INDIA: HISTORY OF FAMINES & LORD LYTTON

October 13, 2006 at 6:08 pm | Posted in Asia, Economics, Globalization, History | Leave a comment

spin-globe.gif

books-globe.gif

globe-purple.gif

history.gif

Robert Bulwer-Lytton, 1st Earl of Lytton

Robert Bulwer-Lytton, 1st Earl of Lytton

& India Famines

Edward Robert Bulwer-Lytton, 1st Earl of Lytton GCB GCSI
GCIE PC (8
November
183124 November
1891) was an English statesman and poet.

The son of the novelist Edward
Bulwer-Lytton, 1st Baron Lytton
, he was educated at Harrow
School
and at the University of Bonn. When
eighteen years old, he went to the United States as
private secretary of his uncle, Sir Henry Bulwer,
who was Minister at Washington, DC.

When twenty-five years old, he published in London a volume
of poems under the name of Owen Meredith. He went on to publish several other volumes
under the same name. The most popular one is "Lucile", a story in verse.

He was later secretary at different courts in Europe and
Minister to Portugal and France.
From 1876 to 1880 he was Viceroy and Governor-General of India.

Lytton’s tenure as Viceroy coincided with one of the worst recorded famines, and his uncompromising implementation of British Colonial Policy was a
factor in its severity.

He succeeded his father as 2nd Baron Lytton in 1873, and in 1880 was created Viscount Knebworth, of Knebworth in the County of
Hertford, and Earl of Lytton, in the County of Derby.

External link

Comment: Lytton is mentioned in connection with India famines by Simon Schama in
Volume 5 of Schama’s "History of Britain" series on DVD.  Lord Curzon is
also discussed in connection with India famines.

Trevelyan and Macaulay are also discussed in Volume 5 of the Schama
set, in the "The Empire of Good Intentions" segment.

ECONOMICS OF MICROFINANCE

October 13, 2006 at 4:15 pm | Posted in Books, Economics, Financial, Globalization | Leave a comment

spin-globe.gif

books-globe.gif

globe-purple.gif

The Economics of
Microfinance

Beatriz Armendáriz and Jonathan Morduch

http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=10494

Table of Contents and Sample Chapters

The microfinance
revolution, begun with independent initiatives in Latin America and South Asia starting in
the 1970s, has so far allowed 65 million poor people around the world to receive small
loans without collateral, build up assets, and buy insurance. This comprehensive survey of
microfinance seeks to bridge
the gap in the existing literature on
microfinance between academic economists and practitioners. Both authors have pursued the
subject not only in academia but in the field; Beatriz Armendariz founded a
microfinance bank in Chiapas, Mexico, and Jonathan Morduch has
done fieldwork in Bangladesh, China, and Indonesia.

The authors move beyond the usual theoretical focus in the microfinance literature and draw on new developments
in theories of contracts and incentives. They challenge conventional assumptions about how
poor households save and build assets and how institutions can overcome market failures.
The book provides an overview of microfinance by addressing a
range of issues, including lessons from informal markets, savings and insurance, the role
of women, the place of subsidies, impact measurement, and management incentives. It
integrates theory with empirical data, citing studies from Asia, Africa, and Latin America
and introducing ideas about asymmetric information, principal-agent theory, and household
decision making in the context of microfinance.

The Economics of Microfinance can be used by students in
economics, public policy, and development studies. Mathematical notation is used to
clarify some arguments, but the main points can be grasped without the math. Each chapter
ends with analytically challenging exercises for advanced economics students.

Beatriz Armendáriz is Lecturer in Economics at Harvard University, on leave from
University College London, where she is Senior Lecturer in Economics.

Jonathan Morduch is Associate Professor of Public Policy and Economics at New York
University.

Reviews

“an excellent analysis of the evolution of microfinance
and of the economic theory behind it.”

— Huw Dixon, Times Higher Education
Supplement

Endorsements

“The single best book on the economics of banking and finance, period, and
certainly the most encompassing book I have read on microfinance.
My copy is covered in notes and dog-eared from use.”

–Thomas Easton, New York Bureau Chief, The
Economist

“The microfinance movement is bringing hope,
prosperity, and progress to many of the poorest people in the world. It is necessary to
use critical economic reasoning to understand why the movement is such a success and how
its exact achievements can be assessed and scrutinized. This book is a splendid
contribution to that goal, and will be a great help to students, teachers, and
practitioners in economics and the social sciences.”

–Amartya Sen, Lamont University Professor, Harvard University, Nobel Laureate in
Economics (1998)

“A great place to learn how and why microfinance
really works, and where it hits its limits. The book, written by two leading young
economists, brims with new evidence and provides fresh perspectives on old debates.
Clearly written and sharply argued, it revisits and transforms important ideas about
poverty reduction, finance, and incentives. The authors describe what we know and what we
need to know in order to move forward.”

–Joseph E. Stiglitz, Professor of Economics and Finance, Columbia University, Nobel
Laureate in Economics (2001)

Of Related Interest:

Public Finance and Public Policy in the New Century

Sijbren Cnossen and Hans-Werner Sinn (Eds.)

Cloth / July 2003

Journal of the European Economic Association

Six times per year (March/April-May/June/September/December)

SOUTH BULLETIN NO. 133: SOUTH CENTRE GENEVA

October 13, 2006 at 1:34 pm | Posted in Economics, Globalization | Leave a comment

spin-globe.gif

books-globe.gif

globe-purple.gif

Roll Back TRIPS – Sir John Sulston

South Bulletin 133

Someshwar Singh

Senior Editor
South Centre

Ch. du Champ d’Anier 17
1211 Geneva 19
Switzerland

This issue of the South
Bulletin
focuses on ‘Taking Responsibility for Shared
Development’.

South Bulletin 133

www.southcentre.org

singh@southcentre.org

15 October 2006

In this Issue

Shared Development True Path to Peace – Lula

Eliminating the barriers that keep poor countries from developing is
the ethical duty of the international community, Mr. Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, President
of Brazil, said while addressing the UN General Assembly last month in New York . "If
we do not want war to go global, justice must go global."

Global Partnership for Development

The common commitment for a global partnership for development cannot
be transformed into reality when the rich and powerful insist on an unequal relationship
with the poor. That was the view expressed by the current Chairman of the G-77 and China –
the President of South Africa Thabo Mbeki – at the UN General Assembly in New York last
month.

A Tribute to Mahatma Gandhi’s Satyagraha Campaign

It was indeed a unique celebration in Durban. On 1 October 2006, South
Africa and India marked the centenary of Satyagraha – the great non-violent philosophy and
practice of struggle for human emancipation shown to the world by Mahatma Gandhi. A
tribute by the President of South Africa, Thabo Mbeki in the presence of India’s
Prime Minister, Dr. Manmohan Singh.

Development A Shared Responsibility – Kamal Nath

Talk of a Development Round remains largely rhetorical, India’s
Minister of Commerce and Industry, Mr. Kamal Nath told the UNCTAD’s Special Session
of Trade & Development Board. "Issues of serious concern to developing countries
like cotton, ushering in fair and undistorted agricultural world trade, Duty Free Quota
Free Treatment for LDC’s, Implementation Issues, etc. remain unresolved."

A Sincere Engagement Can Unblock the Doha Round’

In an interview to the South Bulletin, Dr. Arsene M. Balihuta, the
Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Uganda to the United Nations in Geneva and the
World Trade Organization, responds to questions on the Doha Round, its suspension and
likely resumption, and the interests of the Least Developed Countries like Uganda.

Other articles:

‘Hard Analysis’ Needed for ‘Good Policy’ Space –
Lamy

Doha Agenda: Suspension No Cause for Lowering Ambitions – Supachai

‘Aid for Trade’ Initiative In Need of A Definitive Structure

South Centre News

Editorial – Taking Responsibility for Shared Development

Shared Development True Path to Peace – Lula

Eliminating the barriers that keep poor countries from developing is
the ethical duty of the international community,
Mr. Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva,
President of Brazil, said while addressing the UN General Assembly in New York on 19
September, 2006. "It is also the best way to ensure prosperity and security for
all." President Lula observed that the true path to peace is shared development.
"If we do not want war to go global, justice must go global." He noted that the
search for a new world order, fairer and more democratic – was not only in poor
countries’ or in emerging nations’ interest but even more in rich
countries’ interest. Presented below are extracts from his address.

"When I first took the floor from this rostrum in 2003, I stressed
the need for urgent and relentless action to fight the scourge of hunger and poverty in
the world.

This is what we are doing in Brazil. We have combined economic
stability with social inclusion policies. The standard of living of Brazilians has
improved. Employment and income have grown. The purchasing power of the minimum wage has
increased. Our resources are scarce, but even so we have achieved surprising results.

The ‘Family Stipend’, at the core of our ‘Zero
Hunger’ program, assures a basic income to over 11 million Brazilian families.
Well-fed people can enhance their dignity, their health and their learning capacity.
Putting resources into social programs is not expenditure. It is investment.

If with so little we have done so much in Brazil, imagine what could
have been done on a global scale, if the fight against hunger and poverty were a real
priority for the international community.

Where there is hunger there is no hope. There is only desolation and
pain. Hunger nurtures violence and fanaticism. A world where people starve will never be
safe. The sheer size of the task will not daunt us, especially if we are not alone. All
here know that some 840 million human beings – nearly one out of seven in the planet
– do not have enough to eat. 50 billion additional dollars each year are needed to
reach the Millennium Development Goals on time.

The international community can afford it. On the positive side, just
think, for instance, of the hundreds of billions of dollars invested to move forward the
full integration of Eastern European countries into the European Union. On the other hand,
think of the cost of wars and other conflicts. All here know that that the second Gulf War
may also have cost hundreds of billions of dollars to date. With much less we could change
the sad reality of a large share of the world’s population.

We could alleviate the plight of these people and lift them out of
destitution. We could save millions of lives. Even strong as they are today, rich
countries should have no illusion: nobody is safe in a world of injustices. War will never
bring security. War can only generate monsters: bitterness, intolerance, fundamentalism,
and the damaging denial of current hegemonies.

The poor must be given reasons to live, not to kill or die.
Peoples’ greatness lies not in bellicosity, but in humanism. And there is no true
humanism without respect for the other. There are, actually, those different from us, but
not less dignified for this reason, not less precious, not entitled to a lesser right to
happiness, creatures as we are from the same creator. There will only be security in a
world where all have the right to economic and social development.

The true path to peace is shared development. If we do not want war to
go global, justice must go global. This is why, with the serene conviction of a man who
has dedicated his life to fight peacefully for the rights of the working people, I say to
you: the search for a new world order, fairer and more democratic, it is not only in poor
countries’ or in emerging nations’ interest. It is also or even more in rich
countries’ interest, as long as they have eyes to watch and ears to hear, as long as
they do not make the mistake of ignoring the hideous cry of the excluded.

We have seen some progress in the last few years. At the Meeting of
World Leaders in 2004, we launched the ‘Action against Hunger and Poverty’.
Together, we were able to achieve a strong international engagement around this issue. Our
collective efforts have begun to bear fruit. We are putting into practice innovative
mechanisms such as a ‘solidarity levy on international air tickets.

Hunger and disease walk hand-in-hand. We have therefore undertaken,
together with other Governments, the creation of an International Drug Purchase Facility
to combat AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. This initiative will provide new sources of
funds and facilitate access to medicine at lower costs. We cannot shirk from our duties. I
salute the leaders of vision engaged in this war. The war against the debasement of human
beings and hopelessness. This is the only war in which final victory will mean a triumph
for all of humanity.

The fight against hunger and poverty is also predicated on the creation
of a world order that accords priority to social and economic development. There will only
be permanent solutions to destitution when poorer countries are able to advance through
their own efforts. Once International Trade is free and fair, it will be a valuable tool
for generating wealth, distributing income and creating jobs.

It is essential that we break the bonds of protectionism. Subsidies
granted by richer countries, particularly in agriculture, are oppressive shackles that
hold back progress and doom poor countries to backwardness. Time and again I must repeat
that while trade-distorting support in developed countries amounts to the outrageous sum
of 1 billion dollars a day, 900 million people get by on less that a dollar a day in both
poor and developing countries. This situation is politically and morally untenable.

The only thing worse than inaction stemming from ignorance is neglect
rooted in accommodation. The old geography of international trade must be profoundly
reshaped. Together with its partners in the G-20, Brazil is engaged in this task. The
creation of the G-20 has changed the dynamics of negotiations at the World Trade
Organization. Until recently developing countries played only peripheral roles in the most
important negotiations.

Eliminating the barriers that keep poor countries from developing is
the ethical duty of the international community. It is also the best way to ensure
prosperity and security for all. For the first time in the history of the GATT/WTO system,
the word ‘development’ appears in the title of a Round of trade negotiations.
But the Doha Development Agenda, which will decide the future of the world trade system,
is now in crisis. If successful, WTO negotiations will help pull many people out of
extreme poverty.

Farmers who cannot compete against multi-billion-dollar subsidies will
have a chance to prosper at last. Poor African countries will finally be able to export
agricultural products. If the Round fails, the fallout will go far beyond trade. The
credibility of the WTO system itself will be jeopardized, with negative repercussions in
both political and social fields. Scourges such as organized crime, drug trafficking and
terrorism will find fertile ground to proliferate.

I have called on world leaders to rise to their responsibility. The
importance attached to this issue at the latest G-8 Summit has not yielded practical
results yet. This generation has a unique opportunity to show the world that selfish
interests will not prevail over the common good. History will not absolve us of our
omission.

