I wish to call to order this second plenary meeting of the preparatory meeting at Ministerial level. As set out during this morning’s session, this afternoon will be devoted to the round table discussion based on the report of the NAM Ad-Hoc Panel of Economists entitled "Elements for an Agenda of the South". I do not think that the chairperson of the Panel needs any introduction, nor the moderator.

Minister Alec Erwin is South Africa's Minister of Trade and Industry and currently President of UNCTADIX. Mr Gamani Corea was the previous Secretary-General of the UNCTAD after which he became a Minister of policy dialogue in the South. These two colleagues are all both well known.

I do not wish to take any of your time this afternoon and therefore now hand over to Minister Erwin who will conduct this afternoon's Round Table. Minister Erwin you have the floor.

Thank you very much Chairperson. It seems as if we are inventing new language here. What moderator means is you must be a moderate Chairperson and it shall be my intention to be moderate but firm. The procedure we are suggesting colleagues for this afternoon, is that we will ask the Chair of the Panel of Economists, Dr Corea, to introduce the report and its main features to us. Many of you will of course have had a change to look at the Report, although there may be those of you who have not been able to do this yet. Thereafter, I would make a few remarks to try and introduce the topics for discussion. As has been indicated, this session takes the form of a round table where we would encourage free exchange of ideas. It is hoped that those ideas will give us some background and inform the discussions that could take us forward on this whole issue of the economic agenda. Now clearly the procedures within the Economic Committee is of paramount importance and that is where the formal decisions will be taken, but it is our hope that this round table will add value to the discussions and give us some indication of how we move forward.

Colleagues I would encourage you to speak frankly and precisely. It is our hope that this round table will encourage a fruitful exchange of ideas. Let us start then by asking Dr Corea to briefly introduce the report that you have before you.

Dr Gamani Corea

Mr Chairperson, Honourable Minister, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen

Let me first say how very privileged and also grateful I feel for the opportunity you have given me to present to you the main substance of the report of the Ad Hoc Panel of Economists which completed its work a couple of months ago. I know that many of you have not had the opportunity to study or read the report at great length. I do not want to make my statement a substitute for that, because time would not permit that. However, I do feel that I would help if I gave you some of the principal highlights that are reflected in the report.

The Panel was established in 1997 by the Meeting of Foreign Ministers in New Delhi. As far as I know this is the first time that the Non-Aligned Movement has itself set up a group of its own, made up of economists and others to study relevant problems and report to the Movement at its forthcoming Summit. From that point of view I think our Panel was breaking new ground and provided an opportunity that we certainly valued very much.

The main terms of reference of our Panel was to study the world international economic situation, to assess its impact on developing countries, to identify the interest of the developing countries in the various changes and developments taking place, and to conclude by making a contribution to what has been called a new and positive agenda for the South. You will not be surprised to know that the Panel started its thinking by having a broad look at and making an assessment of the changing world scene in order to derive its main elements and its implications for developing countries. What became very apparent from the very beginning is that in the last decade or so there have indeed been very far reaching changes in the global scenario which have had its consequences for all countries in the world. These changes have been political, economic, technological, institutional. They all add up to providing a new backdrop against which the developing countries have to formulate their positions and carry on their interactions with the developed countries and the outside world.

I will not take up your time by trying to enumerate the major changes that have taken place. By and large you know that it is been summed up under the phrase globalisation and liberalisation. I would like to say how encouraged I was this morning to hear Honourable Deputy President Mbeki make his statement, which I feel in many ways are reflected in the thinking of the Panel itself. And I thought that he put his finger on precisely the issues which the Panel itself thought were of importance and significant for the developing countries at this juncture.

Globalisation and liberalisation have been presented as a major process taking place in the world scene leading to closer linkages amongst countries and among economies, leading to the opening up of world trade, the movement of goods and the movement of capital all tending towards creating a more integrated global economy. It may stop short of a global village, but everywhere there is a feeling that we are moving away from the earlier period of relatively separate entities and trying to link up countries so as to make up a global economic as well as a social and political community. Because of that high goal a lot of euphoria has been created about this process of globalisation on the grounds that it is really resulting in a sea of change in the world economic and political and social situation, bringing countries together into a single community. The Deputy President referred this morning to the spectacular changes that have taken place in certain areas in world trade where the growth rate of world trade has increased very impressively in recent years, in the area of capital flows where capital movements have surpassed unprecedented magnitudes and also in the area of communications where countries are able to interact with each other in ways they were unable to do before. All these have been pointed out as encouraging things which we should all applaud and support.

But at the same time and particularly in the more recent period - and I think the Honourable Deputy President referred to that as well - there have been signs of a waning or weakening of this initial euphoria and a feeling that the benefits of globalisation are not as universal as expected. There have disparities in the way in which the process has unfolded and disparities in relations between those who have benefited and not benefited by the process. Most important of all, it has been shown that the benefits of globalisation have largely been concentrated in a relatively small number of countries, essentially the developed countries. Some of the newly emerging economies of the developing world also benefited for a period. But besides that, it was also felt that a large part of the developing world, particularly on this continent but also in Asia and in Latin America, have been left out of the benefits of this process. Many of these countries have been marginalised and have been facing not lesser but greater difficulties than in the past, which translates into social, political and other kinds of problems. It has also been pointed out that as a result, the gap between the rich countries and the poor countries in statistical terms has been increasing instead of being narrowing.

These disparities are to be seen even within countries where as a result of the opening up of the economies there has been a tendency for incomes to be concentrated more and more in a fewer hands, creating within countries also some of the associated social and political tensions. So some of the enthusiasm has begun to wane. Some countries have been able to say there has been little in it for us. And off course in the more recent period even the countries which were protected as the great beneficiaries of the globalisation process are in a state of crisis, undergoing difficulties of various kinds affecting their currencies. There is a feeling of a crisis spreading, despite the confidence in globalisation and liberalisation.

So Mr Chair we have to ask what is the political message and what is the economic message we can derive from these developments of recent times. As the Honourable Deputy President mentioned this morning, we cannot conclude that the answer is to retreat from the globalisation process to go back to a world of literally closed economies and self-sustained growth. We have to pursue the process of widening linkage and contacts between countries and getting the benefits out of it. At the same time I think that one conclusion that is beginning to surface with ever increasing clarity and visibility is that the process of globalisation does not have to be implemented and adopted in exactly the same way for all groups of countries. I think there is a need to adapt, to modify, and to phase out the way in which various elements of globalisation are applied to and developed in the countries of the Third World. I do not think there can be a universal formula prescribing the same rules and the same timetable for all countries at the same time.

I think the process has to be tempered by making it reflect the realities of different countries and different situations. This means that one needs to have a rather sophisticated and selective approach to how globalisation is going to be allowed to spread around the world and how the developing countries will maximise the benefits of the process and at the same time minimise the shortcomings and the drawbacks. The main challenge facing the countries of the Third World is how precisely they are to profit from the positive opportunities of the globalisation process, while at the same time defending themselves against the negative aspects and the dangers. I think that any agenda for the South at the present juncture will have to keep this very much as a "theme song" or leitmotif of its approach. How to safeguard themselves against the drawbacks, dangers, disruptions, whilst at the same time taking advantage of the benefits. I think that in drawing up a new agenda for the developing countries this is the primary challenge that has to be faced.

It is in the light of this that the developing countries reflected on the various areas in the global economy which impact on them, on the changes that have taken place and how these changes could be assessed from the point of view of the South. The Panel of Economists did succeed in highlighting a number of crucial areas in which the changes that have been taking place have been of a mixed character with both good and bad points, pointing out of course the need for the developing countries in the future to safeguard themselves as never before from the weaknesses of the past. I will just mention some of the points made.

One of the main things that emerged in the course of our studies was that despite the talk about globalisation and integration, there is very little participation by the countries of the Third World in the surveillance, if not the supervision, of the globalisation process. They are not members of any of the bodies that take an overview of developments in the world economy, the G7 or the G8. They do not have a voice in the decision-making processes of some of the institutions involved in these changes, particularly the Bretton Woods Institutions. They are members of the World Trade Organisation, but this is a new body and they have yet to get accustomed to operating within it. So there was a feeling that if you talk about globalisation, the first thing the developing countries want to see is that they are given an opportunity to be represented in the discussions and in the councils under which various aspects of the globalisation process are assessed and monitored and tailored to suite their needs.

On the sectorial side, if you look at each of the key areas of the world economy, there are many crucial changes taking place which need not only be monitored but adapted to the situation of developing countries. These involve some of the traditional areas, the area of finance for example. Big developments have taken place affecting the magnitude of official development assistance flows and concessional aid flows, affecting the emergence of private capital movements, affecting the resources available to the multilateral financial institutions and the ways they are distributed. There is a whole area in which developing countries have to ask themselves whether the new financial system today is reflecting the needs of our countries as they were intended to do when they were first established. If there are changes that have modified this goal, what are the ways in which this could be corrected? This is one issue for an economic agenda of the South.

A similar issue relates to the international monetary system. The monetary system was originally predicated on a system of stable exchange rates that could be changed only under special circumstances. Much has emerged since then. In the light of all the turbulence you're seeing now in the world money market and in the world currency markets, one is asking the question what kind of a regulatory mechanism is there in the international system to anticipate these developments and to introduce steps of a corrective nature. Is it not the case that corrective actions are now taking place after the event, ex-post rather than ex-ante. Is there not a big gab which needs to be breached in the area of international money, to be reformed just as much as there is a gab to be breached in the area of international financial reform?

