Civil Society Press Statement April 25th 2012
The debate around mandate is the developed countries’ refusal to acknowledge the roots of crises and the ways forward

In the months preceding this Conference and especially in these last days, member governments of UNCTAD  have been engaged in intense debates on the Outcome Document. Several governments of developed countries, within the umbrella of the JUSSKANNZ and the EU, have said that their main concern behind their proposals for text deletions and revisions is the role of UNCTAD. They claim that their intent is not to shrink UNCTAD but to ensure that it becomes more effective and not duplicate the work of other international institutions and agencies.

We do not believe these claims. These debates constitute something greater than the role of UNCTAD, even as its work has proven to be vital in the global task of sustainable development.
The real issue for these developed country governments is their fundamental difference with the perspectives that UNCTAD has been articulating about the multiple global crises devastating the lives and well being of ordinary people of all countries – developed and developing. The climate crisis, especially, threatens to change life on earth and wipe out millions if the world fails to decisively act within the window of time that is now rapidly closing.   The analyses and corollary strategic directions that UNCTAD reports have been outlining are simply unacceptable for these developed country governments.

A close study of the negotiating text clearly reveals this.  Many of the entire paragraphs the JUSSKANNZ and the EU are proposing to delete are not in the sections on the role of UNCTAD but are in the “policy analyses” portion. Arguments that allowing these paragraphs to be in the analyses have problematic implications for the role of UNCTAD are not only lame but intellectually dishonest.  A strong and thorough analysis does not automatically redound to an all-encompassing mandate for the institution.  Intellectual and analytical rigor does not have to be and should not have to be sacrificed to pursue operational preferences. Rather than openly disagreeing with UNCTAD’s analyses, these governments are fighting a proxy war. Civil society is shocked – how it is possible to develop effective solutions without an effective analysis?

These governments together with the international institutions they dominate and favour, i.e. the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank among others, choose to deny that the crises are of a systemic nature, triggered by the neoliberal policies that they support. Instead they prefer to silence institutions that have been ahead of the curve and sing a different tune. They raise more than a trillion of funds for unrepresentative organisations such as the IMF which produce recommendations that put millions of women and men at risk, while UNCTAD’s funding and work is constrained on the pretext of efficiency.

The assault on UNCTAD is an assault on multilateralism, a system that upholds parity among nations regardless of size and economic weight, and brings all relevant voices to the table including civil society.  We have witnessed this assault not only in this UNCTAD process but also in other inter-governmental processes such as the Rio+20 and the UNFCCC climate negotiations. The refusal by these governments to acknowledge the real roots of the multiple crises and their responsibilities not only for the causes but also in the pursuit of solutions is not only taking place here.  It is also taking place in other processes where they are maneuvering to evade and negate even existing commitments and legally binding agreements.  For example, their proposal to delete the clause on “common but differentiated responsibilities” a principle enshrined in the international climate convention that they are party to, is also seen in their attempts to ignore or downplay it in the climate talks.  These developed country governments’ proposals even go against recommendations within the UN General Assembly, where, for example, resolution 66/188 paragraph 5 invites UNCTAD to continue research and analysis on price volatility in food and related financial and commodity markets

The assault on UNCTAD is also an assault on peoples of the world, from developing and developed countries. Currently, under the wishes of JUSSKCANNZ and the EU, issues which threaten to push millions further into poverty will be ignored –  the roots of the financial crisis and the need for disciplining and re-regulation of the financial sector and financial transactions to make finance serve the real economy and the requirements of sustainable development, the debt crises and impacts on public services and social protection,  the food crisis and the volatility of food prices due to predatory and speculative practices and corresponding worsening of hunger and food insecurity, the rethinking and re-orientation of trade and investment policies including on intellectual property rights and services, the right to cheap and affordable medicines, and many more.

Civil society wants to see a stronger and even more relevant UNCTAD emerge from the negotiations: an UNCTAD that is able to continue to contribute alternative analysis and thinking and as well as new strategic directions to address the global crises.

Contacts: For English: Lidy Nacpil (lnacpil@gmail.com)/  For Arabic: Kinda Mohamadieh (kinda_mohamadieh@hotmail.com) / For French: Mamadou Ndiaye (mndiaye@ofadec.org)

Human Rights Online Philippines does not hold copyright over these materials. Author/s and original source/s of information are retained including the URL contained within the tagline and byline of the articles, news information, photos etc.