The Hindu : Opinion / Leader Page Articles : Summitry and the new South

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Thursday, Jun 10, 2004

Opinion

Opinion - Leader Page Articles

Summitry and the new South

By Jorge Heine

Th Old South wanted aid, the new South wants trade.

THE G-8 meeting (June 8-10) in Sea Island, the XI UNCTAD Summit in Sao Paulo (June 13-18), the tragic failure of unilateralism in Iraq, (opening the way for an increased role for the United Nations) and the veritable frenzy of preparatory activities for the Doha Round meetings of the WTO in July (for which considerable ground was broken at the recent APEC Commerce Ministers meeting in Pucón, Chile) all reflect the renewed impetus with which multilateralism, i.e., a collective, consultative and more or less institutionalised mode of decision-making in international affairs, is back.

The fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of bipolarity, the rise of a single global superpower, and the upsurge of international terrorism brought major changes to the international system that prevailed for four decades — that of the Cold War. One result of the ensuing fluidity has been to wreak havoc with long-standing international institutions and the rule of international law. The type of treatment of prisoners of war in Abu Ghraib that has recently come to light is only the latest example of what happens when "go-it-alone" policies rule the day. If "no rules apply", anything can happen, and that is what occurs.

There is, then, a problem. On the one hand, strong forces are pushing towards ever more globalised systems of production and distribution. Foreign trade amounts to almost 60 per cent of the world product. International telephone traffic increased sixfold from the mid-1980s to the turn of the century. We all know about the explosive growth of the Internet and how it has shrunk geographical distance and compressed time. Rather than simply becoming more international, today's national economies are becoming almost embedded in each other, as the recent debate on IT outsourcing and its effects on job creation in India illustrates. Where do you draw the line? Where does the legitimate protection of domestic jobs become an intrusion into the rules of free trade and private enterprise?

Much the same happens with a phenomenon as ubiquitous as terrorism. Nobody would dispute the right of any country to defend itself. The trouble starts when such measures start impinging upon the rights of other states or individuals themselves, as witnessed by the many law-abiding travellers who have ended up spending weeks and months in detention simply for coming from the "wrong" country or having the "wrong" surname.

Even among the developing countries, which have the most to lose from a "free-for-all" situation, in which "anything goes", there is at least one school of thought that the best approach is simply to "go with the flow." Under the circumstances, or so the reasoning goes, one might as well follow the dictates of the centres of economic and political power (i.e., the North). Material incentives should provide handsome rewards for those who behave accordingly, and no purpose is served in hanging on to outmoded ideologies, let alone such ostensibly anachronistic organisations as the NAM, or even UNCTAD, with its whiff of déjà vu, and aroma of the 1960s rather than of the new century. Let the big boys call the shots, they seem to say, and forget about any grandiose schemes of South-South cooperation.

Yet, this rather brazen notion betrays a fundamental misconception. It seems to say that the countries of the South do not need collective action or their own groupings to work out solutions in matters of global governance, that somehow these matters will take care of themselves — which of course they will not. Organisation and collective action have been traditionally the weapons of the weak (in this case, the developing nations) vis-à-vis the strong. To give up on them is to leave the field open to those who already control many of the strings that make the world go round.

What is taking place, rather, in this new era that overlaps with the new century, is a fundamental rearranging of the rules of world order, as the Bretton Woods and other global institutions that emerged in the wake of World War II no longer reflect international realities. Countries like India and Chile, democratic states traditionally committed to multilateralism, the rule of international law and the peaceful resolution of controversies, have, of course, a special stake in this process and can play, from their obviously different vantage points, significant roles in this regard.

For the countries of the global South (of which, of course, India is such a prominent member), then, the choice is not between the status quo and a newly emerging international order, but rather, between contributing to the shape and form this new system will take, or simply leaving the job to others — who would do so according to their own views and interests.

Fascinatingly, there are already glimpses of what this concerted action can look like, if not necessarily what it can accomplish. The key change from the North-South divide of the 1970s and 1980s — of the Brandt Commission Report and the New International Economic Order — and today's North-South dynamic is the one from the diplomacy of the cahier des doleances and the requests for massive transfers of resources from the North to the post-colonial countries — that is, from a diplomacy of weakness demanding redress, to one of strength demanding market access.

A New South has come into its own. The old "Third World" category no longer applies to it — even semantically, since there is no longer a Second World to speak of. It demands "a place at the table" of global governance, not just some crumbs that may fall off it.

One of the most exciting products of this new conjuncture in world affairs is the IBSA (India, Brazil, South Africa) axis that has brought together three leading regional powers from three different continents. Its increased formalisation, the ensuing ministerial meetings and the upbeat message about South-South coordination it conveys are all welcome developments in a global South where sheer geographical distance (now shrunk through globalisation) has too often been seen as an insurmountable obstacle to effective interregional cooperation.

Another, of course, is the G-20+, that is, the grouping emerging out of the WTO meeting in Cancún, Mexico in 2003. It has remained very active in the Doha Round, as it attempts to foster global trade liberalisation in agricultural goods — albeit not of any kind but of the sort that is best for the South, which also happens to be the fairest one for all.

There is, then, a change from the Old ("Third World") South, based on large, somewhat unwieldy entities, whose central platform was the demand for greater international aid and cooperation, to the New South, anchored in smaller, but more focussed bodies. The former spoke from weakness, the latter from strength — something under-girded by the increasing economic weight of many members. The former wanted aid, the latter simply trade. The former thrived on confrontation, the latter on negotiation. And there's the rub.

However much one can criticise the WTO for its priorities and concerns, the truth is that any such outfit that sets the global trading rules and acts as an impartial referee, sanctioning those who break them, is badly needed by all, but especially by the developing nations. The G-20+, of which India is a leading member, and to which Chile also belongs, must keep up the flag of trade liberalisation and of the phase-out of the $300 billion a year in agricultural subsidies the North showers on its ever fewer farmers, often not to produce any food at all, an economic irrationality if there has ever been one. At the same time, the ultimate objective must be to reach an agreement. If there is one lesson from the earlier North-South dialogue (and divide) it is that confrontation for its sheer sake is ultimately self-defeating. The last thing the South needs is another Seattle.

(Dr. Jorge Heine is the Ambassador of Chile to India.)

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

News Update

Stories in this Section

A WELCOME MOVE

A LOOMING CRISIS

Summitry and the new South