Fair trade, grounded on a solid consensus and on a transparent WTO,
aware of the needs of developing countries, is one of the pillars of the world order we
uphold. In the field of international peace and security, another pillar is the United
Nations. Brazil is a staunch backer of international organizations as fora for
cooperation, and dialogue. There is no more effective way to bring states together, to
keep the peace, to protect human rights, to promote sustainable development and to build
negotiated solutions to common problems.

Conflicts such as that of the Middle East continue to challenge the
authority of the United Nations. The recent crisis in Lebanon exposed the Organization to
a dangerous erosion of credibility. The effectiveness of the United Nations is been
seriously questioned.

Unable to act when needed, the Security Council is accused of being
morose. World public opinion is impatient in the face of such incomprehensible
difficulties. Deaths of innocent civilians, including women and children, are a shock to
all of us. In Brazil, millions of Lebanese and Israelites live in a harmonious and
integrated way. Thus, Brazil’s interest in the Middle East arises from a deep and
objective social reality in our own country. Aside from the countries directly involved,
Middle Eastern issues have always been dealt with exclusively by the great powers. They
have achieved no solution so far.

One might then ask: is it not time to call a broad, UN-sponsored
Conference, with the participation of countries of the region and others that could
contribute through their capacity and successful experience,in living peacefully with
differences?

Brazil believes in dialogue. For this reason we held a South
America-Arab Countries Summit in 2005. We also have good relations with Israel, whose
birth as a state came about when a Brazilian, Osvaldo Aranha, presided over the General
Assembly.

Conflicts among nations are not solved only by money and weapons.
Ideas, values and feelings also have a place, particularly when based on real-life
experience.

More than ever, the UN’s authority needs to be strengthened. We
have already made significant progress, with the administrative reform process and the
creation of both the Human Rights Council and the Peace Building Commission. But the task
will be left irreparably incomplete without changes in the Security Council, the body in
charge of overseeing peace issues. Along with the G-4 countries, Brazil holds that the
expansion of the Security Council must envisage the entry of developing countries as
permanent members. This would make that body more democratic, legitimate and
representative. The great majority of member-states agrees with this view and recognizes
the urgency of this matter.

We cannot deal with new problems using outdated structures. Sooner or
later, Madam President, we must open the way to democratizing international
decision-making bodies. As the Secretary-General has said, we travel around the world
preaching democracy to others. We must now apply democracy to ourselves and show that
there is effective representation in the political bodies of the United Nations.

South America is a priority for Brazilian foreign policy. Our region is
our home. We are expanding the Mercosur and strengthening the South American Community of
Nations. The future of Brazil is linked to that of its neighbors. A strong and united
South America will contribute to the integration of Latin America and the Caribbean.

We also feel connected to the African continent by historical and
cultural ties. As the second largest black population in the world, we are committed to
sharing Africa’s challenges and destinies. But regional matters are only part of the
global problems we face.

The fight against hunger and poverty, the breakdown of the Doha Round
and the stalemate in the Middle East are interconnected issues. The appropriate handling
of these affairs requires trust in negotiated solutions at the multilateral level. At this
very moment, this trust has been shaken. This is extremely serious. The world order that
it is our task to build must be based on criteria of justice and respect for international
law. This is the only way to achieve peace, development and genuine democratic coexistence
within the community of nations.

There is no lack of resources. What is missing is the political will to
use them where they can make all the difference. Where they can then turn despair into joy
and reason to live. Thank you."

Global Partnership for Development

The common commitment for a global partnership for development cannot
be transformed into reality when the rich and powerful insist on an unequal relationship
with the poor. That was the view expressed by the current Chairman of the G-77 and China –
the
President of South Africa Thabo Mbeki – at the UN General Assembly in New York
on 19 September, 2006. "A global partnership for development is impossible when the
rich demand the right, unilaterally, to set the agenda and conditions for the
implementation of commonly agreed programmes." President Mbeki was critical of the
fact that despite many Declarations adopted in the past, "nothing practical is done
to assuage the hunger pains" that keeps billions of people awake at night. Presented
below are extracts from his statement.

"Once again, we have convened at this seat of the Organisation of
the Peoples of the World, representing the entire humanity and coming from all corners of
the world. Our pilgrimage this year is tinged with sadness because we also pay homage to
one of the most outstanding servants of the United Nations, a native son of Africa, Kofi
Annan, whose term of office will soon come to an end.

The G77 and China as well as my own country, South Africa, sincerely
thank the Secretary-General for the selfless and dedicated work he carried out during one
of the most challenging periods of this Organisation.

In the midst of increasing poverty and underdevelopment during an era
of unprecedented wealth accumulation and technological advances and, as the river that
divides the rich and the poor zones of the metaphorical global village ever widens, the
Secretary-General of the United Nations never lost focus on the imperatives of our time.

We thank him for never losing sight of the fact that poverty and
underdevelopment remain the biggest threats to the progress that has been achieved, and
that equality among the nations, big and small, is central to the survival, relevance and
credibility of this global organisation.

Your Excellencies, we are only six years into the 21st Century. Those
who populate the poorest part of the regions of the world – Africa – have boldly
declared that it will be an African Century. It is a century in which billions of the
citizens of the developing world and other poor and marginalised people, would want to
transform into a Century for all Humanity.

If the wishes of the majority of the world could turn into reality,
this would be a century free of wars, free of internecine conflicts, free of hunger, free
of preventable disease, free of want, free of environmental degradation and free of greed
and corruption. Indeed, we began the century with great hopes for a better, peaceful and
humane world.

Together, we crafted comprehensive plans and bold declarations to
defeat the scourge of poverty and underdevelopment.

Together, we committed ourselves, with what seemed like renewed vigour,
to transform the UN to reflect the modern reality that is defined by free, sovereign and
equal nations. However, six years into the 21st century dispassionate observers would dare
us to achieve our noble and lofty objectives, pointing to the terrorists’ acts that
welcomed us into the new century. They would emphasise the unilateralism that threatens to
negate the democratic advances of the last decades of the 20th century, and draw attention
to renewed conflicts and wars that seem to compete with the destructive fury of the
conflicts of the last century.

They would remind us that for a decade and more, some of the developed
nations have consistently refused to implement the outcomes and agreements of this world
body that would help to alleviate the wretchedness of the poor. Thus, Madam President,
when you correctly urge us to implement a global partnership for development, we, the
members of G-77 and China, who represent the poor people of the world, understand you to
be communicating a message that we should make real the common commitments we solemnly
made at this supreme organisation of the nations of the world.

Yet, this common commitment for a global partnership for development
cannot be transformed into reality when the rich and powerful insist on an unequal
relationship with the poor.

A global partnership for development is impossible in the absence of a
pact of mutual responsibility between the giver and the recipient. It is impossible when
the rich demand the right, unilaterally, to set the agenda and conditions for the
implementation of commonly agreed programmes.

We who represent the poor, know as a matter of fact that these billions
of poor people are increasingly becoming impatient because every year they hear us adopt
declaration after declaration, and yet nothing practical is done to assuage the hunger
pains that keeps them awake at night. Only few and selected agreements are implemented,
with outcomes that are clearly insufficient to alleviate the excruciating pain of their
children who cannot cry anymore because to do so is to invite more pain.

Those of us who were at the 14th Summit of the NAM in Havana heard this
message very clearly, emanating from all the countries and organisations that spoke. Those
who are capable of listening should take note of what that great son of India and South
Africa, Mahatma Gandhi, said on this matter: "The test of friendship is assistance in
adversity, and that too, unconditional assistance. Co-operation which needs consideration
is a commercial contract and not friendship. Conditional co-operation is like adulterated
cement which does not bind."

Precisely because of the absence of a global partnership for
development, the Doha Development Round has almost collapsed. Indeed, because the rich
invoked, without shouting it, the slogan of an over-confident European political party of
the 1960’s, and directed this uncaring declaration to the poor of today –
"l’m alright Jack!" – we have not implemented the
Monterrey Consensus on Financing for Development,
thus making it difficult for the
majority of the developing countries, especially those in Africa, to achieve the
Millennium Development Goals, and have reduced the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation to
an insignificant and perhaps forgotten piece of paper.

Part of the problem with this unequal relationship is the imposition of
conditions on developing countries and the constant shifting of the poles whenever the
poor adhere to each and every one of those conditions. Among other things, we have
recently seen an outbreak of great social instability across Europe and other reactions of
the poor to their miserable conditions in different parts of the world, always putting
into question the image of seemingly harmonious well-woven tapestries of diverse groups
because, in good measure, we continue to fail to implement our own decisions of the United
Nations World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related
Intolerance.

Your Excellencies, those who coined the slogan: "I’m alright
Jack!" were communicating, whether consciously or not, a message and an attitude that
said – ‘I don’t care about my neighbour as long as I and my family eat well
and sleep peacefully’ and that ‘it is not my responsibility to ensure that my
poor neighbour also eats well and sleeps peacefully’.

Today the attitude among some of the rich also communicates the same
message to the rest of the world that: ‘I’m alright Jack!’, even when they
are acutely aware that many in their neighbourhood die of hunger, of preventable diseases
and abject poverty.

This happens also in a situation of the cruel irony where resources
flow from those who have little to those who have plenty. Although the rich and the
powerful know the miserable life circumstances of the poor and have solemnly committed
themselves to the collective effort to reverse these conditions, their attitude and
response resembles that of the Biblical Cain who, after killing his brother, Abel, and the
Lord asked him "where is Abel your brother?", he replied that: "1
don’t know. Am I my brother’s keeper?"

Perhaps, all of us, especially the rich, should heed the words of one
of the great sons of the United States of America who perished because of his belief in
equality and justice for all human beings, and whose civil rights movement is currently
marking its golden jubilee.

Martin Luther King warned that: "As long as there is poverty in
the world I can never be rich, even if I have a billion dollars. As long as diseases are
rampant and millions of people in this world cannot expect to live more than twenty-eight
or thirty years, I can never be totally healthy even if I just got a good check-up at Mayo
Clinic. I can never be what I ought to be until you are what you ought to be. This is the
way our world is made.

No individual or nation can stand out boasting of being independent. We
are interdependent. The majority of the human race is entitled to ask the question whether
the rich are responding the way they do because the further impoverishment of the poor is
to the advantage of the rich, giving meaning to the old observation that the rich get
richer as the poor get poorer.

As the divide between the rich and the poor widens and becomes a
serious global crisis we see an increase in the concentration of economic, military,
technological and media power.

Your Excellencies, something is seriously wrong when people risk life
and limb travelling in suffocating containers to Western Europe in search of a better
life. Something is wrong when many Africans traverse, on foot, the harsh, hot and hostile
Sahara Desert to reach the European shores. Something is wrong when walls are built to
prevent poor neighbours from entering those countries where they seek better
opportunities. Something is indeed wrong when all these people, whose fault is merely the
fact that their lives are defined by poverty, try desperately to reach countries where
they believe the conditions of their existence would improve, only to meet hostile, and at
times, most barbaric and inhuman receptions.

In part, the United Nations is unable to fulfil some of the objectives
set by the founders in San Francisco because, in truth, it does not reflect the expansion
of the global family of free nations. Because this organisation of the peoples of the
world has grown to encompass the entire world, many had thought that it would be logical
that this custodian of global democracy would itself serve as a beacon in our continuing
quest for democracy in all our countries. Clearly, for the UN to continue occupying its
moral high ground, it has to reform itself urgently, and lead by practical example as to
what is meant to be democratic.

Even as we face the cold reality of the indifference of the many among
the rich and powerful, this Organisation of the peoples of the world has continued to
offer hope and the possibility of the fulfilment of the aspirations of the majority of the
peoples of the world.

All of us, including those who are hesitant to implement the commonly
agreed positions, agree that this Organisation has entrenched the correct understanding
that development is both a right and is central to the advancement of all humanity. In
this regard, all of us, individually and collectively and as members of the UN, must do
whatever is necessary to develop and implement policies and strategies aimed at the
achievement of sustainable development.

It is important that international organisations such as the Bretton
Woods institutions, the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and others should, without any
equivocation, seriously embark on the implementation of all the commitments that we have
made as the international community.

This Organisation of the peoples of the world cannot merely note the
unacceptable situation that Africa would not achieve the Millennium Development Goals by
2015. We need further, focused and concrete programmes to accelerate development in Africa
and avoid the possibility of that continent sinking further into the morass of poverty and
underdevelopment.

Because we are our brothers’ and sisters’ keepers, we have
the responsibility to end the rhetoric and implement programmes that would ensure that all
human beings live decent, humane and prosperous lives. On behalf of G77 and China as well
as my own country, South Africa, I take this opportunity to thank His Excellency, Jan
Eliasson, for the great work he did in steering this organisation during the past year, as
President of the General Assembly.

We are honoured to welcome Her Excellency, Sheikhs Haya Rashed Al
Khalifa as the President of the 61st Session of the General Assembly and wish her well in
her important work. Madame President, we pledge to do whatever is necessary to make your
work easier, so that through your efforts, the poor can regain full confidence in the
ability of the UN to improve their conditions of life.

Everyday the masses cry out in pain, frustration and anger. Everyday
they ask: is there anybody there who stops to hear their voices! Is there anybody there
who listens to and is ready to respond to their heartfelt plea for the restoration of
their dignity?"

A Tribute to Mahatma Gandhi’s Satyagraha Campaign

It was indeed a unique celebration in Durban. On 1 October 2006, South
Africa and India marked the centenary of Satyagraha – the great non-violent philosophy and
practice of struggle for human emancipation shown to the world by Mahatma Gandhi. In the
presence of India’s Prime Minister, Dr. Manmohan Singh, the
President of South
Africa, Thabo Mbeki recalled the historic role played by Mahatma Gandhi in the
liberation struggles across continents. The following is the address by President Thabo
Mbeki.