Then comes the area of world trade. A new departure has been made. Since the Uruguay Round the tempo of liberalisation of world trade has accelerated, it has reached out not only to merchandise trade, but also to trade and services. A whole host of new initiatives are being suggested largely by the developed countries to further extend the momentum of this liberalisation process, bringing in new dimensions within its ambit. Developing countries are already raising fears about the way some of these suggestions might affect them, how it might affect their ability to control their own economies in a way that suits their needs and how other kinds of protection are also beginning to emerge. So in the whole field of world trade again there are an array of issues which the developing countries have to focus on, making it part of a new agenda in identifying what it is that they want to accomplish.

Then come other areas, which I don't want to do more than mention in brief. There is the area of reform of the United Nations system, the area of Science and Technology, the area of the global environment, the area of social and humanitarian issues, and many similar subject areas where world attention is been focussed on new developments and new approaches in which the developing countries have a keen interest. Again the question has to arise, what should be the interest of the developing countries in these areas, what should be the items that form part of their platform? I sometimes react negatively to criticism of developing countries, which amount to saying that the developed countries are pursuing their own interests. I feel it is only natural that the developed countries will pursue their own interests. I do not think that they should be expected to pursue the interests of the South at the same time. It is for the South to identify what their interests are, to formulate the way these interests could be served and then to pursue them in multinational fora in partnership with their partners of the North. That I think is the meaning of real negotiation. I sometimes get the feeling myself that in recent times we are not seeing enough of this. The developing countries have gone into too many negotiations relatively unprepared, playing a reactive role of focussing as far as they can on damage limitation and not doing what they should be doing. They should be presenting their own manifesto, reflecting their own interests which can be put on the table and then merged, through negotiating processes, into a single global programme which both developed and developing countries could accept.

So I think again in each of these areas there is a big need for the developing countries to take a look at events and reorder them into what it is that suits their interests and present it to their negotiating partners.

There are many areas similar to those that I have listed which could be dealt with in this way. But then there is a question we all have to ask ourselves. Having identified the issues and become sensitive to our own shortcomings, how do we go from there and achieve the goals of the developing countries by mobilising whatever the strength these countries have in the international setting? I think in this instance there is now a new challenge for the developing countries to restore something of the cohesion and of the unity that they had in the past. There is a feeling that in recent years there has been an undermining of this and that the impact of the developing countries in the multilateral scene would always remain weak if this were not corrected.

I have always been saying that the developing countries have never been a homogeneous group. The countries are differently situated and have different levels of development. They should not be expected to have the same degree of interest in every issue. But if we can identify the issues that are of principal interest for each of the developing countries, each group of developing countries, we can put these all into a single manifesto which, when taken as a whole, will reflect the requirements and needs and demands of the developing world. This is how the manifestos of the developing countries were put together in the past and this is how they need to be put together in the future, although the degree of change within the developing world perhaps is somewhat greater now than it was twenty or thirty years ago. The latter does not in my view prevent these countries from putting together a platform which, when taken together, reflects the interests of all of them. There may be one or two areas in which there are clashes which cannot be reconciled, but those can be left out but by and large. I think that all the key issues of concern to developing countries, no matter where they are located, can be merged into a single platform which will give them strength. And I would like to say to you that the strength that the Third World countries have in multilateral fora is essentially the strength of their numbers. If they do not mobilise the strength of their numbers, each country individually or even in small groups will have but a very limited leverage in the multilateral setting.

The challenge for developing countries therefore is to bring back the cohesiveness and unism that they had in the past, and to bring into play in the negotiating processes of the future. I would like to add that in drawing up a new agenda for the South we should not feel that we are obliged to put into the backburner all the issues that for a long time have been of importance in the past. A number of these issues still remain significant even though they are not the subject of immediate negotiations. Commodities was one issue which took up a great deal of the time of UNCTAD when I was associated with it. When you look at the world situation today, commodity prices are weakening and they are a part of the crisis facing many of the developing countries, particularly the poorest amongst them. The debt issue today is less heard of than five years ago, but still there are large numbers of developing countries that are struggling under the burden of external indebtedness and desperately in need of relief.

The need for concessional finance again today is getting less and less fashionable. Countries are told that they could go to capital markets or to the private sector for resources. If there is a need for official development assistance on concessional terms it should be limited and confined to the poorest of the poor, to the least developed countries. But again I feel there are a much bigger range of countries, even beyond the least developed, that still have a need for concessional finance. When people tell me how out of date these old issues are I remind myself that out of date or not they still figure on the agenda for negotiations between the West and the East. Many of the support systems extended to the countries in transition are reflecting very much items that were on the agenda of the Group of 77 in the past, but which are now being dismissed as being interventionist and out of date. I think that this to is a reality that needs to be faced.

Having said all this, I now have to conclude by putting the main question to you. We can perhaps draw up an agenda with an intellectual effort. How we do this is something that we need to give attention to. But then how do we translate this agenda into a negotiating platform? What are the mechanisms that we have and if we do not have that, what we can establish to make this process possible?

I think that this is the key issue, which the Non-Aligned Movement, Group of 77 and the countries of the South have to face. Somebody told us when we were writing our manifesto, that it is all well and good to write a sheet of music. But who is the orchestra that is going to play it? So I think that we have to give a lot of attention to setting up this orchestra which can play these songs for us and which will reflect the needs of the developing countries. That I think even more than the intellectual challenge, organisational challenge, political challenge, is the issue that faces the developing countries today.

Thank you very much Mr Chairperson for giving me this opportunity. I have taken more time than you were prepared to give me, but it is a longish report and I wanted to introduce it. Thank you.

The Moderator

Thank you very much Dr Corea. You will have seen I did give you a bit more time. For the Panel of Economists to have been able to write a report of 45 pages that was succinct, simple to read and seem to have consensus, is an achievement that is deserving of some time. But I think we really need to congratulate you and your Panel. You have stated in an accessible form the wide range of issues that we all realise are in one or other way the challenges facing us. I would like to feel that this open-ended discussion should add some value to the processes.

Since this is not a text that we have to negotiate word by word or agree on each and every sentence, I would like to suggest without preventing people saying exactly what they wish, that we focus not so much on detailed interventions or comments as to whether the Panel have been correct or incorrect in their analytical assessments. I want to suggest that we rather focus on those areas where we feel that maybe enough emphasis was given or where the strategic possibilities have not sufficiently been highlighted.

I think that for us in South Africa, just to illustrate, it seems that we need to spend more of our research time and our policy time on exactly what is the relationship between the international financial movements and the associated currency crises and the whole challenge of industrialisation and development in the developing world. To some extent it is our view that the tremendous overhang of funds that exists in the developed world, and our Deputy President referred to it earlier in part, is a product of the fact that the majority of the world's people still remain poor, and their economies underdeveloped. Clearly this is a structural feature of the world economy that in itself is one of the greatest causes of the problems of underdevelopment. What is this link, how do we pursue it? It seems to us that, as has been suggested by Dr Corea, we really need to be able to state a little more clearly, more precisely, the means whereby the countries of the South will begin a significant and structurally crucial process of permanent industrialisation, permanent improvements in their standards of living.

Have we not focussed maybe too much on the North-South interaction and too little on the interactions between the economies of the South? I think as implied by the Panel of Economists, that we must make a choice. If that choice, which I think is the only one we really have, is to engage as a grouping of countries with the process of globalisation. Then as Dr Corea ended with: What is the precise mechanism whereby the Non-Aligned Movement would do this?

Currently we know that negotiations are luring in one or other way for the 2000 WTO Meeting. We know that there are extremely important negotiations taking place for many developing countries in the context of Lomé. And we know that there are processes taking place that would review the function and role of major multilateral financing institutions. But I think if we are brutally honest with ourselves as was indicated by the Panel, we are not engaging in those areas as a group. What is the mechanism whereby we share our views, whereby we act in concert to bring about changes? Clearly we are looking in this discussion for some indications as to what would be an effective means of moving us forward. What is a negotiating platform that would be effective and how do we strengthen the resources that would underpin the analysis that should inform any negotiating strategy.

Earlier today the Deputy President of South Africa, Mr Thabo Mbeki, ended his speech invoking a famous South African figure, Shaka. I think what he was invoking by that, for any of you who have looked at the history, is that Shaka was someone who drastically reorganised his forces. He was thereby capable of moving at high speed and with great precision. He was prepared as a leader to contemplate the unorthodox and he was decisive. I think what our Deputy President was talking about is that if the developing world is to bring about the leadership role that we have to play, and only we can play it, these are the sort of characteristics that we would take upon ourselves. So colleagues I would urge you in your remarks to see if we can get some collective guidance on how we move forward, in fairly concrete ways. The economists and the experts have many hours after this, and many days and years to debate the niceties of their reports. We have this meeting. We shall meet again in three years' time. Between now and then really we seek some guidance for action and effective negotiation.

Colleagues I call on you to be reasonably brief. My guideline figure to you is about four minutes or so. That will allow us to get 15/16 speakers in before we sum up and close. I hope 15 and 16 speakers from the Non-Aligned Movement will be sufficient collective wisdom to advance our course dramatically. So I am throwing it open to the floor. We have begun getting a list going. I see right in front of me Pakistan who wishes to speak first.

Pakistan

May I join you in thanking the Panel and Dr Corea for what I think is a very incisive and useful report at this juncture of our history. I think the main conclusion I would certainly share, is that the high hopes of developing countries from liberalisation and globalisation have not been fully achieved. Even those countries who have experienced good results in the beginning are now meeting setbacks. Many countries have suffered because of financial liberalisation and wrong policy advice.

I think the most important conclusion that should give us the starting point is that the whole concept of development co-operation which marked the 60s and the 70s, which was based on a certain partnership for development, has now come to an end. It has come to an end as non-commercial flows are virtually shrinking and the agenda for the development co-operation is fast moving in the other direction in terms of dealing with the opening of our markets for developed countries and also the emphasis on good governance. This leads to two different kinds of conclusions, as the report says. One, how the developing countries face the task of adapting at the national level to the liberalisation and globalisation. Two, how to collectively influence globalism.

