South Africa, Brazil, India and China are emerging as the leaders of the new developing world bloc set to take on the developed world.
During a recent visit to South Africa Indian Minister for Foreign Affairs Yashwant Sinha told the Mail & Guardian that, ”sadly”, many developing countries lacked the expertise to deal with World Trade Organisation (WTO) negotiations, which ”have become extremely complex and call for a great deal of expertise to conduct them”.
Therefore, he said, there was a ”greater responsibility” on countries such as South Africa, Brazil, India and China, which ”understand the WTO issues and the processes of negotiation to play the role”.
Sinha said: ”We, the developing countries, have to be on our guard to prevent an uneven playing field for us in the future or from being taken for a ride.”
Sinha singled out South Africa, Brazil and India as countries pushing for a new world order. Their relationship in a post-Iraq War scenario took on a particular significance, he said.
”All three countries are committed to a multi-polar world. We would like more democracy in the international order and we would also like other voices to be heard.”
Sinha said the countries hoped to make a difference, especially in relation to ”implementation issues” at the WTO. He was referring to the developing world’s long-standing grievance that the developed world does not implement trade agreements.
Also on the agenda are the new ”Singapore issues”, named after the WTO informal ministerial meeting in Singapore in 2001, where they were raised.
The developed world, especially the European Union, is attempting to rein in the developing countries by imposing further trade restrictions in areas like investment, competition policy, transparency in government procurement and trade facilitation.
Sinha said the developing world was also very interested in the issue of agricultural subsidies and ”the public health aspect of the patent regime, which is of enormous importance to countries in Africa and countries like India”.
The drug patent issue revolves around the United States refusing to allow the developing world, battling with diseases such as Aids, to import cheaper, generic medicines.
The EU and the US have also continued to provide huge subsidies to their farmers, which has resulted in these countries flooding markets in the developing world with cheaper products, in many instances at the expense of the domestic producer.
On the domestic front, Sinha denied that the US was putting pressure on India to send troops to Iraq.
”They have made a request — I would not say they were putting pressure on us. The request is under our consideration — we are in the process of consultation within and outside.”
He also denied that the Bharatiya Janata Party-led government had been ”cagey” about its position on the invasion of Iraq.
Sinha pointed out that the Indian Parliament ”perhaps was the only parliament in the world which passed a resolution against the military action in Iraq and the resolution would not have been adopted had the government not gone along with it”.
He said the Indian government had ”also gone on record to say that if at all we take a decision” on sending troops to Iraq, ”the decision will based on the interest of the Iraqis”.
Sinha rejected criticism of India’s recognition of Tibet as part of China last month. India has provided political asylum to Tibetans — including their spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama — since China invaded and occupied Tibet in 1959.
During Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee’s visit to China last month, India announced that it was recognising Tibet as part of China, a stand that has attracted criticism.
Sinha defended his government’s position, saying: ”There is absolutely nothing new in this — it’s what India has been saying for the last 50 years. India recognises Tibet — [as] an autonomous region as part of the territory of the Republic of China. Our earlier formulation was Tibet is an autonomous region of China.”
He admitted the Indian government was ”playing around with words” because it served a purpose.
”[If] anything we might say carries greater comfort to the other side [China] that is a good thing.”