"I am truly honoured and delighted to have this opportunity to
address you in the presence of the Prime Minister of India, His Excellency Dr Manmohan
Singh, as we observe and celebrate the 100th anniversary of the beginning of a defining
epoch in our history, the Satyagraha campaign, initiated right here in South Africa a
century ago.

On behalf of the government and people of South Africa, we extend our
warmest welcome to the Prime Minister and the rest of the visiting Indian delegation, and
thank you most sincerely for gracing our shores to share in our salute to one of
India’s and South Africa’s great creations, the Satyagraha, and pay undying
tribute to a truly great human being.

Our emancipation is only 12 years old. It is not so long ago that the
celebration we hold today would not have been possible. It is not so long ago that it
would have been impossible for a Prime Minister of the great country of India to set foot
on our shores. Not so long ago, the majority of us present here were prohibited by law and
the force of arms to determine the future of our country.

It is in this context that, today, together with the masses of our
people, I am proud to say that, among others, Mahatma Gandhi, the great native son of
India and, at the same time a beloved son of South Africa as well, provided the
unparalleled leadership and example that inspired the triumphant march to freedom and
democracy both in India in 1947 and in South Africa in 1994.

Again, it was no accident that it was India, at the United Nations in
1946 that first put on the global agenda the issue of the imperative to mobilise the
international community to join us in our struggle for our liberation from racism and
white minority domination.

In this regard, I would like to acknowledge the presence among us as a
member of Prime Minister Singh’s delegation, and welcome Anand Singh whom, like E.S.
Reddy, many of us have known and worked with for many decades as a frontline fighter
against apartheid, for the liberation of all our people.

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi needs no introduction to anybody here and
elsewhere in the world, for he is an international icon, martyr and the champion of
freedom, peace and non-violence. He, more than anyone else, personifies the spirit, the
essence and the meaning of Satyagraha.

Accordingly, as we celebrate the centenary of the birth of this great
philosophy and practice of struggle for human emancipation, we also celebrate the
contribution to our liberation by all our historic leaders, such as Mahatma Gandhi.

Having arrived in South Africa in 1893, Mahatma Gandhi’s life,
like those of many other leaders who came from India, was to be transformed by a multitude
of events’ racist laws, racist treatment of both Indians and Africans as well as
enduring personal subjugation and humiliation.

However, two events stand out as some of the most defining moments in
shaping the political direction of Mahatma Ghandi and the launching of Satyagraha.

The first happened during the Soe Anglo-Boer War. During this War,
Gandhi and other leaders of the South African Indian communities thought it was opportune
to prove their loyalty to the British Empire so as secure equal rights for their people.
Thus, they encouraged participation of their people in the war on the side of the British
troops.

But the blatant racist attitude of the British as well as their policy
of allowing whites to subjugate the Indian-South Africans politically and economically,
before and after the War, made Gandhi and his comrades to begin formulating strategies of
mobilising the people for freedom.

The second event was during the Bambatha Uprising in 1906, whose
Centenary we have and are commemorating this year.

Gandhi led an ambulance corps to help the wounded among the Zulu
people. He later wrote in his autobiography that:

"The Zulu ‘rebellion’ was full of new experiences and
gave me much food for thought. The Boer War had not brought home to me the horrors of war
with anything like the vividness that the ‘rebellion’ did.

This was no war but a man-hunt… To hear every morning reports of the
soldiers’ rifles exploding like crackers in innocent Hamlets, and to live in the
midst of them was a trial. But I swallowed the bitter draught, especially as the work of
my Corps consisted only in nursing the wounded Zulus. I could see that but for us the
Zulus would have been uncared for. This work, therefore, eased my conscience."

Enraged by such experiences, Gandhi decided to dedicate more of his
life to the struggle for the liberation of all our people.

A protest meeting of the Indian-South African people was convened in
Johannesburg in September 1906 as a response to the promulgation of the Asiatic Bill and
the Transvaal Asiatic Registration Act, which made registration of all Indians compulsory
and identified them as a separate racial group, adding to existing oppressive measures
such as the £3 tax on the indentured labourers.

The non-violent defiance campaign decided at this meeting gave birth to
Satyagraha, as a result of which those who defied the law by striking, burning passes or
simply refusing to register were flogged, jailed and even shot at. Thousands across the
country put their very lives on line by participating in this non-violent civil
disobedience campaign.

In an article in the Indian Opinion in 1907, Mahatma Gandhi wrote that
non-violent acts of civil disobedience were acceptable against any immoral law that was
repugnant or harmful to the people.

As E.S. Reddy has observed in his article, "The First Martyrs of
Satyagraha":

"Gandhiji often stressed that satyagraha is not mere jail-going.
He warned, during the first satyagraha in South Africa, as early as 1909:

"A satyagraha must be afraid neither of imprisonment nor of
deportation. He must neither mind being reduced to poverty, nor be frightened, if it comes
to that, of being mashed into pulp with a mortar and pestle."

Reddy says it was clear to the satyagrahi that "though satyagraha
is a totally non-violent and civilised form of resistance, the oppressors would try to
break it by resort to an escalation of brutality, together with "dirty tricks"
to confuse and divide the ranks of the resisters."

(www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/history/people/gandhi/3.html)

When two infants died in Natal during the Great March of Indian-South
African workers in 1913, they symbolised the supreme sacrifice of non-violent protest in
the name of noble ideals, struggle and sacrifice for freedom.

Further, Gandhiji was profoundly affected by these and other deaths and
wrote tributes to four martyrs: Sammy Nagappan, a teenager who died of pneumonia after
being forced to break stones in bitter cold; A. Narayanswami, who was not allowed to land
for two months when he returned from illegal deportation to India, though shivering on the
open deck without adequate clothes; Valliamma Moonsamy, the 16 year-old girl who refused
to seek parole despite her serious illness from incarceration in Pietermartience; and the
indomitable Harbat Singh, an illiterate 70 year-old worker who steadfastedly joined other
martyrs in prison.

(extracted from "Reddy, E.S., "The First Martyrs of
Satyagraha", ibid) From Port Elizabeth to Johannesburg; from the plantations of
Tongaat and Verulam to the mines of Newcastle and the farms of Umzinto, countless Indian
heroines and heroes became martyrs. While some were professionals and homemakers, the
majority were indentured labourers, workers and peasants whom Gandhi described as the
"salt of the earth."

In the Preface to his book "Satyagraha in South Africa"
published in 1928, Mahatma Gandhi wrote about what he called "the beauty of
Satyagraha," and said:

"It comes up to oneself; one has not to go out in search for it.
This is a virtue inherent in the principle itself. A dharma-yudda, in which there are no
secrets to be guarded, no scope for cunning and no place for untruth, comes unsought; and
a man of religion is ever ready for it… God helps when one feels oneself humbler than
the very dust under one’s feet. Only to the weak and helpless is divine succour
vouchsafed… The reader will note South African parallels for all our experiences (in
India) in the present struggle to date. He will also see from this history that there is
so far no ground whatever for despair in the fight that is going on. The only condition
for victory is a tenacious adherence to our programme."

He concluded the book with these words: "I will consider myself
amply repaid if I have in these pages demonstrated with some success that Satyagraha is a
priceless and matchless weapon, and that those who wield it are strangers to
disappointment or defeat."

Over the years, the work of this great human being as expressed through
Satyagraha, with its unshakable advocacy of respect for honesty, the truth, loyalty to
principle, and perseverance in the struggle for justice, was to influence generations of
brave men and women as they also fought for their freedom.

Indeed, the voice that symbolised the American Civil Rights Movement,
which celebrates its golden Jubilee this year, echoed the teachings of Mahatma Gandhi that
inspired Martin Luther King Jr, as well as many others across the world, to follow in the
humble footsteps of that extraordinary lawyer and human being.

For the timeless lessons of Gandhi are so evident in the words of
Martin Luther King Jr when he said:

"If humanity is to progress, Gandhi is inescapable. He lived,
thought, and acted, inspired by the vision of humanity evolving toward a world of peace
and harmony. We may ignore him at our own risk."

(The Words of Martin Luther King, ibid, p.57)

And surely today, as we confront the spectre of violent national
conflicts, war and international terrorism, we can only ignore Mahatma Gandhi’s
vision and messaged at our own risk. For the human solidarity, human dignity, self-respect
and equality among the peoples, for which Gandhiji fought and died, are the core values
that we need to pass on to the generations that follow us so that they may live lives of
peace, harmony and prosperity.

And those generations will salute us too if we tackle the challenges of
the 21st century with the same vision for social justice, peace and harmony.

A century after Satyagraha began in the old colonial Transvaal, we will
tomorrow, on Mahatma Gandhi’s 135th birthday, have the privilege to meet Prime
Minister Manmohan Singh and his delegation to discuss the further measures we must take to
raise to higher levels our concerted effort to strengthen our bonds of friendship with
India, which is, to us, not only a genuine strategic partner, but also a second home (for)
all our people.

In this regard, let us reflect on the prescient words of Mahatma Gandhi
when he addressed a Satyagraha meeting in Johannesburg in 1908:

"If we look into the future [of South Africa], is it not a
heritage we have to leave to posterity, that all the different races (Reddy, E.S. and
Gandhi, G., Gandhi and South Africa 1914-1948)…"

These words still ring true in the 21st century, during this time that
we, South Africans have defined as the Age of Hope.

The challenge for us is how to produce a heritage where all different
races, creeds, faiths and religions commingle and produce a civilisation that indeed the
world has not yet seen.

In 2001, the world family of nations gathered here in Durban at the
United Nations Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia, and Related
Intolerances.

Yet, instead of being sisters and brothers and friendly neighbours in
this journey of life, we see the rainbow tapestry of the human family being unravelled
because of racial hatred, religious intolerance, ethnicity, xenophobia, sexism and
terrorism.

At the same time, because of the refusal of especially the most
privileged in the world to open their ears, hearts and minds to the unconquerable voice of
the Mahatma, billions of people continue to live in abject poverty and underdevelopment
despite the fact that human society disposes of enough intellectual and material resources
to address these challenges.

Today, as we reflect on the past struggles, may we also look ahead
tomorrow to see how the strategic partnership between India and South Africa can be imbued
with the Gandhian philosophy so that we may create a sustainable human family where satya,
truth, will prevail, underpinned by the universal values of human solidarity, human
dignity and self-respect, which must inspire the building of modern human society.

The peoples of India and South Africa have been engaged in united
action for freedom, equality and human dignity for well over a century. We are immensely
proud that we share with our sister country, India, a common hero, leader and noble giant,
Mahatma Gandhi.

As we continue to act together, among other things to contribute to the
emergence of a just global order, confronting the disequilibria and imbalance of power
exacerbated by the process of globalisation, we must remain as Mahatma Gandhi said,
"strangers to disappointment or defeat."

May Mahatma Gandhi’s Phoenix Settlement of 1904 be a symbol to
inspire a prosperous renaissance in our countries and across the developing world, so that
the African phoenix and the Indian phoenix rise from the ashes of colonialism and
apartheid and reach for a destination defined by democracy, peace, true friendship,
prosperity and a better life for all our peoples.

Once more, a warm welcome to our dear friend and brother, Manmohan
Singh, as well as his esteemed delegation!

Long live Satyagraha! Long live the spirit of Mahatma Gandhi! Long live
the indestructible friendship between the peoples of India and South Africa!"

Development A Shared Responsibility – Kamal Nath

Talk of a Development Round remains largely rhetorical, India’s
Minister of Commerce and Industry, Mr. Kamal Nath told the UNCTAD’s Special
Session of Trade & Development Board on 4 October, 2006. Delivering the keynote
address at the High-Level Policy Dialogue on "UNCTAD, Development & The Way
Forward", he said, "Issues of serious concern to developing countries like
cotton, ushering in fair and undistorted agricultural world trade, Duty Free Quota Free
Treatment for LDC’s, Implementation Issues, etc. remain unresolved." The basic
premise of a Development Round is primacy for the development needs of developing
countries, and not market access for developed countries, the Minister noted. Following
are extracts from his statement.

"The recent decades have witnessed a sharp
acceleration in the growth of the global economy. Underpinned by worldwide productivity
growth, the processes of globalisation and liberalisation are inexorably leading the world
towards greater economic openness, inter-dependence and integration. These trends have
manifested themselves through higher levels of international trade, cross border capital
flows and increasing integration of financial markets.

The entry of billions of workers into the world
economy has also had an important effect on global growth and poverty reduction in
developing countries, even though the impediments to mobility of professional service
suppliers across borders have not been seriously addressed. Nevertheless, wealth has been
created across the world.

A remarkable feature of the current economic expansion has been the
participation and performance of developing countries. Many developing countries have
consistently outperformed the developed countries in output growth. Within the developing
world also, the growth has been fairly broad-based, with Africa growing at around 5% in
the last three years. UNCTAD’s Trade and Policy Report 2006 finds that Sub-Saharan
Africa is expected to grow at 6.6% in 2006, the highest growth rate of a sub-region after
East Asia. Significantly, the improved output growth of developing countries in recent
years is matched by their performance in international trade. This does not, however, mean
that our job is done, and developing countries, large and small, are firmly on a path of
sustained growth and development fuelled by trade.