I think that in future work, what we can do is to identify those areas in which the global system violates or deviates from the rules of free market and commercial criteria. In other words, while we are being allocated rules, those who prescribe rules are themselves not really following it, therefore causing discrimination against developing countries. For example the monetary systems create liquidity for the richest in the world. Restrictions on the movement of labour and goods still continue in the protectionist regime.

There are many other discriminations. The WTO is not working as smoothly as it should. The most important point which the report highlights is that the developing countries’ role in global decision making is very, very minor. So how do we as you asked us, follow up this report and go from here? This is something which, as the report itself points out, require a lot more work at the research level, at strategic level and then at the negotiating level. We do not have a mechanism which will deal with this kind of thing on a systematic basis. One possibility is to allow the Panel to be followed up by a group of eminent persons and economists more or less on the lines of committee and development planning, in which you select twelve top economic practitioners and policy makers from the members of NAM who would follow the report in terms of different areas, whether it is WTO, monetary systems, or international financial institutions. Such a group could utilise some of the think-tanks and research institutions in the Third World to do more work and then under the supervision of the Co-ordinating Bureau provide advice for basic questions like whether we need a new round of WTO negotiations and whether we need to persue a sectoral agenda.

This kind of group of eminent persons would become the NAM's think tank on economic issues and will guide it from time to time. It does require a close follow up with some countries playing a more active role in making available their research institutions for more intensive work in different areas. Yet I hope that we have eminent persons who would guide this work. It will go a little beyond the scope of the Panel, because you will invite all member countries to nominate their best people and the bureau can choose the 10/12 most eminent people that are suggested.

I think that we should also take note of the fact that the global recession is now staring us in the face and may have already started. If that happens, our negotiating position and our bargaining position will have become even bigger. So, while we plan for all of this, our national efforts to counter the prospects that we face will have to be geared. Hopefully in those areas where we have a common position to take, like the way the IMF and the World Bank is dealing with the Third World, we will bring them up front to deal with the more topical issues. This will be a continual process which will gradually strengthen our ability to deal with the new scenario and the new global environment that we face in a more systematic and resolute manner.

These are some of the initial reactions I have to the report and I hope this meeting will agree on some effective follow-up because the issues are serious. The threshold we have reached in the new relationship on economic issues, and the present setbacks that we receive, do require very concerted and very active intervention.

Thank you very much Pakistan. The next country to take the floor is Nigeria.

Nigeria

Mr Chair,

Permit me to make a brief contribution to this round table discussion. While congratulating you on your election as the Chair of this meeting, I am grateful to the experts for a comprehensive report and equally grateful to you for your penetrating introduction. On a personal note, I am pleased to have visited this beautiful country twice in the past few weeks upon my appointment as Foreign Minister of Nigeria. Indeed, this is the first time that I am attending the meeting of our Movement in this capacity. I therefore look forward to the introduction to as many colleagues as possible and also look forward to giving the contents of this report deeper thought.

Mr Chair, we have long identified the major challenges that confront member countries of our Movement. These challenges, as has been pointed out in the Report, include globalisation and liberalisation of the world economy, sustainable development, good governance, and poverty eradication. It is the concern about the impact on our development, that informed the decision of the XIIth Ministerial Conference in New Delhi in April 1997 to mandate our experts to study them and report to us. I commend the members of the Panel for their work which is reflected in this report.

The global economic environment has been characterised by major changes of varying impact on our countries. For developing countries in particular, these changes have not always been favourable. Indeed, they have worsened the imbalances in our economic relationship with developed countries. The report correctly identified that many of our countries have taken significant steps to develop, liberate and liberalise their economies, as well as integrate further into the world economy but without appreciable benefits. The situation is even more critical for the poorest countries, most of whom are in Africa. Furthermore, some members of our Movement have also experienced severe economic impact arising from the financial crisis associated with the liberalisation of their economies.

Mr Chair, let me highlight an issue of specific interest to our region. Here I refer to the debt problem, which is a millstone around the neck of African economies. Many of our countries still devote a disproportionately large share of foreign exchange earnings to debt service repayment. This has been at the expense of urgent development needs of our societies. The plain truth is that Africa cannot continue to repay the debt at the present level and grow at the same time. We believe that only a comprehensive strategy that is all encompassing and not discriminatory would address this dilemma we face. This calls for strong political will, particularly from our development partners. I agree with the observations of the Panel regarding the role of the multilateral financial institutions in our development. I believe there is a need for their urgent reform if they are to be responsible to our interests. Meanwhile urgent steps should be taken to improve the criteria for lending, as well as developments and impacts of their conditionalities.

Our Movement has always emphasised the linking between environment and development. This was reflected in Agenda 21 adopted at the UN Conference on Environment and Development in Rio in 1992 and reaffirmed in New York in June 1997. The Agenda 21 package of agreements and measures can be fully achieved if all discharged faithfully their differentiated responsibilities. Our Movement should insist on nothing else. We have in South-South co-operation a practical framework that provides the way for some of the problems highlighted in the Report to be addressed. This framework should be revitalised and fully utilised to achieve greater cohesiveness and co-operation among our members. The recent events in East and South-East Asia clearly demonstrate that there is a greater interaction and co-operation among members.

Mr Chairperson, the report of the Panel and its ruminations offer us yet another opportunity to influence our economic and financial agenda for a world far into the future. It is now up to members of our Movement to carry the recommendations further.

I thank you.

Thank you very much Nigeria, very nice to have you in South Africa. The next speaker is Indonesia.

Indonesia

Thank you Mr Chair,

First of all we would like to join those who have spoken before us to express our highest appreciation to Dr Gamani Corea, the Chairperson of the Ad-Hoc Panel of Economists, for his introduction of the report. We shall also of course like to congratulate all members of the Panel for their assiduous work and dedication in preparing the report.

Indonesia shares the view of the Panel that in light of current developments, the developing countries should reassess the present international economic situation from their own perspective, from their point of view and identify and analyse major issues of interest to them in a comprehensive and co-ordinated manner. We can support the general elements of the South Agenda as proposed in the report. We do not have any doubt as to the importance of those issues that were raised. In fact most of them have already been on the NAM Agenda for quite some time, particularly since the Xth summit in which we adopted the NAM economic agenda for priority action 1992-1995.

Such an Agenda has also been elaborated extensively, I would like to remind colleagues, by the 1990 report of the South Commission entitled The Challenge to the South. So, first of all I would like to say that Indonesia concurs with the Panel’s view that such an Agenda for the South must be inclusive in nature. Inclusive that is to say of all needs and concerns of developing countries, considering their varying degrees of interests and levels of development. It should not be, of course, limited to issues on which we all have the same or equal degree of interest.

However, at this juncture and at the present stage of the process of globalisation, we should like to recommend strongly that monetary and financial issues be given high priority in the elaboration of the South Agenda. I repeat at this stage of the globalisation process in which we all now find ourselves, particularly on the need for imparting greater transparency in these fields, the need to regulate private financial flows, especially short-term portfolio investments and trade in currencies. We believe, Chairperson, that this is a most urgent issue that will be faced by all of us. It is already being faced by some of us, but it is inevitably going to be a global concern. Therefore, one of the decisions that we hope will come out of this Conference, is the revival of an earlier proposal by the NAM to organise an International Conference on Money and Finance, participated in by both developed and developing countries. It is in these fields and at this stage of globalisation that we will need new thinking and new regulatory frameworks and also greater transparency.

The second thing that I would like to address or respond to is what Dr Corea has raised, namely that is well and good to have an agenda, now a South Agenda on which we can agree, but we must be able to translate that into a negotiating strategy. I will go one step further. I think just as important as having an agenda, just important as having it translated into a negotiating strategy, is to also direct our thoughts and agree on a negotiating approach to the problems that we face. Those of us who recall the North-South dialogue during the 1970s can remember how we faced the North, sometimes quite unprepared. Therefore it is quite to the point that Dr Corea said that we have to increase our capacity to have our own agenda, to have own manifestos. But one of the reasons of failure during the global negotiations or the North-South negotiations during the decade of the 1970s was the negotiating approach. Developing countries had a manifesto out, a list of demands on the one hand, and the developed countries just simply tried to break down that list of demands to scoff at it, to counter the arguments and in general to be negative. That has caused the breakdown of negotiations in almost all fronts, except the meagre result in the commodity field.

Therefore since some time now, Indonesia and others have proposed an entirely different approach. The approach that we have been propagating in the UN is an approach based on the principles of genuine interdependence, mutuality of interests and common benefits and shared responsibility. In short that means that rather than sitting down in a negotiation framework in which we demand things and they will respond to us, we would change the structure of the negotiations and say to each other: Do we have common interests? Do we have common benefits if we have greater stability in the commodity market, if we can avoid the booms and busts of commodity markets? If the answer is yes, let us together prepare a report how to achieve this, and let us ask the next question. Do we have common interest, and do we have common benefits, if we were able to have a more transparent, predictable and regulated financial markets, so that we don't have the kind of problem that we have now. If the answer is yes, let us together make a report by experts from both sides and on the basis of the report of what can be done, what should be done, then start the negotiating process.

In the above manner, the negotiating process will not be confrontational in nature, it is inclusive in nature, it is based on a perceived partnership, it is based on common interest, which look at the interest of common benefits, of shared responsibility in the true spirit of genuine interdependence and globalisation. This is one of the things that I would like to suggest, that we in the coming weeks and months also pay attention to, apart from the importance of course of setting up our agenda for the South, setting up our negotiating stance on some of the basic issues. This is one of the things I would certainly like to get deeper into.

