| |
Contributions from
the Column
Facts and trends
BMZ proposal for reforming voting rights at the World Bank
How fast the world population
After Cancún: future of G21 uncertain
Building democracies from outside takes a long time
Development Policy Media Prizes 2003
EU Commission to integrate development fund in the EU budget
Negotiations between EU and ACP states
SPD Forum: 'One World starts at home
New framework for GTZ projects: “Impact and objectives are crucial”
11/2003
|
|
[ US pressure on developing countries ]
After Cancún: future of G21 uncertain
Cracks are starting to appear in the alliance of developing countries formed at the failed world trade conference. Just before the foreign ministers of the G21 members were due to meet in Buenos Aires on October 10, Costa Rica, Colombia and Peru announced they were withdrawing from the group. The United States had obviously put considerable pressure on the three countries to leave the alliance – as it had on other G21 members. The Buenos Aires meeting was skipped by a number of G21 countries; only 12 of the present group's 19 members signed the final document.
Within days of the collapse of the world trade conference, India had said it intended to enlarge the G21 group. At the end of September, the German daily Frankfurter Allgemeinen Zeitung quoted Indian Commerce and Industry Minister Arun Jaitley as saying that his country was determined to push forward the agenda of the G21 coalition. In the light of a remark by EU Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy, who after the failure of Cancún described the WTO as a “medieval organisation”, Jaitley said that unilateral decisions were customary only in “ancient institutions”; it was only at Cancún that the multilateral WTO had become truly democratic.
Meanwhile, Indian agriculture expert Devinder Sharma expressed doubts about the Indian government's intention to side with other developing countries against the industrialised world on trade policy in a long-term alliance. In an interview given before the world trade conference but not published until early October, Sharma told the periodical “Welternährung” he considered the suggestion to be eyewash. India is in the run-up to important elections, he said; after they are over in November, the government will bow to American and European pressure and do the very opposite of what it called for in Cancún. (ell)
|