UNCTAD has been playing a vital role to address the development
dimension of the international trading system given its mandate as the focal point within
the United Nations for the integrated treatment of trade and development and the
inter-related issues in the areas of finance, technology, investment and sustainable
development as defined in the Sao Paulo Consensus. I recall my meeting with Dr. Supachai
Panitchpakdi, Secretary General, UNCTAD, during his visit to New Delhi in November 2005.
At the outset, I would like to reiterate India’s willingness to work to strengthen
UNCTAD. The High Level Policy Dialogue presents a useful and timely opportunity to share
my views.

The timing of the present discourse is
significant. We are on the cusp of the multilateral trading systems’ development
oriented evolution and reform, and against the background of some paradigm shifts taking
place in international trade and development. It is also an occasion for the international
community to affirm, that despite our involvement in over 300 RTAs, PTAs, regional and
inter-regional, North-North, North-South and South-South, we attach importance to the WTO
as a central pillar governing the regulation of trade relations globally. Equally, and in
the context of the UN reform efforts, we support the focal point role of UNCTAD in the UN
system for the integrated treatment of trade and development through its independent
research and beyond conventional wisdom analysis, beneficiary- driven technical
cooperation and knowledge based consensus building functions.

In recent years we have witnessed certain
paradigm shifts in international trade and development. There has been an intensification
of the "new geography of international trade" wherein countries of the South are
moving from the periphery towards the centre. My own country is contributing to this
dynamism with a services success story to tell, and ambitions of becoming a global
manufacturing hub and one of the world’s most attractive investment destinations.
South-South trade liberalisation and economic integration has gathered pace in an
unprecedented way both regionally and inter-regionally. Demography trends are creating a
growing "Human Resource and Youth Reservoir" in developing countries (like
India) along with a preponderance of aging populations in developed countries. Comparative
advantages in trade are increasingly weighted in favour of knowledge intensive and
innovation driven products and services.

Since the time that UNCTAD was founded, the world has evolved. Much,
however, still needs to be done to create an international enabling environment conducive
to the accelerated and sustained growth of developing countries consistent with their
special circumstances and their national priorities. UNCTAD can, and should, continue to
play its important role in this relentless pursuit of development. It should continue to
examine the interface between the international trading system and national development
strategies with a view to assuring that the processes of globalization and liberalization
bring benefits to all.

Development is a shared responsibility, a collective endeavour. The
search for solutions to the challenges of development cannot but be a shared objective
among all countries to ensure enhanced welfare for all. The geo-political and economic
relations, as they have thus far evolved, have had a positive impact on the development
and poverty reduction of many developing countries. They have contributed a note of
optimism regarding the achievement of the United Nations Millennium Development Goals.
However, the statistics hide a number of worrying features which the world can only ignore
at its peril. Some of the danger signals are already evident – continuing
protectionism in developed countries, and turbulence in energy markets are only a few
examples of such dangers.

One of the most important factors contributing to global imbalances is
the inability of many developing countries to take advantage of the economic expansion.
The structural factors which contribute to such market failures have to be urgently
addressed if the current phase of growth is to be sustained. In a globalised world where
economic decisions are increasingly taken by markets, market failure leading to exclusion
of countries and regions remains a major challenge. To address it, apart from
strengthening a rule based and fair multilateral trading system which is in the shared
interest of all, each country must also have policy space and ability to choose what is
most appropriate for its circumstances and its people.

In order to address the prevalent imbalances and asymmetries in the
global economic system, it is also necessary to re-visit the institutional architecture
involved in the governance of globalisation. This architecture includes the UN System, the
Bretton Woods Institutions and the WTO. The structure and objectives of these institutions
have to reflect the deep-seated changes that have taken place since they were established.
Setting aside my views on the systemic changes required in the UN and the Bretton Woods
Institutions for a relevant forum, let me confine myself today to international trade and
development.

The suspension of the Doha Round Negotiations in July has brought into
focus not only the substantive issues which are the subject of discord, but also the
institutionalised asymmetries which continue to pervade the WTO after its emergence from
the GATT. While its professed objective is greater openness in all aspects of trade, in
practice this objective is observed in a highly selective manner that reflects the
predilections and concerns of developed countries. Let me give just a few examples of this
selective openness:

  • National borders should matter less and less for merchandise trade and capital flows.
    But we are told – don’t talk about technology flows and labour flows.
  • Subsidies are bad for industrial sectors, but on agricultural subsidies, the only thing
    we hear is that we’ll get back to you.
  • Tariffs should be transparent and ad valorem in the industrial sector. In
    agriculture, now, that’s something else!
  • The private interests of IPR holders are sacred; issues of public interest regarding
    intellectual property are of a second order.

I could go on about this. But the basic point is that unless we deliver
on the agreed development dimension under the Doha Round, the underpinnings of the WTO
will continue to address mainly the mercantilist interests of the developed countries.

It is important for the WTO to resolve the issue of inequitable
integration through both political and institutional measures. At the political level, we
must recognise the current asymmetries, and agree to do away with them in the present
Round of negotiations. This would involve in agriculture, for instance, a clear
understanding, both on the removal of distortions caused by developed countries’
measures as well as an understanding on S&D measures required by developing countries
to manage their concerns regarding subsistence, small and low-income farmers, food
security and livelihoods in their agricultural sectors. Similarly, in manufactures, the
concerns of small-scale and labour intensive production as well as of infant industries
must be addressed through effective flexibilities. In services, developing countries have
acquired skills in the delivery of a number of services, for example through cross border
trade (Mode 1) and movement of natural persons (Mode 4) that are critical to their trading
partners. For globalization to entail win-win scenarios, the comparative advantage of
developing countries should not be stifled by protectionism in their developed partners.

As far as institutional measures are concerned, there is a need for
greater emphasis on capacity building and technical assistance to enable smaller
developing countries to participate meaningfully in the negotiations. Supply side
constraints in such countries have to be tackled through an effective Aid for Trade
Programme that ensures additionality of resources, predictability and need-based
programmes that improve the capacity of the recipient countries to take advantage of
increased opportunities. In order for Aid for Trade to be effective, it needs to be
channelled multilaterally and integrated into country development strategies. In terms of
decision making, this implies greater emphasis on transparency and openness.
Considerations of efficiency alone cannot be allowed to prevail over the need for
inclusive decision making procedures to ensure equity and sustainability of the decisions.

As someone who has been deeply involved with the current Round of
negotiations in the WTO, I cannot assert with any degree of confidence that these changes
are being made in the WTO. Judging from the progress so far, talk of a Development Round
remains largely rhetorical. Issues of serious concern to developing countries like cotton,
ushering in fair and undistorted agricultural world trade, Duty Free Quota Free Treatment
for LDC’s, Implementation Issues, etc. remain unresolved. The fundamental principle
of S&D treatment for developing countries to address their concerns of policy space in
the major areas of negotiations remains deadlocked. There is as yet, no recognition by
some developed countries that the basic premise of a Development Round is primacy for the
development needs of developing countries, and not market access for developed countries.
Under these circumstances, much needs to be done to maintain the confidence and optimism
of the developing countries in this Development Round.

Trade exchanges among the developing countries constitute a promising
area of current and future trade growth. According to the Trade and Development Report,
2005, the share of South-South exports in total developing country exports increased from
27% in 1985 to 43% in 2003 i.e. from US$ 97 b to US$ 921 b. Exploring the full potential
of South-South trade remains a desirable objective. GSTP is an important vehicle for
promoting South-South cooperation. We are actively participating in the ongoing third
round of negotiations of the GSTP that was launched at Sao Paulo in 2004, and would like
to see its early successful conclusion.

Moreover, India is forging links through regional
trade, free trade and comprehensive economic cooperation agreements. We have recently
concluded a successful Summit of the IBSA (India-Brazil-South Africa) trilateral
partnership. We have been sharing our experience in information technology, biotechnology,
pharmaceuticals, medical sciences, and remote sensing with our friends from the developing
world, including the developing countries of Africa and Asia. Indian entrepreneurs are
taking a serious look at trade cooperation and closer investment in our larger
neighbourhood. We believe that these South-South initiatives serve to complement the
multilateral trading system. This does not diminish our firm belief in the benefits that
can potentially accrue from a fair and strengthened multilateral trading system.

UNCTAD’s mandate must remain the enhancement of development
opportunities for developing countries. It must continue to make a real contribution to
assist developing countries confront today’s complex trade and development
challenges.

As a knowledge-based body, UNCTAD needs to remain ahead of the curve in
generation of ideas and in addressing issues related to integrated treatment of trade and
development. It has the wherewithal to serve as a brains trust for development-friendly
and innovative analyses and policy options.

UNCTAD should continue to examine, from the development perspective, the inherent
asymmetries and inequalities in the international market place and its structural
limitations.

UNCTAD can play a role in supply-side productive and trade capacity building, in
working on issues related to trade diversification, strengthening of technological
capacity, and addressing the development dimension of intellectual property rights.

Development, we reiterate, is a shared responsibility, a collective
endeavour. Shared responsibility should beget a shared programme for development and a
collective response. To this end, there is a need for an effective, results-oriented
partnership between the developing and the developed countries. Let us not confront each
other; let us together confront the problems, the challenges of development that we face
today; and, it is in this context, that UNCTAD must act as an effective bridge between
developed and developing countries on the entire range of issues relating to
globalization, trade and development."

‘A Sincere Engagement Can Unblock the Doha Round’

It has been just over six months that the Ambassador and Permanent
Representative of Uganda to the United Nations in Geneva and the World Trade
Organization,
Dr. Arsene M. Balihuta has assumed his functions. In an interview to
the South Bulletin, Dr. Balihuta responds to questions on the Doha Round, its suspension
and likely resumption, and the interests of the Least Developed Countries like Uganda. In
his opinion, there is a possible solution to the biggest stumbling block – reduction
subsidies and greater market access for agriculture.

Someshwar Singh

SB: What was the role of countries like Uganda in this suspension?

Amb. Balihuta: Minimal. Because really, first of all, both in
agriculture and NAMA – we are not even supposed to make commitments. The first thing
I did after coming here is look at the issues – first in agriculture and in the light
of the objectives of the Round. I started from the Doha Declaration, Cancun was out so I
went to the July Framework and then to the Hong Kong. I looked at the issues, the progress
and its implications for Uganda. In other words, what was intended – the mandate-
what was achieved as far as the negotiations were concerned. You see Uganda does not have
to do anything, we do not feature. In agriculture, we do not have to reduce any subsidy,
nor open our markets. All we have to do is join with other LDCs to persuade the developed
countries to reduce their agricultural subsidies. Our role is really hortatory – it
is moral suasion. But we do not have to make any commitments. In NAMA, we were asked to
increase the level of binding if we thought we could and if it was necessary and in
accordance with our development needs.

So we were not, in any way, a source, a cause or party to the
suspension. Because we did not have any vital role to play in the most contentious issues
that led to the suspension. Our interests were essentially peripheral.

SB: At the time of the suspension, how far had the negotiations gone in
catering to the needs of the LDCs?

Amb. Balihuta: The needs of the LDCs, as far as this Round is
concerned, are that we continue getting special treatment. Generally, the interests of
LDCs in this Round are in the fact that the Round is focused on development of our
countries. In the sense, in order to participate fully in the multilateral trading system
and reap the maximum benefits, you need to be a developed country. Because the WTO is a
trading institution. It is the World Trade Organization, focusing on the trading aspect of
the affairs of countries. So it assumes you can trade. It focuses on the market. It
assumes you can trade when you come to the WTO – where you can sell something and buy
something. That means you must also produce something to trade. What are really traded on
the world market are automobiles, clothing, electronics, grains, primary commodities and
food, plus services. Which countries have the capacity and the ability to produce all
those and efficiently? It is the developed countries. The world trading system is like the
Olympics ground – where you are equal partners and you are supposed to run to the
finishing line. It will be the developed countries which will reach the finishing line
first. They are the ones that benefit maximum from the multilateral trading system. It is
Japan, the US the EU, and Canada that benefit twice – once as producers they get the
profit, even by transferring their production lines to other countries to benefit from
cheap labour – and then by trading.

This is where the development concept comes in. Instead of letting them
run in the stadium with the mature old people, they wanted special treatment so that they
can learn how to run, gather energy, catch up and then run. That is the development
concept of this Round. That is what I understand. That is what we expected to benefit from
this Round – that we are given special treatment, special leeway – given our development
situation, in different degrees and doses because LDCs would need more time and more help
than developing counties like China, India, and Brazil. If you put all together, who will
win? You have to give more of a head start to the least developed countries, then the
developing and last the industrialized countries – so that those left behind can catch up.
That is what I understand by giving the benefit of development and development aspects.

SB: How far had this Round gone in terms of realizing that development
aspect?

Amb. Balihuta: It has not. In fact, it is very contentious. We were in
a briefing session of the African Group this morning regarding the outcome of the recent
G-20 meeting in Rio. And in this briefing we were made to understand that some members of
the G-6 are proposing to open the mandate – precisely on such issues. They are saying
that in asking to be given special treatment to catch up – that really expands the
mandate too far! In other words, by asking for too much special and differential
treatment, you are leading to the defeat of the original objectives of the Round –
which were meant to be more liberalisation and more market access than ever before.

SB: Is that a G-6 position to reopen the mandate?