Secondly I think that Dr Corea very rightly said globalisation for the developing countries contains just as much risks apart from perceived advantages and therefore globalisation should not be applied to developing countries in the same way and at the same pace as the developed countries. We must make sure that in our agenda that does not happen. That is of course generally agreed, but how do we do it? Globalisation is essentially blind in nature, it just goes on, it moves on, it doesn't wait for those to catch up, it doesn't make a deciphered distinction between developed and developing countries, it just moves on. Therefore the only way to prevent the negative aspects of globalisation that overwhelm us and the only way to ensure that we can take advantage of the positive aspects of globalisation is again to have some rules, to have some agreed understandings, to have in other words a common interest and a common benefit developed in a joint agenda for renegotiations and to make sure that certain things are indeed being agreed upon. It cannot only be done unilaterally by us.

There is a third and final point that I would like to make. How do we go about all this, how do we do in terms of follow up, in terms of co-ordination mechanisms? I think that we must first of all encourage the establishment and strengthening of linkages and networks, both between functional institutions, think tanks and expert groups of member countries. We believe that co-ordination between regional and sub-regional organisations of developing countries will also be very helpful. I know we have been talking about this for a long time. But we must now really do something concrete about it. Considering that all members of the NAM are also members of the G77, this matter should and will be taken up at a High-Level Meeting on Regional and Sub-Regional Economic Co-operation under the auspices of the G77 in Bali, Indonesia, in December this year.

Finally, I think we should put our money where our mouths are, Mr Chair. If we are going to move forward and/or co-ordinate it in a co-ordinated fashion, we should not only pay lip service to giving support to such centres that we already have, to such think tanks that we already have, such as the South Centre. We really should contribute no matter how small our contributions are. If all of us support our own centres, including the South Centre in Geneva, then I think we will take a tremendously important step forward in co-ordination in our work.

Thank you very much Mr Chairperson.

Thank you Your Excellency

Colleagues, I think the last intervention began to point us in some fairly concrete directions. I welcome that. If other speakers could see if we can not bring this to some fairly concrete issues as the last. Indonesia has reminded us that this has been on our agenda for a long time. But, as Dr Corea said, it is one thing writing the music but who is going to sing it? Columbia.

Colombia

Thank you very much Mr Chairperson

Chair, first of all, I would like to say that the Report presented by the Panel of Economists has various things to its merit. Yet remembering what you said, I don't want to go through the strengths of the document. Perhaps it would be a good idea with a view to the priorities mentioned to say that I am in agreement with the approach of the analysis and to say that perhaps there are two sectors that have been neglected. In my mind this has serious repercussions with regard to globalisation and particularly affects the developing countries. Those two sectors are information technology and telecommunications. These are two sectors which in a renewed agenda of the South need to be given a particular prominence with regard to the future.

I also think that with regard to some particular aspects of the report we need to emphasise the movement of capital flows and the need to provide macro-economic co-ordination of the markets, not concentrating solely on the problems of correcting the difficulties that the volatility brings with it. And I think that as far as trade is concerned, we should include areas such electronic commerce, which is of an increasing importance to developing countries. With regard to commodities I think that we should add to our examination of the subject what is happening in terms of industrialisation or de-industrialisation. This is the reality in several developing countries and this has been brought about by the process of globalisation.

Once again following your instructions, Chair, I think that the most important thing in these discussions is to try to identify ways of how we can make progress on the basis of this Panel Report. I think that the first crucial aspect is of a political nature. The developing countries need to reaffirm the political will to organise themselves and to act together as a way of seizing the initiative and to take the leadership that they have shown in previous decades. I think that we can have an agenda and a platform that is very well worked out on the basis of consensus. Yet if we don't have the sufficient political will to act together, I think our reading of the situation will be no more than a list of words. I think that the NAM, particularly at this Summit, offers us a very good opportunity to begin to seize this political moment, it is a policy which should not only be reflected in our positions and in the international negotiations in which we are involved, but should also be reflected in our internal activities, our ongoing activities which require a greater presence on the part of each of the member states belonging to the developing world.

Our cohesion really needs to become more effective. I think Chair, that on the basis of the Panel Report, we need to organise an agenda or a supplement to the agenda so that developing countries can begin their preparation for the negotiations looming on the horizon in a number of international fora. This I think should be reflected in a list of priorities, research and preparation for negotiating strategies on the basis of a global and a multilateral agenda in the various multilateral associations/organisations in the medium and short term. And it is also necessary to establish priorities and identify initiatives relating to subjects that are not part of this multilateral agenda and which the developing countries feel should be included. The most important point in my judgement, Chair, is how to connect the platform of ideas arising from the studies with the negotiating mechanisms that the developing countries have at their disposal. That is why it is important to distinguish between the tasks and the mechanisms and your distinction between the analytical phase and the negotiating phase, whilst ensuring that both run in harmony with each other.

The above is necessary to ensure that we are both able to analyse and also put into practice the advice of the platform, also because we feel it is very important indeed that we strengthen co-ordination between the NAM and the G77. The NAM provides a political force and the G77 provides a negotiating mechanism. This is the way it has always worked in the past. I think that in the Joint Co-ordinating Committee, to break down priorities would be an advisable activity. As far as the analytical part is concerned we feel that the South Centre and the various think tanks available to the developing countries also require significant support. This group has proven its worth and has been given approval by the G77 and NAM. I think that that is an important nucleus that could be one of the central groups to help us define the strategies.

With regard to negotiations now, we need to identify some priorities within the multilateral agenda that you mentioned, with a view to translating the general strategies into specific proposals. To that extent Chair, I did want to stress the importance of defining priorities and identifying or drawing up specific proposals that we can take to the negotiating table via the G77. Using a process which will enable us to have an ongoing follow-up of negotiations. To this end we feel that we need to have a co-ordination point, a kind of focal point in New York that is backed up by Geneva. Many of the international negotiations are being advanced in New York and Geneva, negotiations which are in the interest of the developing countries. I think it would be important to go over some of the proposals which were addressed in Jakarta recently by the G77 with regard to how we can strengthen the Secretariat's role in negotiations in order to try to provide some sort of compliment to the G77 and the NAM, because it is clear that the two groupings are following identical objectives.

Thank you very much Mr Chairperson.

Thank you Colombia. Next is India.

India

Mr Chair,

Thank you. I wish to congratulate you as the host government of the Summit for holding this event with an economic focus. This is a welcome and appropriate development that hopefully will become a practice at future summits.

The serious economic challenges and disadvantages our society suffer from need no reiteration here. These are matters of long national experience that find expression at various fora. They include the decline in bilateral and multilateral ODA; the issue of augmenting and marshalling resources for MFI's increased allocation to improve global liquidity and raising global demand and purchasing power in developing countries; linkage of FDI with the right of Governments to channel it, keeping in view the public good, social and economic considerations; the need for proper sequencing of financial sector liberalisation and issues of prudential regulation of private short-term capital; exploitation of innovative financial instruments for generating development finance; issues of global governance of capital and currency markets; chronic disadvantage in terms of trade, export, finance, non-tariff barriers of various types; technology; the effect of TRIPS and GATT agreements; the massive negative net transfer of financial resources from developing countries and their indebtedness; the need for linkage between BWIs and the UN and global monitoring, policy analysis and advisory role in regard to international financial and monetary architecture and its connectivity to other aspects, institutions and issues of the international economic system; the crying need for meeting resource needs of developing countries on concessional terms for public good, sectors lifting these societies to the human dignity they deserve, physical and social infrastructure; poverty alleviation, population management, special attention to women and children and other weaker strata of society; renewal of productive bases to become more competitive in global markets, employment and human resources; social development and environmental protection. I need not elaborate.

As called for by His Excellency, the Deputy President Mr Mbeki, in his incisive and hard hitting address at the Ministerial Meeting this morning, the NAM has to ensure that the twin processes of globalisation and liberalisation are harnessed to address developmental needs of member states of the NAM. These processes are not a panacea by themselves. If not channelled by wisdom and balancing requirements, they carry with them the potential for creating grave social and economic disruption in developing societies.

The most urgent need before us therefore, is to activate a mechanism which would serve our interests on a continuous basis by strengthening the capacity of the Movement to assess the evolving international financial and economic situation from the perspective of developing countries; to assist in the formulation of a practical agenda of the South, recognise the need to strengthen the capacity of NAM to analyse and respond to major economic developments trends; to assist developing countries in a timely and effective manner in ongoing negotiating processes which are shaping the management of the global economy; to assist developing countries in focussing on long term strategic economic issues with the view to helping them in projecting and promoting their vital and collective interests at major multilateral conferences.

The mechanism would also promote effective networking between existing research and other relevant bodies in developing countries and strengthen technical co-operation among NAM countries in concrete ways, such as through sharing of development experiences, fellowships and training facilities. The capabilities we have built up in the South are now non-recognisable from what they were even a couple of decades ago and we have not done justice to them. We need to move forward in practical ways. The identification of problems and challenges before us is known territory.

Mr Chair, I would like to thank Dr G Corea and his team for their valuable and thought provoking report. We welcome and appreciate this report by the NAM Ad-Hoc Panel of Economists, authorised by the 1997 New Delhi Ministerial Conference. It constitutes the starting point. We strongly advocate that effective decisions are taken to ensure continuous and effective servicing of the requirements indicated. We made some suggestions and these will no doubt be augmented and approved. Let the Durban Summit mark a turning point.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much India for that crisp statement. The next country is Bangladesh.

Bangladesh

Mr Chair,

Thank you for giving me the floor. As we look ahead to the next millennium, what we see before us are opportunities and pitfalls. The opportunities are for those who are bold enough to seek the initiative. And the pitfalls are left for those who will falter and hesitate. The commissioning of the Report of the Panel of Economists clearly indicates in which category our Movement falls. The report highlights clearly the inequities and problems facing the developing countries. It has been noted that the governance of the global economy doesn't favour the developing countries. I am not going into the details of this report. I wish to congratulate the members of the Panel of Economists who have contributed to it.

