbalance in focusing on national policies and actions, but little on international policies and creating the necessary environment, for lop-sided attention to enterprise development and trade efficiency and some technical assistance programmes, while not paying attention to some of the substantive issues and questions. Regional groups and individual delegations are to formulate and put forward their specific suggestions, which the secretariat is to take into account, in preparing a new draft. The secretariat in preparing the draft in the conference room paper has been caught between two opposing trends, and succeeded in pleasing no one. On the one hand, there is the push from the US and EU for a 'break with the past' at UNCTAD and for the institution to focus on domestic policies of developing countries, and frowning on any views or measures critical of the international policies and the main thrust of their own policies in favour of what is euphemistically called 'greater integration of developing countries', namely, more obligations by developing countries but no corresponding commitments from the developed countries or anything that would imply an UNCTAD role in serious analysis of alternatives to the current neo-liberalism. On the other hand, there has been the effort of developing countries to ensure that UNCTAD provide a counterpoint and continue to play a major role in terms of policy analysis and recommendations over the range of national and international policies for development. The developing countries complained at the meeting that the document before them showed a considerable imbalance in terms of the focus on the national policies of developing countries to the neglect of the external environment and international policies. As China put it, the draft had an imbalance as between analysis and actions, as between domestic policies in developing countries and those of the developed countries and the international policies needed to support the development efforts of developing countries, and an imbalance in terms of commitments from the industrial countries and the developing countries. Even in terms of programs and measures, the Africans said, the 21-page document had devoted four pages to enterprise development, some 9 paragraphs on trade and environment, while problems of poverty and sustainable development had been disposed off in one para. The Asians, who at their Amman preparatory meeting, had put forward a comprehensive text addressing all the substantive questions, were also critical that none of their positions were reflected in the draft. The United States for its part expressed its disappointment, suggesting that the single focus of UNCTAD and the Ninth Session should be on full integration of developing countries, particularly the least developed countries into the world economy. The work programme should be more forward looking and focusing on programmes like trade efficiency. Norway, supported by Switzerland, noted that the text was to be one that was expected to be approved by Ministers at the Ninth Session of the Conference, and one that they could take back and "sell" to their public. From this perspective, it lacked a vision and must be more ambitious, but not bogged down in too many details about specific programs. The regional groups of developing countries as well as several of the industrial countries commented on the absence of specific formulations for programs relating to the least developed countries. A number of comments stressed the need for a clearer analysis and assessment of globalization and the views of UNCTAD should be clearly spelt out. Developing country delegations also felt that some of the elements of the Uruguay Round had been overlooked and these issues like TRIPs etc will have a severe impact on the substantive role of UNCTAD. Trade efficiency and enterprise development were not the main issues, but could only be issues relating to technical cooperation activities. Several developing country delegations had some sharp and critical comments on what they viewed as exaggerated prominence given in the document to trade efficiency questions and said that infrastructural development was not only merely a question of improving efficiency in transport or managerial efficiency, but many other measures including financial support from outside. There were no clear priorities either on policy issues or even technical programmes, Africans complained, and called for a document having a stronger link between the analytical and operational aspects