Amb. Balihuta: From the briefing mentioned above, it would appear that
some members of the G-6 would like to do that. By focusing more on the market access
within the developing and LDCs’ markets for agricultural and industrial products from
the developed countries, you would be doing the contrary of what a Development Round is
supposed to do. The development objectives, given the multilateral trading system as it
is, which focuses on trade of equal partners – to some people actually look contrary to
the market access objective. Because in order for the developing countries and LDCs to
talk the same language as the developed countries at any given point, the developing
countries and LDCs must be given special and differential treatment. But this special and
differential treatment you are asking for can actually look as if it is hindering more
market access for agricultural and industrial products from the developed countries. For
example, while the industrialized countries want to have ‘sensitive products’ in
agriculture, perhaps for food security reasons, the G-33 developing
countries
would like to see ‘special products’ plus a
safeguard
mechanism. Now for the G-33, the request for special products and safeguard mechanism are
development issues – so that as we are running you do not kick us and we fail to
catch up with you! But the others (industrialised countries) are saying "no, these SP
and SSM are actually hindering more market access for our products." In other words,
by requesting for these development issues, you are actually hindering more opening up of
markets – your developing countries and LDCs’ markets.

SB: So at this stage even as the talks are suspended, there are
attempts to reopen the Doha mandate?

Amb. Balihuta: Yes.

SB: And at the time of the suspension, how far had the negotiations
gone in terms development concerns?

Amb. Balihuta: Not very far. As I said, the LDCs are not at the
centre-stage. For example, it is not the LDCs who are advocating for SP and SSM. It
happened even though we did not ask for it but it is clearly useful for us. It will be
relevant for us some years down the line. But in so far as the LDCs are concerned, the
Round has not gone far. One has to recognize that we are standing out of the pitch. To be
given time to come on to the pitch, to run slowly- that is what is necessary. But people
are not seeing that – they are saying ‘open your market for our industrial and
agricultural goods." The contention is between the industrialised and the developing
countries but it also applies to the LDCs in the long run.

The fundamental objective of delivering the development promises of the
Round has not yet been achieved generally, the LDCs included.

Since we are standing on the periphery, we have got what we call
peripheral issues. These are Aid for Trade, Trade Facilitation, and issues of Cotton. On
those sorts of issues there has been considerable progress. In fact, we feel that even
with blockage elsewhere, at least those issues should be allowed to go ahead. But because
of the Single Undertaking principle, even progress made under those issues could be
reduced to zero. But remember these issues are peripheral and not central to the Round.
They are of interest to the LDCs. They are development issues. But they are peripheral to
the Round.

SB: What Special and Differential Treatment provisions have been made
for the LDCs?

Amb. Balihuta: The Special and Differential Treatment is about letting
young and slow runners adjust at a slow pace. In the case of agriculture, for instance,
for LDCs the S&D has been great from day one of the Doha Declaration – we do not
have to make a commitment either in agriculture or NAMA really. And LDCs have, in
principle been allowed Duty Free and Quota Free Market access to all developed countries
.

SB: But in the mandate, you are exempt from making any commitment.?

Amb. Balihuta: Especially in Agriculture. In NAMA, according to the
July Framework, LDCs need not apply the formula, but as their contribution to the Round,
they "are expected to substantially increase the level of binding commitments".

SB: How are the LDCs involved in resuming the talks?

Amb. Balihuta: The LDCs and other groups which are not members of the
G-6 are involved in terms of lobbying and by moral suasion and diplomatic contacts. Since
they are not the major parties to the positions that led to the suspension, they do not
have the substantive leadership to bring them back to the table. So they can only persuade
and lobby – hoping that the principals to the negotiations come back. But the
decision still has to be made by the main parties to the suspension.

SB: If the mandate were to be reopened, could you please clarify what
you are expecting for the LDCs as a package?

Amb. Balihuta: The consensus from what I gather from the LDCs, the
African Group and the G-33 is that we stick to the mandate. We cannot open it. As someone
said, it would be like opening a can of worms. In any case, if some issues remain after
this Round, they can be clarified in another Round. Indeed, it has been like that. This
Round is there because issues remained under the Uruguay Round. And as the Director
General says, and I agree with him, a lot has been achieved in these draft texts. If we
made an Agreement now, already a lot has been achieved despite these other issues as far
as the objectives of the mandate go. But what is remaining really and the fundamental
problem is in Agriculture. Some people will say the numbers and coefficients. On 24 July,
2006 the Ministers did not even have to talk about NAMA. They got locked up in
Agriculture. So the problem is not in the whole mandate – the crucial problem is
within a known part of the Agriculture mandate. And since the LDCs and many other
countries are not part of it, the bone of contention is really within the G-6.

SB: How is Uganda affected by the suspension?

Amb. Balihuta: We are affected in two principal ways. It creates
uncertainty. We are operating on the Uruguay Round and as an LDC we face problems such as
tariff escalation and we thought this Round will deal with it. Proposals were made on
that. That is a major issue for Uganda. For example, if we export raw coffee to the
industrialized countries, the tariff is almost nothing. If you process the coffee, you
attract more tariffs. And if you sell the nicely packaged ready to drink coffee, the
tariff is very high. This Round was meant to tackle such difficulties. So what we expected
is not forthcoming. It is delayed.

Secondly, when the Round stalls, you will find that the plurilateral
agreements, especially with the industrialized counties, will become more pronounced. For
LDCs like Uganda, the outcomes are worse. For instance, in East Africa and COMESA and
SADC, there is an increased momentum to clinch deals in the EPAs (Economic Partnership
Agreements).Why? Because it is easier for the industrialized countries to clinch such
deals which are more favourable to them.

SB: Are regional agreements and initiatives any substitute to the WTO?

Amb. Balihuta: No. They are complementary. The WTO and the multilateral
trading system, despite what we have discussed before, are good in a sense that it has
principles which are non-discriminatory. So if you are a smart LDC, you manage your
private sector well, and your public sector supports the private sector – then with
some competitive firms you can take advantage of the enlarged markets. That is what the
Tigers did to a great extent – Hong Kong and Malaysia for instance really used the
MTS (multilateral trading system). So the MTS used well by a country has great advantages.

The regional trade initiatives can assist countries to have an enlarged
market. It can act like an incubator for young firms at the local level to expand markets
and give them capacity to go into the more developed markets. In that sense then, they are
not substitutes – they are complementary. They operate in different stages of the
life of firms and countries. So the suspension of this Round should not suggest that we
should now go to regional trade agreements. They are not substitutes.

SB: What scenarios do you see as a way forward?

Amb. Balihuta: My feeling is that the situation is more or less the
same as it was on 24 July 2006. Because the fundamental problem that led to the suspension
is still there. It has not been discussed frankly. It has not been negotiated. It is
known, the fundamental problem is in agriculture – subsidies and market access. The
developed countries are confronting each other on what numbers to take in reducing their
subsidies. At the same time, some advanced developing countries seem to be uncomfortable
in opening their markets for agricultural and industrial goods as some developed countries
would like to see happening. Some developed countries are feeling uneasy by the demands of
some advanced developing countries for the developed countries to open their agricultural
markets. We seem not to have made much more rapprochement beyond 24 July.

There is no magic in deadlines. There has to be real discussion on the
substance under contention. I do not think this has happened. So what really has to happen
is that those two issues must be discussed by the leading protagonists in the G-6. There
has to be a very sober and sincere meeting of minds, without rushing off to the press.

SB: What is really involved here in your opinion?

Amb. Balihuta: It is not reasonable to expect a developed or developing
country to abandon its farmers or peasants – whether it is a few hundred thousand of
farmers or several millions of peasants. In many cases, these are the central people that
define a country. Cities do not define a country even in the developed countries. It is
the people in the countryside who really carry the tradition, the cultures, and principles
from generation to generation. It so happens that they have now entered the capitalist
arena. They can be annihilated by certain economic policies by making them not able to
produce and earn income. So governments are more involved in preserving these
peoples’ livelihoods and now there is a serious nexus between economics, commerce,
politics and culture. So serious decisions have to be made about these intricate issues.
In my view this is the central problem of the Doha Round.

I have a humble proposal. Let developed countries find a way assessing
that level of subsidy that can allow them to keep their farmers operating without
producing a surplus for exporting. Because it is the exported surplus that is destroying
the similar produce of other countries. If we can find an optimal subsidy – and it is
possible – especially in developed countries. I really think it is possible. Avoiding such
negative externalities should form the guiding principles for finding the magic numbers in
the stalled agricultural talks – so that there is optimal subsidy that avoids export
dumping.

SB: Does it matter if the Round takes more time than was envisioned?

Amb. Balihuta: This Round was meant to tackle a difficult issue. If the
Uruguay Round failed to tackle it, and it took 8 years, why would anyone expect this Round
to be shorter? It should have been expected to take longer because it involves these very
intricate, sensitive and difficult issues which cross the border of economics and commerce
to that of politics. So there is no need to be embarrassed by the passage of the given
deadlines.

SB: What do you have to say about the strength of the developing
country coalitions?

Amb. Balihuta: The principles of WTO are very
noble – the MFN, predictability, transparency, as also the procedural principle of
consensus and the democratic principle of equality of members – are very good. Then
there is the Single Undertaking principle – where nothing is agreed until everything
is agreed. That means all the progress made stays on hold till the whole Round is stitched
up. But more importantly, the method and process of negotiations at WTO is Machiavellian.
It is not cooperative. It is not collaboration. It is not mutual understanding and
supporting or gentlemanly sort of thing. It is Machiavellian and mercantilist. Why?
Because country delegations are defending the interests of their countries and they are
facing each other like hawks in the WTO. But what are the interests of these countries?
They are really the interests of their producers, mainly business interests. And most of
the time, the producers in country A claim to represent better the consumers’
interests in the country B and not worry about the effects on producers in country B. Even
Adam Smith was against such beggar-thy-neighbour mercantilist philosophy. This appears to
be the problem of the negotiations method and process in the WTO from my observation as a
newcomer.

Then there is something called ‘constructive ambiguity.’ You
cannot be straight forward. Be vague so that your neighbour does not see exactly inside
you. You must hold your cards to your chest until a deal is about to be struck, and then
you bring them out one by one. That is Machiavellian and competitive.

In that kind of situation, solidarity comes as a last resort. But there
is solidarity among countries of like status and mind within the LDCs group, the African
group, the G-20 and other developing country coalitions. It is based on our need to see
development being given a central place in these trade negotiations.

‘Hard Analysis’ Needed for ‘Good Policy’ Space –
Lamy

The WTO Director-General Pascal Lamy believes it is important to make
the case not just for policy space but for "good policy" space. "We need to
make a convincing case as to why a particular policy is needed, basing ourselves on the
facts," Lamy said while addressing the 53 rd session of the UNCTAD Trade and
Development Board meeting in Geneva on 27 September, 2006. Speaking on Policy Space, a
critical issue for developing nations, and a focus of this year’s UNCTAD Trade and Development Report, Lamy said, "We need hard
analysis that holds up to critical examination. We need specificity." While rejecting
blind adherence to free trade, he also rejects ‘blind adherence to governments doing
pretty much anything and certainly no blind adherence to protectionism.
Presented
below are extracts from Mr. Lamy’s address.

"I propose to focus my intervention this morning primarily on the
issues relating to trade policy that are raised in this year’s UNCTAD Trade and Development Report that is before you,
before moving on to the current state of the WTO negotiations under the Doha Development
Agenda.

Let me start by saying that I share the views expressed in the Report
about the contribution that trade can make to development and to poverty alleviation.
Trade is today a crucial ingredient in a policy mix which must nevertheless contain many
other ingredients to achieve successfully this objective. This means, no blind adherence
to free trade. But this also means no blind adherence to governments doing pretty much
anything and certainly no blind adherence to protectionism. If trade opening is not
sufficient, it remains a necessary ingredient. This is the core of what I have called the
"Geneva Consensus".

Market access for developing countries is therefore an important
ingredient to this policy mix. Progress has been made over the years in improving
conditions of access in developed country markets but it is clear that much remains to be
done in the areas of agriculture and labour-intensive manufactured products. This, of
course, is an important part of the Doha mandate, where a successful completion of the
negotiations will bring real progress in reducing tariffs, addressing tariff peaks and
tariff escalation, and making substantial inroads into trade distorting subsidies in
agriculture. It is gratifying, therefore, to see Kofi Annan’s appeal in the foreword
to the Report for the necessary determination and political courage to bring the Round to
a successful closure.

The Report rightly notes that we continue to face a challenge in
ensuring that non-tariff measures and barriers to trade do not simply negate progress made
on the tariff front. The Report singles out anti-dumping actions affecting the exports of
developing countries. But I would point out that this is not just a North-South issue.
Developing countries have become the most frequent users of anti-dumping in recent years,
not only against developed countries but also – and primarily- against other developing
countries.

Indeed, while developed countries still provide
the lion’s share of market opportunities for developing country exports, this
situation is changing. South-South trade has been more dynamic than North-South trade for
some years now, and it is therefore clear that the trade policies of developing countries
also affect one another’s trade prospects and opportunities.

An important part of this years’ report is devoted to the issues
of policy autonomy or policy space. The basic argument which UNCTAD is making is that
international commitments in the finance or trade fields are preventing developing
countries from realizing their true development potential, in that governments are
prevented from intervening in the economy in ways that are essential to progress.

When using this argument, I believe it is important to make the case
not just for policy space but for "good policy" space. We need to make a
convincing case as to why a particular policy is needed, basing ourselves on the facts.

Take the example of the TRIMs Agreement. I believe it is more than
debatable that the domestic value-added content of exports would increase if performance
requirements were permitted. Are we sure that developing countries that tried to impose
performance requirements would easily attract foreign investment, and if so, at what price
in terms of other FDI incentives? Another question is whether the objectives of TRIMS
could not be achieved more effectively, at least in efficiency terms, through the tariff
structure.

Another example is the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing
Measures, which is again accused of impinging on national rulemaking authority. The
alternative, it seems, would be to have no subsidy disciplines, which raises an intriguing
question. Do we want to argue that the best contribution the WTO can make to development
is to ensure that developing countries have no obligations in this area? Or that export
subsidies should be allowed?