I want to draw your attention to a fundamental part that has not been addressed in the report. We frequently talk of the end of the Cold War and as a by-product of that process the free market economic system which have been accepted by all of us. In most of our economies the private sector has taken a leading role in trade and investment issues. When you talk about volatile actions, both among us and in our negotiations with the developed countries, we are ignoring the role of the private sector in our countries and how they interact with their counterparts in the developed countries. Unless we are able to evolve the private sector and take on both their concerns and interests, much of our work in this area will never be translated into actions. This issue in the Report of the Panel of Economists has to be corrected.

I wish numerate subtle issues which need to be considered as you contemplate further action on the report of the Panel of Economists:

In the context of the global economy, we should identify some issues which we regard as fundamental to the South. On those issues we need to develop our negotiating capability.

The distinction between bilateral and multilateral matters must be made very clear. Inter-linkages must also be explored whenever necessary.

South-South co-operation must be increased. One of you suggested that networking of the institutions should be implemented immediately.

The system of regional economic co-ordination schemes within the context of NAM is a good idea. However, groupings from amongst its members where the countries have not been selected by the general memberships are not totally representative. They are not a substitute for formalised gatherings.

Special attention should be given to the list of groups of countries that have common characteristics such as the landlocked countries, least developed countries and small islands states. In all future panels an adequate deliberation should be taken from such countries so that their interests are reflected.

Mr Chair, we should authorise our Co-ordinating Bureau to take follow-up measures to implement what we decide here.

I thank you. I believe the time allotted to me is over. Again I thank you.

Thank you very much. The next delegation to take the floor is Gambia.

Gambia

Thank you Chairperson for giving us the floor at this stage of our meeting. Thank you also for convening this meeting here in South Africa, which bears symbolic importance for members of the NAM. Not only is it a country which has also stepped into the industrial world very far, but also embraces some of the problems that are facing most of the countries in the developing world who are members of this organisation.

I will join the other speakers to thank Dr Corea for the document that his Panel has provided. I want to join you so that we should be able from this floor to go out with solid ideas as how we should face the outer world in the next millennium. What is very interesting about the NAM, is that it is a conglomeration of various countries at various levels of development in Europe, Africa, Asia, Central America and the Arab world. We all meet here looking for one political will of serving not only as a conscience of the international community but as a leitmotif for justice at this stage in the evolution of our world.

Mr Chair, I would only ask how we shall be able to master the political will that will translate the ideas that are buried in these pages into action. Since the meetings of the Group of 77 and all the reports that have been made, I think we have already identified all that is needed to be in the position that would lead us to some respectable platform in challenging those who in one way or the other are opposite us, but at the same time share the common burden of humanity’s evolution.

Mr Chair, this is just to say that without political will and without precision, as long as we are fragmented, divided and easily separated when it comes to cardinal decisions, we will never be able to implement our own political decisions, much more economic decisions that we do not control. So I will therefore not repeat the point that has been made. I will only say, let us take the report and go out with solid decisions on how we could keep up a mechanism for rapid consultation when it comes to taking solid political decisions.

We can debate, we can write for as long as we want to, but if we do not have the political cohesion to decide, be it within the framework of the United Nations, the framework of our negotiations with the International Monetary Fund, or the framework of any other type of negotiation that NAM member states are involved in, without that solid political will, we will always be weak and exploited. I am quite certain that is not the intention in this hall, and I hope that we will be able to leave it with that clearly defined political will and that sharpness that you say used to be characteristic of Chaka Zulu. Thank you.

Thank you very much Your Excellency. The next delegation is Zambia.

Zambia

Thank you Chair,

Please allow me Chair as I am taking the floor for the first time, to extent to you our congratulations and also our heartfelt thanks for the organisation of this Summit here in Durban. Likewise, I would like to thank the experts who have submitted to us this extremely good document that is currently under discussion.

Chair, I think this document we are looking at is a key document. Each of our delegations really needs to analyse it, to think about it and based on it come up with very specific and tangible recommendations. We have really asked the key question out of the text of this document. Indonesia has already spoken about the contents of this document and it is important that this then be converted into reality. In this report various issues have been identified, but basically the question is which orchestra is able to play and what should they play. These are the sort of questions that we have to ask. I don't want to repeat what has been said already, but I think looking at economic matters, there are four key questions.

Firstly, we need regulations in financial and monetary systems. If we do not have some clarity in that area and if all the world players, and I stress all of the world’s players, don't really have a sense of control of these, I think we are going to find that the results are going to be very awkward.

The second point is on the indebtedness of countries of the South. Where did this indebtedness come from? I think somebody already said, Chair, what is not up for negotiation is that we have only been applying palliative measures without dealing with the fundamentals of the question. We have to sort the matter out upstream and not downstream, because it is upstream that we are really going to come up with the real solution.

The third point that I would like to raise sir, is setting the price for commodities. We see within countries of the South that there is overproduction and that the rates go down. I think it’s important that we ourselves keep a closer watch on this matter. We have to look ourselves very closely at this whole question of the setting of the control of commodities.

Finally, we have to look at the structures as well. Who do we actually discuss infrastructure with. We spoke about the members meeting. There are regional and sub-regional organisations and I believe that we have to give them a role as well. We have to do this from the grassroots up. We can then come together at a regional level and then continent by continent we can prepare our stance. I believe that the analysis that has been done, is a good one. What has been said is absolutely true, but I don't think we have to repeat this though. What we now have to do is to find means so that we can defend our interests in this globalised world. So I believe that these are the four sectors that we really have to look at. We also have to look at how we can actually do that and how we can really get our orchestra to go there, to tune up and then play.

In the recent past, the world economy has witnessed changes, which for the optimists can at best be described as encouraging. The latest technology to hit many fora, as His Excellency Deputy President Thabo Mbeki very correctly and heavily analysed and identified, has been globalisation and liberalisation. Nonetheless globalisation is not a plain issue for the world, especially given the existing inequality between the poor South and the regions. Similarly, interdependence, which is accentuated by globalisation, has tended to increase opportunities as well as challenges that the countries of the South have to face. One of the main obstacles, Chair, to development in most if not all the countries of the South is their debt overhang. Initiatives taken so far to address the external debt problems and increase the flow of direct foreign investments have not borne the expected results. However, Zambia is grateful to all those of our development partners who have come to our assistance.

The founding fathers of the NAM must be complimented for their foresight in creating a Movement that has stood the test of time. It is an open secret that most of our detractors did not give our action, let alone the Movement a chance to survive much beyond its inaugural meeting. The Movement's resilience, partly buttressed by its determination in upholding its principle objectives, is already paying tangible dividends. What better evidence would we advance than the multiplicity of countries applying for observer and guest status at our meetings. These are countries that do not take their decisions lightly. Zambia believes this is a very welcome change which signifies the fact that our Movement is increasingly being recognised as a major influence in the world decision making mechanism. It is also a recognition of a significant role than NAM is poised to play from now on into the next millennium.

In the same event, Chair, and by way of our individual and global responsibilities we have taken steps to reorient some of our implementation strategies. It has similarly been recognised and become prudent for political considerations which hitherto occupied the centre stage to be blended with economic and social development considerations. It is in this regard that the NAM took the steps of setting up its own Ad Hoc Panel of Economists following the New Delhi Ministerial Meeting. It is therefore gratifying, Chair, that the Report of the Panel has zoomed in on those elements for the agenda of the South for the next millennium. The Panel's report highlights most of the principle issues that must make up our new agenda in respect of each of the major issues. Zambia is proud to have been honoured to be among those that were tasked to come up with these ideas. Granted, the Panel has not reinvented the wheel. What cannot be denied, however, is the fact that the Panel has provided our Movement sufficient meat for serious thought. It is for this reason, among others, that my delegation commends the work of the Ad Hoc Panel of Economists and requests that our meeting should work towards implementing some of the suggestions that are included in the Report. My delegation also wishes to take this opportunity to thank the South Centre for making its facilities available to the NAM Ad Hoc Panel of Economists.

Finally, let me pay special tribute to the Chair in a very special way for a report very well prepared and presented.

I thank you very much Sir.

Thank you very much Zambia for that input. South Africa.

South Africa

Thank you Chair.

Firstly, let me begin by joining colleagues in congratulating and commending Dr Corea and his able team with their contribution.

Chair, the challenge facing the South in the 21st century is whether as developing countries we will be integrated and be part of the global economy, or whether we will fall further behind. This is the single most important challenge that is facing us. Our objective therefore, is to have a political will that was described by our colleague from Gambia to define an agenda which will seek to ensure that global economic governance is representative and is representative of all the developing world. Our objective Chair, is to reduce the inequalities to eradicate poverty, to avoid our own marginalisation. We must also achieve sustainable rates of economic growth and development. We need therefore to develop a NAM South Agenda and strategies that seek to affect the world economy in ways that advance our issues and advance our consensus. Some of these issues we take as given include inter alia the rapid debt relief which must be pursued vigorously, and increasing the levels of ODA. But our agenda must promise to be very proactive.

The above needs to occur within the context of wider development strategies. We need to be forward looking and assert our own interest and address all the concerns highlighted. In future this approach needs to entail the development of clear and effective strategies that address sound analysis, thorough research, industrial and agricultural strategies and more particularly good governance, particularly of financial markets. It needs to be based on a sound analysis of current structure of the world economy and how it is changing. We have to identify clearly the possibilities and constrains of establishing networks of researchers and networks of research institutions for such analysis. This will provide a very sound basis on which to co-ordinate all our negotiating positions.