Obviously, the WTO legislators – its Members – while agreeing on
subsidies rules, have also ensured the necessary flexibilities for Least Developed
Countries, and in the case of export subsidies also for countries with a per capita GDP of
less than $1000. Therefore, all LDCs and a large number of developing countries are exempt
from the prohibition of export subsidies.

The argument of policy space is also often made regarding Industrial
Tariffs. The Report argues for "flexibility" in tariff commitments on account
of: i) revenue needs; ii) greater difficulty in developing countries to raise revenue for
subsidization: and iii) the desirability of high variance in tariff levels in order to
tailor protection levels in the context of an industrial policy. Developing countries
could thus subscribe to a fairly low overall average tariff level, with plenty of autonomy
to raise and lower individual rates. These recommendations go to the heart of the issue of
what role governments can play in industrial development and diversification. Again,
honest people may disagree, especially when it comes to the question of the degree of
protection to be granted and the ability of governments to manage such policies
effectively. This is fertile ground for debate, a debate which I believe must be engaged,
looking at the facts.

Looking at the facts means looking at the difference between bound
rates and applied rates. In the case of Egypt, average bound rates on industrial goods
stand at 30%, whereas the applied stand at 12%. In the case of Thailand, bound rates stand
at 22% whereas applied stand at 10%. But there are other cases: China’s bound and
applied rates stand at 9%. If one takes into account that the tariff negotiations are
based on the bound rates, it is clear that calls for policy space would mean very
different things for different countries.

Looking at the facts is also needed regarding the relationship between
tariffs and fiscal revenue. It is mostly LDCs in Africa and Caribbean countries where
tariff revenues are a significant proportion of fiscal revenues. But in the current
negotiations, many of these countries are exempted from any cuts on bound tariffs. For
other developing countries, such as China, Brazil, Argentina, Indonesia, South Africa,
Republic of Korea, Turkey, less than 5 per cent of tax revenues come from tariffs. India
is an exception with about 15 per cent of fiscal revenues being generated by tariffs. But
this has not prevented India from reducing aggressively its tariffs, year after year.

We need hard analysis that holds up to critical examination. We need
specificity. I believe UNCTAD is well placed to contribute to such efforts, and it would
be a pity to miss such opportunities.

Finally, on the question of why countries – even small countries that
cannot influence their terms of trade – might find it in their interests to engage in
international commitments, I should like to make two considerations. First, even smaller
countries with little or no influence on world markets can influence negotiated outcomes
through participation. The opt-out option simply creates space for others to do as they
wish, and offer only what suits them. There is then no dealing, no bargain, only a
"take-it-or-leave-it" outcome. This argument is particularly important, I think,
when we recognize, as the Report does, that different developing countries face very
different situations in regard to their trading relations and trade opportunities. Second,
as countries become increasingly engaged in international trade, international commitments
help to articulate, solidify and render more stable the process and outcome of trade
policy formation.

The report has an interesting chapter on the functioning of domestic
markets. It is clear that the degree to which domestic markets are able effectively to
transmit price signals is a key determinant of how far an economy can reap the benefits of
opening to trade. If the domestic markets are functioning poorly, either because of
excessive concentration, or because of government policies, then there may even be
scenarios where opening up to trade could harm the domestic economy! While this is not an
excuse to avoid competition and the benefits that flow from it, it is certainly a warning
that trade liberalization by itself may well not be enough.

This leads me to the issue of infrastructure for trade. We know that a
lack of infrastructure, be it human capital, physical infrastructure, or efficient
services, will choke off trading opportunities and the growth and development
opportunities that accompany them. We also know that governments, both national
governments and the international community, have a vital role to play in helping to
foster this infrastructure. But these efforts are pro-trade, not instead of trade. This is
what is needed to turn the opportunities offered by more open markets into realities, by
addressing capacity constraints in developing countries.

Trade infrastructure is part of the wider picture of aid for trade, a
topic which, in my view, might deserve more of UNCTAD’s attention. As you are aware,
the task force on aid for trade that we agreed to establish in Hong Kong has finalised its
work and its recommendations which will be consider at the upcoming WTO General Council
meeting on 10 October. I am extremely grateful to the members of the Task Force under the
leadership of Swedish Ambassador Mia Horn for the recommendations they have put forward on
how Aid for Trade should be "operationalized" and how it might contribute most
effectively to the development dimension of the DDA. This work has been on-going in
parallel to the efforts to revamp the Integrated Framework for LDCs, in a clear
recognition that Aid for Trade is a clear complement to the trade opening agenda.

For my part, I have been actively consulting with various partners
including the World Bank, IMF, UNDP, bilateral donors and regional development banks
pursuant to the mandate given to me in Hong Kong, as recently as during the recent
meetings of the World Bank and the IMF in Singapore. These consultations have made it
clear that Aid for Trade is a necessary complement to the Doha Round, but not a
substitute. Opening up trade multilaterally and strengthening the rules-based trading
system are seen by Members as being the most important contribution that the WTO can make
to accelerating economic growth, promoting development and reducing poverty.

I am also aware that the current state of play in the DDA has led some
to ask whether the aid for trade initiative will be realised. My position on this is that
aid for trade is not part of the single undertaking and therefore should continue on its
track and this view is reinforced by the political messages that I am sure you have also
heard from many members restating their commitment to a comprehensive aid for trade
package. Nevertheless, I also believe that its benefits will be smaller without new trade
opportunities that will flow from a successful Round.

It is clear that both trade opening and Aid for Trade must fall on
fertile ground to flower and that effective institutions and governance are essential to
this end. The role of institutions and the quality of government are clearly crucial
ingredients in any analysis of what makes the difference between success and failure in
meeting the challenges of development, as well as what role trade policy can play in that
process.

The relationship between trade, poverty, inequality and income
distribution is a complex one and addressing them is crucial to a viable development
strategy, to public support for sound policies, and to perceptions of the legitimacy of
government, including in an international context. I do not think these are contentious
observations, but a vast amount remains to be done to understand the true nature of these
challenges and how we should tackle them.

Let me conclude by sharing with you my assessment of the state of play
in the Doha negotiations. Last July, as you know, we decided to suspend the Doha
negotiations to allow a period of "time-out" for Ministers to consider how they
can each contribute to breaking down the remaining obstacles, particularly in agriculture.
I know that serious political reflection has been taking place in capitals since then. I
am convinced that the result of this process will be an acknowledgement that there is no
acceptable alternative to the successful conclusion of the Round.

In the meantime, I believe it is important that we create a space for
quiet discussions, hard reflection and discreet bridge building so that positions on
agriculture market access and subsidies can be narrowed. Resumption only makes sense if
the position of the main players changes – and this will not happen without heavy
political lifting at home. While this hopefully takes place, we should advance the Aid for
Trade, building on the progress and momentum that clearly exists. I will continue to work
closely with others to ensure that the initiative continues to gather momentum as we
deepen and widen our coherence activities.

My number one objective remains concluding the negotiations. That is
what WTO members have been saying in the last weeks, and developing countries have said it
more loudly than others. But it is also clear to me that we need to think more creatively
about how trade, development and growth can fit together into a coherent whole. Aid for
Trade is a key piece of that puzzle. It presents all of us with the major opportunity –
and challenge – of translating our promise of greater global cooperation into concrete
actions and meaningful results. Let’s seize it."

Doha Agenda: Suspension No Cause for Lowering Ambitions – Supachai

In terms of substance, the suspension of the Doha round of multilateral
trade talks need not lead to a lowering of ambitions with regard to the Round´s
development dimension, says
UNCTAD Secretary- General Dr. Supachai Panitchpakdi.
Addressing the 53rd session of the Trade and Development Board on 27 September,
2006 he said achieving meaningful and substantial development content remains
indispensable for a successful outcome of the negotiations in all areas and would also
give a major boost to the world economy. In the following extracts from his address, Dr.
Supachai enumerates some of the implications of the current suspension, highlighting the
need to resume the stalled negotiations.

"The Trade and Development Board is meeting today at a crucial
juncture in the Doha negotiations for its annual review of developments and issues in the
post-Doha work programme of particular concern to developing countries. The Board has
convened annual dialogues reviewing critical issues of the Doha negotiations since 2002.
Our discussions have focused on issues that most affect the development prospects of
developing countries. It is gratifying to note that this exercise has been highly
appreciated by member States. This year we have the opportunity in this universal forum
that is UNCTAD to review and discuss key issues in the stalled negotiations with a view to
ensuring the realization of the DDA enterprise. A successful, balanced, and
development-focused conclusion of the Round is a common global good. The Round was also
meant to contribute to the MDGs. We should not lose sight of the longer-term, broader
objective of those goals for the year 2015, including halving poverty and creating the
kind of trading system that best promotes development. These messages of hope are
reflected in the secretariat´s background report, which provides a concise and
comprehensive analysis of developments in the Doha negotiations since 2005.

International trade can be a powerful engine of growth, development and
poverty eradication in all countries, and particularly in developing countries. This can
be seen from the continuous rise in the share of exports of goods and services in GDP.
Trade contributes to generating resources for development by stimulating production,
promoting exports, increasing access to essential services, creating jobs, and improving
income and welfare. Trade’s contribution to development is recognized by the Millennium Declaration and the 2005 World Summit Outcome.

Experience teaches us that trade works for development, but only under
the right conditions. Rules must be fair, clear and balanced; an enabling policy
environment must be assured; and market access and entry opportunities must be provided to
all participants. This is why the trading system, and trade negotiations by extension, is
so important for developing countries. An open, rule-based, non-discriminatory,
predictable and equitable multilateral trading system is clearly the best route to
generating positive development outcomes and establishing an enabling policy environment
with adequate space for development. Such a system offers the best chance for export-led
economic growth in developing countries seeking to fully engage in international trade
with full confidence that their efforts can deliver anticipated development gains.

But countries’ prospects for export-led growth and development
have diminished with the suspension of the Doha Round. Recent failures to advance in the
negotiations have even lowered countries’ confidence in the multilateral trading
system itself. The international community thus faces the challenge of bridging the
divides so that a fresh phase of fruitful negotiations can be launched. Putting the Doha
negotiations back on track will require that WTO Members reach agreement and show
flexibilities on modalities for agriculture and NAMA and on concluding the negotiations
under the "Single Undertaking" in the shortest possible timeframe.

The current suspension of the Round risks detracting from any
significant development yields expected from progress achieved in the negotiations thus
far. Many development-related areas of the agenda have been "put on hold". For
example, LDC exporters are still deprived of opportunities to export goods duty- and
quota-free to their principal export markets under transparent and simplified rules of
origin. Agricultural exporters in developing countries must continue to wait for a
reduction of export subsidies in agriculture. And cotton growers and exporters in West
Africa see no immediate action for cotton subsidies to be addressed ambitiously,
expeditiously and specifically, as had previously been expected to occur in 2006.
Unfortunately, as these and other examples suggest, the suspension of the talks hurts the
world´s poorest most acutely.

But aside from missing a historic opportunity to provide immediate and
direct gains to spur development worldwide, there are many long-term systemic implications
of the suspension. I hope the Board can shed some light on the nature of these
implications and how best to address them.

First, the suspension is undeniably a temporary setback to the
multilateral trading system. The current round of negotiations, if concluded with a
substantial development-oriented outcome, could bring gains for economic growth and
poverty alleviation. Second, the suspension sends a negative signal on the future of the
world economy and might encourage a resurgence of protectionism. Third, countries might
risk intensifying their pursuit of bilateral and regional trade initiatives with deeper
commitments; such agreements are already proliferating.

Fourth, the distortions caused by subsidies in world agricultural trade
will persist at the current level, thereby jeopardizing the prospects of developing
countries to generate additional export revenue and income from agricultural exports,
including cotton. This is because agricultural subsidies can only be addressed in
multilateral forums, and no single RTA can possibly replace such an important function of
the MTS. Fifth, countries are likely to have increasing recourse to dispute settlement.
The inability to find negotiated solutions to trade concerns will lead only to more formal
and judicial solutions, which are more confrontational and could damage bilateral trade
relations. These negative consequences of suspending the Round point clearly to the need
to resume the negotiations sooner rather than later.

Notwithstanding the suspension of the Round, the WTO continues to be
the central pillar of the international trading system. Its relevance and importance
should thus not be questioned but should on the contrary be supported more vigorously. The
WTO continues to administer multilateral trade agreements; provide a forum for
multilateral trade negotiations, including the Doha Round; and to constitute the
world’s most effective dispute settlement mechanism. No single existing regional or
bilateral trade agreement, nor any other trading arrangements, can deliver the same
benefits, predictability and security as a well-functioning and development-oriented
multilateral trading system.

Arguably, the suspension of the Round has cast uncertainty on the
overall negotiating process and its eventual conclusion, particularly in terms of the
timing, quality and ambition of a possible final package. And prospects for resumption are
subject to developments in domestic electoral processes and political decisions. Many have
expressed concerns that the scheduled expiry of the US Trade Promotion Authority on 30
June 2007 will make the negotiating prospects less clear unless negotiations are resumed
soon.

Since an open, non-discriminatory and rule-based system should be
deemed as a public good that provides a fair share of benefits to all, it is the common
responsibility of all countries to demonstrate the renewed political will and additional
flexibilities needed to facilitate the resumption of work with a leadership role for the
key players.

In terms of substance, the suspension need not lead to a lowering of
ambitions with regard to the Doha Round´s development dimension. It may be recalled that
in the 2005 World Summit Outcome, the international community committed itself to work
expeditiously towards implementing that dimension. Achieving meaningful and substantial
development content remains indispensable for a successful outcome of the negotiations in
all areas and would also give a major boost to the world economy.

For example: Development has been set at the heart of the negotiations
but has yet to be fully and effectively integrated into the core areas of market access
negotiations. This is where most of the commercial benefits would arise. It requires
improved effective market access and entry for exports of developing countries, as well as
improved donor support in building their supply capacities, competitiveness and
trade-related infrastructure. It also requires helping developing countries to benefit
more fully from the opportunities generated by multilateral trade liberalization,
including through effective Aid-for-Trade. Such objectives must be vigorously pursued if
the Round is to deliver its development promise.

UNCTAD´s commitment to the multilateral trading system, and to
assuring development gains from the international trading system and trade negotiations,
remains part of our central mission and vocation. This was reaffirmed by the São Paulo
Consensus. We will thus continue to steadfastly support – through our research and policy
analysis, our intergovernmental consensus-building and our technical assistance and
capacity development activities – the Doha Round and developing countries’ engagement
in all its aspects. In my opening statement this morning I enumerated the many forms our
involvement takes.

I am glad that our competence and experience in trade-related
capacity-building has made us a partner in the Aid-for-Trade discourse and its
operationalization and implementation. As I said earlier, we embrace a multi-stakeholder
approach in our work. I am thus pleased that Mr. Lamy has accepted our invitation to
participate in this session of the Board and to share with us his perspectives on the way
forward in the Doha Round negotiations."

‘Aid For Trade’ Initiative In Need of A Definitive Structure

As the ‘Aid for Trade’ initiative of the World Trade
Organization gathers steam, there are some essential next steps that need to be taken. In
the following article
, Samuel G. Asfaha, Programme Officer on Commodities and
Economic Diversification of the Trade for Development Programme of the South Centre,
argues that only by giving it a concrete shape, can the initiative deliver. The following
article, which provides a background to the AFT initiative, is written in the
author’s personal capacity.

Since its inception in the run-up to the Hong Ministerial Conference,
the WTO Aid for Trade (AFT) agenda has taken a center stage in the Doha Round
Negotiations. The AFT proposal that was first discussed in the context of the Doha Round
Negotiations was a joint-proposal [1] prepared by the International Monetary Fund (IMF)
and the World Bank. It was taken up by the WTO and concretized in the Hong Kong
Ministerial Declaration (HKMD) adopted in December 2005.

According to paragraph 57 of the HKMD, "Aid for trade should aim
help developing countries, particularly LDCs, to build the supply-side capacity and
trade-related infrastructure that they need to assist them to implement and benefit from
WTO Agreements and more broadly to expand their trade." In accordance with the
mandate of paragraph 57, a Task Force on AFT was established with the mandate to provide
recommendation on how to "operationalize" AFT. It was also supposed to look into
how AFT might contribute most effectively to the development dimension of the Doha
Development Agenda. The Task Force submitted its report and recommendation [2] at the
General Council meeting on 27 and 28 July, 2006.

Basically, the mandate of paragraph 57 of the HKMD as well as the
report of the Task Force justify AFT on the basis that supply-side and
infrastructure-related constraints limit the ability of developing countries, particularly
LDCs, to take full-advantage of market access opportunities. In other words, while
negotiations could deliver market access opportunities, actual entry into market is
determined by competitiveness, which in turn is determined by supply-side capacity and
infrastructure. Thus, the AFT agenda’s focus on the provision of supply-side capacity
and infrastructure building assistance could be a noble initiative.

However, for the AFT agenda to deliver on its intended goals, it is of
fundamental importance that the AFT mechanism itself has some pragmatic and concrete legal
and institutional framework to ensure that the AFT agenda:

· shall be fully implemented to meet the stated objectives;

· shall have a broader mandate to encompass trade-related adjustment costs;

· shall not involve a trade-off with other types of development aid, i.e. to ensure
‘additionality’ of AFT resources rather than reshuffling of existing aid; and

· shall not become a ‘Trojan horse’ that takes hostage developing
countries’ negotiating agenda and divert attention from key development issues of the
Doha Round.

The report of the Task Force on AFT has touched upon, and in some ways
attempted to address, some of the above-mentioned issues. It has not done that in a
systematic way, nor dealt with it comprehensively. The report is generally silent on the
institutional and legal architecture for administering the AFT. Apart from listing certain
fundamental and well-known principles [3] of good practices on delivery of aid (such as
coherence and harmonization among various donors, country-ownership, mutual
accountability, transparency, predictability and multi-year commitment), the report shuns
away from making a meaningful recommendation in regard to legal or institutional framework
such that the implementation of good aid delivery practices that are listed in the
recommendation and in other international instruments such as the Paris Declaration on Aid
Effectiveness and the Rome Declaration on Harmonization will be assured.

One of the valuable lessons of the Uruguay Round was that good
practices and good endeavours often get sidelined in practice – in the absence of
institutional and legal framework to ensure compliance. The unfulfilled promises with
respect to operationalising the special and differential treatment and the existing
backlog of Implementation Issues are good examples. Therefore, if AFT is to have any
meaningful relevance to developing countries, it should have a concrete institutional and
legal architecture that ensures, in a legally enforceable way, additionality of money;
respect to recipient countries’ development priority, trade policy and negotiating
positions; transparency and predictability.

The failure to build or specify such an architecture raises concerns
related to the likely use or ‘misuse’ of AFT as a ‘negotiating chip’
in the WTO. Used as such, it could not only divert developing countries’ attention
from critical development issues in international trade negotiations, i.e. ensuring a fair
and balanced multilateral trading system, but also entice them to take binding obligations
in exchange for non-binding promises on aid. This concern is strengthened by the fact that
while obligations that developing countries would take in this Round are legally binding
and enforceable (with consequences for breaches) AFT in its current form is non-binding
hence entails no consequence if (when) donors break any or all of the promises they make
on AFT.

Particularly now with the Doha talks suspended, AFT has shifted to the
centre of the debate on trade, growth and development. [4] The concern with this shift
rests on the attempt to pass on AFT per se as the largest piece of the development-cake
that the Doha Development Agenda (DDA) could deliver. Such concerns are not without basis.
The fact is that there has been an increasing trend in the multilateral trade negotiations
to run with components of development and assume they are perceived as the central piece.
Thus, one finds development being narrowly interpreted to mean aid, and technical or
capacity building assistance.

Developing countries and all organizations concerned with development,
hence, must assert that aid cannot be a substitute to a fair and balanced trading system.
Therefore, they should stress on the need for the creation of institutional and legal
framework with an effective monitoring and enforcement mechanism in order to ensure that
AFT plays a complementary role in the development of developing countries and will not be
used to compromise on the real developmental issues of the Doha Round, which is the
creation of a fair and balanced trading system. In the absence of such a framework, the
risk that development may fall hostage to AFT is high. No matter how many commended
principles are piled-up, in the absence of an appropriate institutional and legal
architecture – AFT may bring more anguish than cure. So discussions on AFT within the
Development community should go beyond ‘what good guiding principles should be
there’ to encompass ‘what architectural mechanisms for ensuring implementation
of and adherence to good guiding principles’.

Without a legal and institutional framework, AFT raises expectations
that are unlikely to be met. As a result, it could raise resentments and further weaken
the credibility of the multilateral trading system. Therefore, the creation of a robust
institutional architecture for the realization of the AFT agenda in a manner that supports
development could be a win-win situation to both developing and developed countries.

Notes

[1] IMF and World Bank, 2005, "Doha Development Agenda and
AFT," September.

[2] WTO, 2006, "Recommendation of the Task Force on AFT",
WT/AFT/1.

[3] These principles are, by and large, consistent with such
instruments as the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness and the Rome Declaration on
Harmonization.

[4] For e.g. the EU trade commissioner, Mr. Peter Mandelson, has
suggested to carve out or salvage what he called a" development package"- which
includes AFT as one of the seven issues of the package – out of the ailing Doha talks.

Spotlight on Poverty With Guinness Record Attempt

Bangkok, 13 Oct — The 2006 United Nations International Day for the
Eradication of Poverty has a different flavour this year. According to the UN Information
Services, the commemoration will be in conjunction with the "Stand Up Against Poverty
Campaign" which aims to set an official Guinness World Record for the most number of
people to Stand Up Against Poverty.

The UN Day for the Eradication of Poverty program will take place at
the UN Bangkok on 16 October from 10 a.m. The programme will include the launch of the
report "The Millennium Development Goals: Progress in Asia and the Pacific
2006", from UNESCAP, ADB and UNDP on anti poverty progress, or lack of progress, in
this region.

Participants will also view the Celebrity Voices viewing and speeches
with anti poverty messages for this year’s theme, Working Together Out of Poverty.
Bangkok will also host the global event The Stand Up campaign, aiming to set an official
Guinness Record for the most number of people to Stand Up Against Poverty. The regional UN
Millennium Campaign in the Asia-Pacific is expecting 15-20 million people in this region
to stand up.

United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan said: "The challenge
to stand up against poverty has captured the imagination of people around the world. We
are standing up for the Millennium Development Goals; we are standing up to hold leaders
to their promises; we are standing up because until we meet the Goals, we will not give
up."

Sewage Discharge Destroying Coastal Habitats

The Hague, 4 Oct — A rising tide of sewage is threatening the health
and wealth of far too many of the world’s seas and oceans, a new report by the United
Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) says.

In many developing countries between 80 per cent and nearly 90 per cent
of sewage entering the coastal zones is estimated to be raw and untreated.

The pollution– linked with rising coastal populations, inadequate
treatment infrastructure and waste handling facilities– is putting at risk human health
and wildlife and livelihoods from fisheries to tourism.

There is rising concern too over the increasing damage and destruction
of essential and economically important coastal ecosystems like, mangrove forests, coral
reefs and seagrass beds.

The problems contrast sharply with oil pollution. Globally, levels of
oily wastes discharged from industry and cities has, since the mid 1980s been cut by close
to 90 per cent.

Other successes are being scored in cutting marine contamination from
toxic persistent organic pollutants like DDT and discharges of radioactive wastes.

The study, called the State of the Marine Environment report, says
overall good progress is being made on three of nine key indicators, is mixed for two of
them and is heading in the wrong direction for a further four including sewage, marine
litter and ‘nutrient’ pollution.

Nutrients, from sources like agriculture and animal wastes, are
‘fertilizing’ coastal zones triggering toxic algal blooms and a rising number of
oxygen deficient ‘dead zones’.

Meanwhile, the report flags up fresh areas in need of urgent attention.
These include declining flows in many of the world’s rivers as a result of dams,
over-abstraction and global warming; new streams of chemicals; the state of coastal and
freshwater wetlands and sea level rise linked with climate change.

Researchers are also calling for improved monitoring and data
collection on continents like Africa where the level of hard facts and figures on marine
pollution remains fragmented and woefully low.

The report has been compiled by UNEP’s Global Programme of Action
for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-Based Sources (UNEP/GPA).

The findings will be given to governments attending an
intergovernmental review of the 10 year-old GPA initiative taking place in Beijing, China,
from 16-20 October.

Achim Steiner, United Nations Under Secretary-General and UNEP
Executive Director, said today:" An estimated 80 per cent of marine pollution
originates from the land and this could rise significantly by 2050 if, as expected,
coastal populations double in just over 40 years time and action to combat pollution is
not accelerated".

He said the GPA was the key initiative, backed by the international
community, in order to conserve and reverse declines in the health of the world’s
oceans and seas.

Currently more than 60 countries across Continents including Africa,
Asia and Latin America and the Caribbean are now part of this global effort.

South Centre News

Board& Council Meetings

The Seventh meeting of the Council of Representatives and the 17 th
meeting of the Board of the South Centre will be taking place in Geneva on 16 October.
Members of the Board of the South Centre will be holding additional meetings on 17
October.

Executive Director

The Executive Director of the South Centre, Prof. Yash Tandon,
participated in the high-lvel conference on Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs)
negotiatons held in Brussels on 12 October, 2006. The details are given below.

High-Level Conference on EPA Negotiations

The South Centre, in partnership with a consortium of ACP and European
NGOs, organized a high-level conference on negotiations related to Economic Partnership
Agreements (EPAs). NGO co-hosts include: Africa Trade Network, CPDC, Christian Aid, ICCO,
11.11.11, Oxfam International and Traidcraft. The conference in Brussels on 12 October,
2006 provided a platform for ACP governments to voice their views on these negotiations,
in the light of the EPAs review expected before the end of this year. Ministers from
various ACP regions participated, as well as European Member State policy-makers and
parliamentarians, representatives from the European Parliament and European Commission,
intergovernmental agencies, journalists and civil society.

Trade for Development

The staff of this Programme

• Participated in two meetings of G-33 to exchange information on
recent discussions related to Special Products (SPs) and Special Safeguard Mechanism
(SSM). The South Centre’s contributed to these discussions by preparing background
documents.

• Attended a roundtable organized by the ACP Secretariat (Geneva
office) for ACP delegations to share views on the suspension of the Doha Round On the 6th
October. The South Centre’s contribution to this debate consisted in presenting
several short and long term possible scenarios for the Doha Round and promoting discussion
on possible challenges and needs of developing countries.

• Hosted on the 10th October, a group of students from
the School for International Training. The students who visited the Centre were briefed on
the current state of play of the WTO negotiations, including a presentation on several
conceptual elements related to development policies.

Global Governance for Development

The programme published The South Centre
Quarterly on Trade Disputes: Third Quarter 2006.
This issue addresses the possible
effect of the suspension of WTO negotiations on the dispute settlement activity of most
developing countries; and highlights the relevance a recent dispute settlement report to
the trade facilitation negotiations.