We want to emphasise agricultural development. As developing countries we have clear comparative advantages in this particular sector. The realisation of these advantages would provide a firm base for future development of the agricultural sector. But this is very much handicapped by developed countries which continue to protect their agricultural sector through tariff escalation and also through abuse of standards as protectionist measures. Such measures block the path of using agro-industry to attain industrial development. We therefore need to co-ordinate all our collective effort to address these and other constraints imposed by developed countries. To achieve these requires us to make an investment in agriculture sectors. We need also to address trade distorting subsidies in the North, for example in the EU's common agriculture policy. In part all this means seeking to pursue these individual negotiations in the WTO culture.

We also want to draw attention to industrial development strategy. Tariff escalation in particular in the North severely inhibits advances in industrial processing in areas where developing countries also have clear advantage, such as in textiles and clothing. Our experience demonstrates that countries that have been successful players in the world economy have pursued an active industrial strategy in which the state has a pivotal role, such as in the provision of support and other forms of risk taking as the market will also under-invest in situations of uncertainty. Here again colleagues, our forecast is to engage the North on WTO issues such as on subsidies agreement to ensure that we retain all the instruments which will allow us to pursue our industrial strategies in fiscally responsible ways.

The basis for growth in the global economy will be the development of future opportunities that will emerge from amongst our own NAM members. Our forecast therefore, is to develop South-South economic linkages and not to remain on the forecast on Northern markets. Recent growth in the global economy has been trade-driven, without sufficient economic growth particularly for us in the developing countries. The current process of globalisation and liberalisation has not led to sustained growth in the developing world and with relativistic growth in the industrial economies. Huge funds have accumulated without sufficient outlet investment opportunities. This has created an environment in which footloose investment funds slash the global economies for quick returns with severely destabilising effects.

On financial issues our view is that the prevailing economic crisis has prompted a rethink of the existing international financial system. There is an imperative to strengthen regulatory and supervisory capacity to ensure that appropriate national and international structures exist in this respect. There is therefore a need for improved regulatory co-operation and surveillance of cross-border and cross-asset market activity. We also believe that information sharing arrangements between regulators of different jurisdiction is no longer a luxury but a dire necessity. A further question that needs addressing is raising credential capital standards. All of this, colleagues, means that we must raise the question of good governance because it is so vital to the very survival of many of our countries. These issues in their totality form the very basis of our engagement regarding global economic governance.

In conclusion, we want to say that the challenge will be dialogue, alliances and engagement with the North on all these issues that we have raised.

Thank you Chair.

Thank you very much South Africa. The next delegation is Cuba.

Cuba

Chair,

You have asked us to be brief. We would like to congratulate you and I shall be very brief in my comments. Following the initiative to bring the Panel together we have seen the fruits borne. We now have identified the difficulties that will enable us to recuperate the role that is ours in international economic relations.

The fact that we are in a situation which in terms of quality is a different one within the world economic order means that we have to take different positions. But today’s problems, it has to be said, are the same as those existing two decades ago when the Non-Aligned countries signed the declaration and agreed on the programme of action in order to establish a new international world order. The only visible change has been that our conditions are much more critical than they were in the past. Our disparities vis-à-vis the developed world rather than decreasing have increased at an increasingly rapid rate. Today we don't have that gulf that we referred to years ago. We now have an abyss because there have not been massive changes and this situation will get worse unless we do something about it. The Report of the Panel indicates that the rules that operated in the past in order to restructure international economic relations and to make them more just and more equitable are no longer valid. We also agree that the wild forces of the market are the ones that play. It is those forces that are taking advantage of globalisation and liberalisation, using these instruments to penetrate our markets and make us even more dependent. That is why to develop a new agenda for the countries of the South is a fully logical step and it is something that is very urgent. Nevertheless, we are particularly concerned that some feel that the globalisation process is a panacea which using its own dynamics will solve all of our problems, without taking into account the neo-liberal nature of the policies at the heart of globalisation and the social conditions of the majority of our population, as well as the increasing situation of poverty which we have referred to on more than one occasion in the past. This situation applies to very many countries here.

In the process of reform in the United Nations, the problems of development have been marginalised. We don't understand how the WTO and the prominence of the international and financial and monetary institutions in the process of globalisation could have brought this about, but we must not forget that the United Nations is the most appropriate forum in order to define the economic policies which are suitable for us. I think that the force of our sheer number gives us strength which we should at all times remember. Certainly globalisation today as it stands is irreversible. The task before us is basically to determine how and via what mechanism, using what tools we can to turn these processes to our needs. We also need to determine how we can improve our presence on capital markets, how we can access science and technology as well as promote our co-operation and our own processes of integration as a reply to the disintegration of our societies which we see happening as a process. This is why we attach so much importance to the ideas expressed by the Panel.

As always the main question is how we can put all of this into practice. Well, as other speakers have said we have the music written, we have to simply convene the orchestra and start the music playing. We have the possibility to make the Durban Summit Conference into an instrument of co-operation, but in order to do that we need to design the appropriate instrument. I think we have to go back to some of the practices that we had in the past in the Movement and which constitute our raison d’être. Our ministers of economy and finance must meet. We must exchange criteria and our movement must have permanent structures which will enable us in the United Nations and other fora to collectively defend our interests.

The Non-Aligned Countries should translate the excellent ideas proposed here into a programme which will enable us to implement specific economic programmes vis-à-vis the developed world and also which will enable us to promote our own mutual development. Given the increasing burden of foreign debt and given the pressure on prices and the proliferation of coercive measures, we see ourselves in a world where the neo-liberal rules are leading to increasing impoverishment of our peoples. This situation I think urges us to find a unified approach, a more concerted approach, greater cohesion, greater solidarity. It is up to us, the Movement of the Non-Aligned countries, to take this step. For all these reasons Chair, Cuba is at your disposal.

Thank you Chair.

Thank you very much Cuba. The next delegation is Guyana.

Guyana

Thank you very much Chair.

As you and others have rightly said, the Movement owes a debt of gratitude to the Ad-Hoc Panel of Economists for its work and particularly to the distinguished Chair for the presentation of his report. I would add to Sri Lanka, whose brainchild this expert group was. By their own admission, the experts do not claim that there is much novel in the report and that it is rather preliminary. At the same time we do feel that it provides a useful compass for our way forward in search of our goals.

Without being churlish and without diminishing in any way my praise for the report, we were rather surprised by the relatively slight emphasis, and I say relatively, placed on South-South co-operation. We feel at this particular conjunction where everything seems to be stacked against us in terms of diminishing resources, we need to turn to ourselves to see whether we cannot come together as the distinguished Minister of Indonesia and others have said, and to look ahead to the forthcoming South-South Summit. Unless we can get our act together, it is hardly likely that we will be able to face our developed partners in any meaningful way.

I would also like very briefly to uplift one of the points picked up also by the Minister of Indonesia. That is the recognition of the heterogeneous nature of the Group of 77 & China and the need for developing a spirit of inclusiveness. Perhaps the route that we need to follow has been suggested by the distinguished Minister of Bangladesh. Until we can get our negotiating power in that kind of coherent whole, I'm afraid we will not have the sort of bouillon that we need to face our developed partners.

Finally Chair, taking up the analogy with the orchestra, I think what we face in the developing countries is that we do not have the musicians or the technical expertise. We need to find somewhere where we can draw our institutions, the South Centre or universities to share our technical skill so that when we meet with our partners we are on an equal playing ground. Very often we are accused of repeating pious phrases without getting into the details.

Secondly, in terms of your question as to the follow up, I would think that this report suggests its own - we need to create a few panels - but thereafter I think it should be taken up by high level meetings of the Joint Co-ordinating Committee in New York, which brings together all the NAM and the Group of 77 &China. It is very important that we would do this within a foreseeable time frame. Apart from that however Chair, I do feel that we need to raise the level of our negotiations. As the distinguished Minister of the Gambia said, the political will is missing. Very often that will, while it is expressed at Summit meetings, never percolates down to the committees. We have to maintain a high level contact between the NAM countries and the G7, not on the margins of the G7 but a regular mechanism that allows for a dialogue to compliment our negotiating committees. Experience has shown that those committees very often get bogged down in details.

My last point is that we need ever more that ever to bring the question of development under the umbrella of the United Nations, while not denying the proper role of the Bretton Woods Institutions, unless we can get the United Nations to direct and to orient development efforts, we shall be ploughing the sea.

With those few points let me again thank the Panel for the very informative and helpful report. I thank you.

Thank you very much Guyana for that crisp input. Egypt.

Egypt

Thank you Chair,

Being among the last speakers certainly has its advantages. Much of what I wanted to say has already been said. For that I shall be really brief, Chair, and make only few remarks of rather general nature on behalf of my Minister who very much wanted to take part in this round table but unfortunately for unforeseen reasons had been retained and could not be present.

Let me first thank the Panel of Economists headed by Dr Gamani Corea for the Report submitted today for the consideration by the Ministers. The efforts the group put to come up with such a detailed and in-depth analysis of the issues at hand is truly commendable. Their report is certainly a very comprehensive one. We would like also to thank the South Centre for providing the necessary assistance and extend the support of the Centre to the Panel of Economists to come up with such an exhaustive and as you said yourself succinct report, Chair.

I do understand that the report indicates what the agenda of the South should and could consist of. Nevertheless, I believe the many and diversified issues the Panel tried to incorporate certainly makes the report very comprehensive. However, it also renders it difficult, cumbersome and really difficult to pursue and implement. That will certainly necessitate further technical as well as political work on our side. In view of the pressing need to flesh out the points addressed by the report, we believe that the Chair in consultation with the Co-ordinating Bureau in New York should include on the Agenda or the meeting in September an item to allow us to address in more detail the modalities for carrying out the follow-up, including the suggestion put forward for a network of national think-tanks under the South Centre.

We believe that an Agenda of the South should be, in the first place, pragmatic, focussed and action-oriented so that it can become easily implementable within the pace of change of the world economy today. Such an agenda should also specify the different fora in which the issues we propose should be dealt with and addressed. A proposal put forward by the distinguished Minister of Indonesia is to bring back an old idea regarding a Conference on Money and Finance. We would like to support very much this idea, but we surely need to plan ahead and to find out where to push this idea in the light of the difficulties we have already faced regarding this proposal when we first came up with it. We all agree that globalisation does not present a universal panacea. But what we would like to stress is that it is also not at the basis of all ills. It has become a fact of life that we have to live with. We have to learn how to shape and adjust it to our needs and priorities. Our agenda has to harness the process of globalisation and liberalisation which, as the Foreign Minister of Indonesia emphatically clarified, has become a trend which we can no longer stop.

What I would like to add here, however, is what we need most is determination, perseverance and continuity in defending our interests. Developed countries, if they have something at stake they continually keep on persecuting us. A case in point is for instance the relationship between trade and environment. I can claim that developing countries have really won the first round in this regard as the outcome of the WTO Singapore Ministerial in December '96 came very much in their favour and supported their line of argument. Did developed countries give up? Not for a moment. They keep on nagging us, harassing us and pressing us for on these issues. This is also the way we have to push our own issues to the forefront with determination and perseverance. We should not give up. We are constantly subjected to pressures but we also can and should exert pressure to uphold and safeguard our interests.

It is true that developing countries together form a numerical force and that we have to revive our concerted action. But more so, developing countries have become a competitive strength in the world economy. Maybe it sounds too optimistic, but we feel that it is true what we witness today with the various attempts for new and imaginative protectionist measures taken by the North. As the Minister of Pakistan rightly said, these deviate from the international rules and regulations which we agreed upon in the framework of the Uruguay Round negotiations. These attempts and these protectionist measures are but a clear indication that developing countries have become a competitive strength in the world market. We have a leverage in the framework of multilateral negotiations. We should make effective and the right use of it.

Lastly, Chair, major international developments in particular at the end of the Cold War and the break-up of the Socialist Bloc - as the report rightly said - have had a strong impact on the global environment, affecting the developing countries more. Yet the augmenting financial crisis in South East Asia with its world-wide implications and the crisis we witness today in Russia will have an even stronger impact on the global environment and on developing countries. This should make us think and think again to take the right path and not haste into erroneous steps or actions. A positive agenda means that you have to participate in shaping the world economic system and help create an international economic environment conducive to the fulfilment of the aims and aspirations of the developing countries. Let us work together in a concerted manner towards this goal.

Thank you Chair.

Thank you very much Egypt for that input. The next country to take the floor is Malaysia.

Malaysia

Mr Chair, I wish to congratulate the Panel of Economists under the Chairmanship of Dr Corea of Sri Lanka for their commendable effort in producing within a short period of time, a comprehensive report on the elements for an agenda for the South. Malaysia finds this report extremely useful. Mr Chair, in view of the time constraint I would like to devote this, my intervention, to just three issues.

Firstly, I would like to focus on the financial and economic crises. Without doubt this is by far the most crucial issue that many of us are confronted with. The reverberations of the Asian financial crisis are now being felt world-wide. It is also being felt here in South Africa. It has begun to affect commodity exports and trade in other parts of Asia, Africa and Latin America. Even the larger economies of the North are not immune. The crisis has produced political and social ramifications. The full impact may be yet to come. We definitely do not wish to contemplate the worst case scenario. At the same time we should not take lightly signs of a more serious catastrophe. It is important that we recognise that in this particular case some form of regulation is better than deregulation. Financial markets and currencies should not be subjected to unbridled manipulation and speculation. All governments should work together to force a common understanding for a set of acceptable universal norms with regard to currency trading. We are all in this together, North and South.

On globalisation, let me now touch on another aspect. I wish to take note of the various views that has already been expressed on this subject, so I shall try to be as brief as possible. The globalisation process has been promoted widely in the West and there seems to be a consensus there that globalisation is unstoppable. Globalisation supposedly comes together with liberalisation, deregulation, the free flow of capital, the non-fetted access to markets and resources. But clearly for many developing countries, the picture of globalisation is not as rosy as its ideals are depicted to be. While globalisation can potentially provide vast economic opportunities, it also presents tremendous economic, political, social and moral challenges for the developing countries. We are told that opening our economies and markets will entail the flow of vast amounts of capital and investment. But this will not be without cost. The tiger economies of East Asia have over the past year experienced the damage and destruction caused to our economies by the free flow of short-term capital. Malaysia does not wish to see this fate befall our other partners in NAM. To us this is certainly a lessen for all. It illustrates clearly the pitfalls of unfettered globalisation. In the last year, millions of people in East Asia had been impoverished. The tigers have to succumb to a larger predatory beast that possesses the capacity and will to freely roam the globe, creating havoc and confusion in many of our financial and stock markets.

There is a need for all countries to better appreciate and understand the full effects of globalisation - the good as well as the bad. What has become evident is that all countries are affected in varying degrees by this phenomena. It is therefore imperative that dialogues such as this be promoted to more clearly identify the full ramifications of globalisation on all countries, particularly on the developing countries. We are ready to share our experience and any dialogues that has been held with all those who attend such dialogue. Perhaps through such dialogue, better understanding can be achieved and we will be better placed to cope with this new situation.

Finally, Mr Chair, I want to focus on South-South co-operation. This is a very important issue and most relevant to the NAM. The pressing global environment certainly calls for the developing countries to be enlightened more than ever. There should be an intensification of South-South co-operation. Malaysia fully believes in the necessity and value of such co-operation and has invested our time and effort in that direction. Despite our economic problems we maintain our commitment to the promotion of trade, investment and technical co-operation among developing countries. NAM certainly has an important role to play in this regard. We must seriously address the current international trading system and increase ways and means for the developing countries to promote trade among themselves. Increased co-operation among us will facilitate the sharing of experiences as well as benefits. Those of us who are in a position to do so can then assist others in timely and more effective ways.

The Asian crisis has caused the affected countries to device new ways to trade with each other. Some members of ASEAN have agreed to conduct bilateral trade in their own currencies in order to conserve hard currencies. Similar regiments could be applied more widely among the developing countries. Instead of using foreign currencies we could use our respective currencies while trading with each other. In this regard, we should also explore further the potentials offered by bilateral payment regiments. On this issue I would like to say that we have had a very beneficial experience with many countries in South America when we introduced the bilateral payment regiments with these countries and have recorded very good increase in trade volume, in most cases 400% more. Before we had very little knowledge of South America, the various countries there, what they have that we can buy and what they would need from us. But the bilateral payment regiments have brought about a better understanding of what we have in our respective countries. At the same time they have introduced the role of the central bank, which can then provide some guarantee and also promote confidence among the investors and money traders who wish to trade with one another. And with this new confidence and a strong commitment by the governments concerned, the trade that we have registered today is much more in volume.

We have also introduced another concept: strong partnership. The partnership within government, the partnership within the private sector, smart partnership between government and the private sector. We have successfully introduced this at international workshops. It was welcomed and participants from Africa in particular were very interested in this new idea. Recently at the Southern Africa International Dialogue in Namibia, the idea of smart partnership was also discussed. I have been told in the Caribbean a similar dialogue on smart partnership would also be held. With this we hope to see more co-operation among countries of the South. We believe very strongly that we can do more for ourselves while at the same time continuing to deal with the North.

It is important that we develop for ourselves a self help programme, that through the sharing of experiences we can perhaps optimise the utilisation of the various resources available among us and at the same time develop the kind of programmes based on experience already existing in the South in order to develop our economies. I think it is possible for us to work together. I always believe in co-operation. We have to work together and work hard and prosper thy neighbour instead of begging thy neighbour. An example of a strong co-operation of NAM member countries was demonstrated in the negotiation situation in Marrakech when discussion of the WTO took place. I recall that the countries of the North were interested in introducing some non-tariff barriers such as issues of practice of democracy, of environment, of labour and social aspects. We resisted that and we were successful because we were strongly united. We are strongly committed to the objective not to have that included in the WTO. If lessons could be learned from the experience in Marrakech, it is that by being together, working together, co-operating and demonstrating a very strong commitment to what is of interest to us, we can succeed.

This is the sort of strategy that we should adopt. If there is a strong commitment, there is a strong belief in our ability to succeed. I think we should not worry too much in terms of how we relate to the North. We must be more confident and that confidence can only come to us if we are together and we are strong in our commitment and effective in our co-operation. Thank you Mr Chair.

Thank you very much Malaysia. We will now take the last three speakers which is Madagascar, Sri Lanka and Vietnam. We will try and finish at six.

Madagascar

Thank you Chair,

I would like to follow the spirit of what has been said by previous speakers and particularly our colleague, the Minister from Malaysia. On the basis of the very good analysis that was done by Dr Corea, I would like to stress certain of the points that arise from the report. It is important that we really look at what has been achieved by the Movement. We need to do this critically so that we can then really forward this Movement.

It is also important that we create the necessary conditions for true partnership in a spirit of the sharing of responsibility. Facing the challenges of globalisation of trade, which have frantically caught us, is the developing countries unawares, we have to create these conditions. I listened very carefully to the ideas that have been tabled by other speakers, which called for better co-ordination of Non-Aligned Countries with the worlds of financial institutions and the G8, and also the principle of strengthening South-South co-operation.

We need to start a real thinking process so that we could use our own resources within the Non-Aligned Movement and come up with mechanisms which will support what the Movement wishes to achieve in terms of funds and own resources within the Movement. These would then be used for the benefit of members of the Movement. The funds to be created by and for the Movement, as is proposed by Madagascar, could be used to relieve debt, at least in part, and would also be used for investment purposes. Such a mechanism would have to be initiated within the Movement as accompanying measures and it would accompany the national efforts taken by each country. I'm also pleased to be offered an opportunity to point out that Madagascar would also like to submit this idea with the blessing of the Durban Summit to a study group which could be appointed by the Co-ordinating Bureau.