The Innovation and Access to Knowledge Programme:

The IAIP programme staff attended the WIPO General Assembly meeting
from September 26 to October 2006. In preparation for the meeting, the programme came up
with an informal Background Note and organised informal meeting for developing country
delegates and officials from the Capital. This meeting was held in Geneva in conjunction
with the Third World Network on 24 September 2006. The IAIP provided technical assistance
and circulated its various research outputs during the meeting.

Editorial

Taking Responsibility for Shared Development

At the annual get-together of world leaders at the United Nations
headquarters in New York, some of the Heads of State from the South were open and frank
about the current malaise in world affairs. They provide a clearer insight into the kind
of North-South cooperation that defines the current world order. Despite numerous
resolutions and declarations in international fora, the fact remains that the fate of
nearly a billion people on this planet has been sealed for want of real concern to help
them have a decent human existence. Speaking on behalf of the Group of 77 and China at the
UN General Assembly, President Mbeki of South Africa admitted that world leaders have
crafted comprehensive plans and bold declarations to defeat the scourge of poverty and
underdevelopment. But ‘for a decade and more, some of the developed nations have
consistently refused to implement the outcomes and agreements of this world body that
would help to alleviate the wretchedness of the poor.’

A global partnership between nations is in fact the only way out of all
the current flashpoints of political unrest and economic underdevelopment. "Yet, this
common commitment for a global partnership for development cannot be transformed into
reality when the rich and powerful insist on an unequal relationship with the poor,"
as President Mbeki pointed out. "A global partnership for development is impossible
in the absence of a pact of mutual responsibility between the giver and the recipient. It
is impossible when the rich demand the right, unilaterally, to set the agenda and
conditions for the implementation of commonly agreed programmes."

"Precisely because of the absence of a global partnership for
development, the Doha Development Round has almost collapsed. Indeed, because the rich
invoked, without shouting it, the slogan of an over-confident European political party of
the 1960’s, and directed this uncaring declaration to the poor of today –
"I’m alright Jack!" – we have not implemented the Monterrey Consensus on
Financing for Development, thus making it difficult for the majority of the developing
countries, especially those in Africa, to achieve the Millennium Development Goals, and
have reduced the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation to an insignificant and perhaps
forgotten piece of paper." There is so much that can be read into that powerful
affirmation from the Chairman of the G-77 and China.

The true path to peace is shared development. That was what President
Lula told the UN General Assembly this year. "If we do not want war to go global,
justice must go global. This is why, with the serene conviction of a man who has dedicated
his life to fight peacefully for the rights of the working people, I say to you: the
search for a new world order, fairer and more democratic, it is not only in poor
countries’ or in emerging nations’ interest. It is also or even more in rich
countries’ interest, as long as they have eyes to watch and ears to hear, as long as
they do not make the mistake of ignoring the hideous cry of the excluded."

President Lula sees the various manifestations of the world’s
flashpoints as inter-connected. "The fight against hunger and poverty, the breakdown
of the Doha Round and the stalemate in the Middle East are interconnected issues. The
appropriate handling of these affairs requires trust in negotiated solutions at the
multilateral level. At this very moment, this trust has been shaken. This is extremely
serious. The world order that it is our task to build must be based on criteria of justice
and respect for international law. This is the only way to achieve peace, development and
genuine democratic coexistence within the community of nations."

Indeed, the suspension of the Doha Round of trade negotiations also
brings to the fore the ‘selective openness’ that is sought to be achieved. In
the words of India’s Commerce Minister Kamal Nath, "While it’s (WTO’s)
professed objective is greater openness in all aspects of trade, in practice this
objective is observed in a highly selective manner that reflects the predilections and
concerns of developed countries." Examples of this selective openness are: National
borders should matter less and less for merchandise trade and capital flows. But we are
told – don’t talk about technology flows and labour flows; Subsidies are bad for
industrial sectors, but on agricultural subsidies, the only thing we hear is that
we’ll get back to you; Tariffs should be transparent and ad valorem in the
industrial sector. In agriculture, now, that’s something else; The private interests
of IPR holders are sacred, issues of public interest regarding intellectual property are
of a second order.

Taking responsibility for shared development calls for a new era in
international relations where cooperation has to be unconditional, fair and cognizant of
human dignity. It has been rightly observed that Co-operation which needs consideration is
a commercial contract and that conditional co-operation is like adulterated cement which
does not bind.

Attached please find the latest issue of the South Bulletin in pdf and word
formats. Focus on 'Taking Responsibility for Shared Development.'

See attached file: bulletin133.pdf
See attached file: South Bulletin 133Word.doc
Someshwar Singh

Senior Editor
South Centre

Ch. du Champ d'Anier 17
1211 Geneva 19
Switzerland

Tel-(4122)7918044
Fax-(4122)7988531

singh@southcentre.org
web site: www.southcentre.org

Latest issue of the South Bulletin no 133

Attachment: bulletin133.pdf
(0.14 MB) SouthBulletin133Word.doc
(0.21 MB)

singh@southcentre.org

Friday, October 13, 2006

CHARLES TREVELYAN & INDIA

October 13, 2006 at 4:29 am | Posted in Asia, History | Leave a comment

spin-globe.gif

books-globe.gif

globe-purple.gif

history.gif

Sir Charles Trevelyan, 1st Baronet

Sir Charles Trevelyan, 1st Baronet

(2 April 180719 June 1886)

Sir Charles Edward Trevelyan, 1st Baronet, KCB (2 April 180719 June 1886)
was a British civil
servant
. He is famously referred to in the modern Irish folk song The Fields of Athenry about the Irish Potato Famine.

He was born Taunton, where his father George Trevelyan was Archdeacon
and his wife Harriet Neave, daughter of Sir Richard Neave, Bt. He was
educated at Harrow School.

In the 1830s he was in Calcutta,
India, where he was active in the field of education.

He was assistant secretary to the HM Treasury during
both the Irish famine and the Highland Potato Famine of 1846-1857.
In Ireland he was responsible for administering famine relief, whilst in Scotland he was
closely associated with the work of the Central Board for Highland Relief. His inaction
and attitude towards the Irish are widely seen to have worsened the Famine, costing
thousands of lives. Later, Trevelyan was a civil service
reformer.
He is widely regarded as the founder of
the modern civil service.

He married Hannah More Macaulay, the daughter of Zachary
Macaulay
. Their only son was George Otto
Trevelyan
, the statesman. Sir Charles was created a Baronet
in 1874

References

THOMAS BABINGTON MACAULAY & INDIA

October 13, 2006 at 4:00 am | Posted in Asia, History | Leave a comment

spin-globe.gif

books-globe.gif

globe-purple.gif

history.gif

Thomas Babington (or Babbington) Macaulay, 1st Baron Macaulay, PC (October 25, 1800 – December 28, 1859) was a nineteenth-century English poet, historian and Whig politician

Thomas Babington Macaulay, 1st Baron Macaulay

(October 25, 1800December 28, 1859)

Thomas Babington (or Babbington) Macaulay, 1st Baron Macaulay, PC (October
25
, 1800December 28, 1859) was a nineteenth-century English poet, historian and Whig
politician. He wrote extensively as an essayist and reviewer, and on British history.

Life

The son of Zachary Macaulay, a British colonial governor and abolitionist,
Macaulay was born in Leicestershire and educated at Trinity College, Cambridge. Macaulay was noted
as a child prodigy. As a toddler, gazing out the window from his cot at the chimneys of a
local factory, he is reputed to have put the question to his mother: “Does the smoke
from those chimneys come from the fires of hell?” Whilst at Cambridge he wrote much
poetry and won several prizes. In 1825 he published a prominent
essay on Milton in the Edinburgh Review. In
1826 he was called to the bar, but showed more interest in a political than a legal
career.

Macaulay as a politician

In 1830 he became a Member
of Parliament
for the pocket borough of Calne. He made his name with a series of speeches in favour of
parliamentary reform. After the Great Reform Act was
passed, he became MP for Leeds.

India

Macaulay was appointed Secretary to the Board of
Control
, which required him to visit India. Macaulay was a
convinced colonialist and a believer in European, especially British, superiority over all
things Oriental. Serving on the Supreme Council of India between 1834 and 1838 Macaulay
was instrumental in creating the foundations of bilingual colonial
India
, by convincing the council and parliament to
close schools and colleges teaching in Sanskrit or Arabic and instead to teach English to
“natives” and provide education in English only.

Macaulay’s criminal law system was enacted immediately
in the aftermath of the Indian rebellion of 1857.
It was a “successful” experiment – the Indian
Penal Code
was later reproduced in most other British
colonies
– and to date many of these laws are still in place. The anti-sodomy
provision, Section 377 continuing in places as far apart as Singapore,
Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe.

The term Macaulay’s Children
is used to refer to people born of Indian ancestry who adopt Western culture as a lifestyle. The term is usually used
in a derogatory fashion, and the connotation is one of disloyalty to one’s country and
one’s heritage. The passage to which the term refers is from his Minute on Indian
Education
, delivered in 1835. It reads, “It is impossible for us, with our
limited means, to attempt to educate the body of the people. We must at present do our
best to form a class who may be interpreters between us and the millions whom we govern; a
class of persons, Indian in blood and colour, but English in taste, in opinions, in
morals, and in intellect. To that class we may leave it to refine the vernacular dialects
of the country, to enrich those dialects with terms of science borrowed from the Western
nomenclature, and to render them by degrees fit vehicles for conveying knowledge to the
great mass of the population.”.[1]

Later career

Returning to Britain in 1838, he became MP for Edinburgh. He was made Secretary at War in 1839. After the fall of Lord Melbourne‘s government Macaulay devoted more time to
literary work, but returned to office as Paymaster
General
in Lord John Russell‘s
administration. In the election of 1847 he lost his seat in Edinburgh because of his
neglect of local issues. In 1849 he was elected Lord Rector
of the University of Glasgow and he also
received the freedom of the city. In 1852 his party returned to office. He was offered a
seat, but suffered a heart attack which seriously weakened him. He was raised to the Peerage in 1857 as
Baron Macaulay, of Rothley
in the County of Leicester, but seldom attended the House of Lords. His health made work increasingly
difficult for him, and he was unable to complete his major work, The History of England,
before his death in 1859. He was buried in Westminster
Abbey
.

Macaulay’s great-nephew was the historian G. M.
Trevelyan
.

Literary works

During his first period out of office he composed the Lays of Ancient Rome, a
series of very popular ballads about heroic episodes in Roman history. The most famous of
them, Horatius, concerns the
lone heroism of Horatius Cocles. It contains the
often-quoted lines:

Then out spake brave Horatius, the Captain of the Gate:
“To every man upon this earth death cometh soon or late.
And how can man die better than facing fearful odds,
For the ashes of his fathers, and the temples of his gods.”

During the 1840s he began work on his most famous history,
the History of England from the accession of James II, publishing the first two
volumes in 1848. The next two volumes appeared in 1855. He is said to have completed the final volumes of the history
at Greenwood Lodge, Ditton Marsh, Thames Ditton, which
he rented in 1854. He had only reached the reign of King William III when he died.

The history is famous for its brilliant ringing prose and for its confident, sometimes
dogmatic, emphasis on a progressive model of British history, according to which the
country threw off superstition, autocracy and confusion to create a balanced constitution
and a forward-looking culture combined with freedom of belief and expression. This model
of human progress has been called the Whig interpretation of
history
. Macaulay’s approach has been criticised by later historians for its one
sidedness and its complacency. His tendency to see history as a drama led him to treat
figures whose views he opposed as if they were villains, while his approved characters
were presented as heroes. Macaulay goes to considerable length, for example, to absolve
his main hero William III of any responsibility for the Glencoe
massacre
.

Quotations

/wiki/Image:Wikiquote-logo-en.png/wiki/Image:Wikiquote-logo-en.pngWikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: Thomas
Babington Macaulay, 1st Baron Macaulay

  • “His imagination resembled the wings of an ostrich. It enabled him to run, though
    not to soar.” On John Dryden. 1828.
  • “Thus then stands the case: it is good that authors should be remunerated and the
    least exceptionable way of remunerating them is by a monopoly, yet monopoly is an evil for
    the sake of the good. We must submit to the evil, but the evil ought not to last a day
    longer than is necessary for the purpose of securing the good.”
  • (From Edinburgh Review, 1830) “If any
    person had told the Parliament which met in terror and
    perplexity after the crash of 1720 that in 1830 the
    wealth of England would surpass all their wildest dreams, that the annual revenue would
    equal the principal of that debt which they considered an intolerable burden, that for one
    man of £10,000 then living there would be five men of £50,000, that London would be twice as large and twice as populous, and that
    nevertheless the rate of mortality would have diminished to one half of what it then was,
    that the post-office would bring more into the exchequer
    than the excise and customs had brought in together under Charles II, that stage coaches would run from
    London to York in 24 hours, that men would be in the habit of
    sailing without wind, and would be beginning to ride without horses, our ancestors would
    have given as much credit to the prediction as they gave to Gulliver’s Travels.”

Preceded by:
Viscount Howick
Secretary
at War

1839–1841
Succeeded by:
Sir Henry Hardinge
Preceded by:
William Bingham Baring
Paymaster-General
1846–1848
Succeeded by:
The Earl Granville

Notes

  1. Macaulay’s
    “minute on education” arguing for the use of English in India

Works

See also

  • Whig history Further
    explains the Whig interpretation of history that Macaulay espoused.
  • Thomas Sturge was an
    intimate friend of Lord Macaulay.

External links


Entries and comments feeds.