Thank you very much Mr Chair.

Merci. Sri Lanka.

Sri Lanka

I wish to make three bullet points, Mr Moderator.

The first is that when Sri Lanka took the initiative at the New Delhi meeting of the Foreign Ministers of the NAM in 1997 to make the proposal that this Panel be set up, it was really rather in the hope than in the confident belief that our experts in the developing world would come up with a useful piece of work. Having listened to the debate today, Mr Chair, I must say that my government is totally pleased and happy that the Panel has produced a useful piece of work.

The second point that I wish to make is that Dr Corea, the distinguished international economist, ceased many years ago to be an official of the government of Sri Lanka. He was under no obligation, whatever, to take this work. When I suggested to him that he should allow his name to go forward for appointment as the Chair of this Panel, he agreed. That agreement once again reflects the dedication and devotion that Dr Corea has always shown for the cause of the developing countries in the field of international economics.

Thirdly, by the time we leave Durban, Mr Moderator, we would not have resolved the problems that we have raised today. Therefore my government seeks to suggest that Heads of State or Government mandate South Africa as Chair to consult widely on modalities and mechanisms for the implementation of the report that has been placed before us. In addition, a report should be made to the next meeting of Foreign Ministers of NAM which will take place during the forthcoming Session of the UN General Assembly, only a few weeks away. That way Mr Chair, we would have some prospect of keeping the momentum that has been generated in Durban going. It will give all of us a chance to make, perhaps, a more focused and practical input in three weeks time.

I thank you Mr Moderator.

Thank you very much for that input. Vietnam.

Vietnam

Mr Chair,

While we need to continue to uphold the political mission of the NAM, the movement should pay more attention to the economic front so as to deal more effectively with the rapid but complicated process of globalisation and trade. In our perspective we have to work together to ensure that the adverse impacts of the trade liberalisation and globalisation process be mitigated, while its benefits can be maximised. The aim is bringing the developing countries and disadvantaged members of society into more mainstream development.

I wish to touch upon some issues concerning the WTO. Since its conception in 1995, our countries of the South still experience many difficulties in getting access to the benefit of this multilateral trading system. Problems such as discrimination in international economic relations, protection through unilateral disguised measures, linking trade to environment and social issues as well as economic punitive measures have been undermining the principle of trade liberalisation and prevented developing countries from getting real benefits of trade liberalisation and globalisation. Our movement, therefore, should exercise every effort to ensure an open, stable, equitable, non-discriminatory and secure global trading system. This we can do, and I am sure that what we do will help us better utilise this organisation in order to expand our economic and trade activities on the global markets to safeguard our own rise and interest and to gradually and effectively integrate our economies into that other world. It is also important that NAM should slowly support the effort of member countries to join the WTO on the principle of universal membership.

Mr Chair, the pursuit of promoting South-South co-operation could be further enhanced through various challenges. May I share with you one experience that Vietnam has with other developing countries in the agricultural field. With Senegal, Benin and Madagascar for example, we have developed with each country a kind of tripartite co-operation. It involves the co-operation of two developing countries with the assistance and funding of a donor. With our assistance Vietnam has been able to share its expertise and experience with Senegal in the field of food security and agricultural development, contributing to raise the latter's agricultural production capacity. We believe that the tripartite model of co-operation should be encouraged and multiplied in wider areas so as to better mobilise the expertise among the developing countries themselves and more effectively utilise the financial assistance of different international organisations.

I thank you Mr Chair.

Thank you very much Vietnam. The last speaker then will be Iran.

Iran

Mr Chair.

I wish to express my deep gratitude and appreciation to Dr Corea and his colleagues for a commendable and very valuable work. I will not go into the details of the report. I will simply reflect on its essence. In my view the report is rich in diagnosis and efficient in prognosis. Prognosis should be subject to focused consideration.

In general, globalisation and liberalisation of the world economy is very good, provided that marginalisation is avoided. We do not accept globalisation only because it is a reality and we have no other choice but to submit to it. We accept it because it is promising to all of us. Not just the developed world can and should benefit from it. Globalisation by its nature calls for enhanced dialogue and negotiation between all players, both from the developed and developing world. Elements of this dialogue are reform and restructuring, capital flows and investment, financial stability, export opportunities, raw material and commodities, transfer of technology and above all fair-play, removal of obstacles and coercive policy against free trade and unhindered competition. We do have an agenda and a common platform. We do not need to look for new ones. Economic decisions of this Summit should serve as the updated platform. What is needed is to reformat them into positions for negotiations. In continuation of its work the Ad Hoc Panel can concentrate on this. But most important is to engage in real and frank negotiations. Developing states has so far been unenthusiastic towards serious negotiations. I do not believe we can create a mechanism that will be more useful than what already exists to improve our negotiating position.

I believe our best option is to strengthen our co-ordination and co-operation while relying on our new Chair to follow up this matter. I suggest therefore, that South Africa form a group of friends of the Chair who would decide, dedicate, focus attention and efforts to create a real place for NAM in international economic negotiations and enhance these negotiations in form and substance; peruse NAM's platform and positions in the most effective way; ensure the best achievable outcomes for NAM and of course remain fully transparent and ensure full participation and involvement of NAM membership.

Thank you Mr Chair.

The Moderator

Thank you very much Iran for that concise input.

Colleagues, I think we've come to the end of an interesting dialogue and I really would on behalf of the Secretariat and myself as moderator, thank you for the inputs that have been made. What I would like to do is not to try and summarise every point made. It would not be possible. I think our original objective in this afternoon’s session of brainstorming and of trying to identify certain suggestions that could be carried forward has been achieved. If I may I will try and summarise the deliberations briefly and at the end of that, if the house has no objections, ask Dr Corea to include the summary in his report to the Heads of State or Government.

Firstly, I would propose that we accept the report and include it in the record of this conference as a background to our further deliberations on actions in this regard. It would also be only correct that this meeting, in addition to the Heads of State or Government, would like to sincerely thank the Chair of the Panel and the panel members for the work they have done. As has been indicated by some of the delegations here, I think we owe a word of thanks to the South Centre for the work that they have done in supporting this as well. I would further suggest colleagues that we will do everything in our power to record the inputs that have been made during this afternoon’s discussions, so that they could further support us as we move forward. Many important points have been made, many concrete suggestions to profit from. If we can, I don't know if the logistics will allow us to do this, we will try and make a transcript available as soon as possible as a matter for the record.

I think, in my recording, three important points were made that clearly require us to look at them in the report soon. These were matters of information technology, telecommunications and the role of the private sector. We have also had important proposals made, particularly the one to once again revive and consider the call for a conference on financial and monetary issues. It has been pointed out that this requires further planning and thought. Other interesting propositions have been made which would also require considerable thought as to the logistics. It was suggested by one delegation that possibly a role for ministers of finance and trade and industry would be important if we are really going to deal with the economic issues that have been put forward. It seems to me colleagues that it would not be possible to condense a decision about the precise way of moving forward out of this or any form of recommendation. I would therefore suggest that the recommendation that has been made by a number of delegations may well be the most practical one to take us forward. That recommendation is to mandate the Chair in consultation with a number of countries and groups, including the Panel, to take forward this process and report possibly as soon as possible to the Meeting of Foreign Ministers.

Now what do we mean by this? It would seem that really three fundamental issues have been canvassed in regard to the process of going forward in this afternoon's discussion. Firstly, I think there is agreement that a clear statement and prioritisation of the agenda for the South is needed. As was correctly pointed out by Iran at the end, the deliberations of our Summit will constitute much of this. But I think there has been clearly articulated the view that there is a need to reinforce, do more research with regard to the precision and the precise form of an agenda as we move forward.

I think secondly, it is clear that there is a need to translate the agenda that the Non-Aligned Movement articulates into a negotiating process. Here mainly the suggestion has been to link with the Group of 77 to also have further discussion about the regional and sub-regional interactions that could strengthen this actual mechanism for translating some of our views into a negotiating platform. But I think too, in particular by Indonesia, there was a statement about our approach. This was followed up by a number of delegates. It seems that the only realistic, pragmatic approach we can take is an inclusivist one. By this we mean, that not only should the varying views and interests within NAM be considered and taken into account. Also, it means that these are not just problems for the South and the NAM. These are problems that affect the world economy. The developed countries as much as ourselves need to clarify the responsibilities we have for a better global world, a world in which the process of globalisation benefits all, not just one part of the world. I think this has also being reflected by the statement by many delegates that a matter so important as the global economy and its functioning that affects the lives of so much of humanity, really is a matter that the UN cannot abdicate as an area of its responsibility.

Colleagues, my summary should not be taken as a text. I shall merely try and capture some of the key issues. I think it would be fair to say that on the basis of the Report by the Panel of Economists and the discussions we have had today, I hope I have reflected some of the key elements of what I believe is quite a strong consensus. What is suggested then is that along these lines the Chair be mandated to move forward in a consultative process with NAM members to develop and strengthen the research networks that were proposed by the Panel of Economists. In doing this, the Chair should be working with others to develop clarity on the working agenda, the mechanisms for negotiation and the approaches we take with regard to that negotiating process.

With your permission I would like to put that summary to you and see if there is any objection to it being recorded and possibly reported in a shorter form by Dr Corea to the Summit. From what I believe has been a good beginning, this has been a successful discussion with excellent inputs. Would there be any serious objection to this conclusion or any comment that anyone may wish to make or add? I see no-one. Could we then ask Dr Corea to report accordingly? Thank you very much.

Thank you colleagues for you excellent inputs. That means the end of the plenary session for this afternoon. Our thanks again to yourself, Dr Corea, for an excellent piece of work by yourself and your panellists.

Colleagues, thank you very much for you participation and have a good evening.