HEADQUARTERS PRESS CONFERENCE BY 'GROUP OF 77' DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

HEADQUARTERS PRESS CONFERENCE BY 'GROUP OF 77' DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

The "Group of 77" developing countries and China (G-77), as the deliberative body and collective negotiating arm of the developing world, had championed the cause of the South within the bigger United Nations family for 37 years and maintained its solidarity in the face of tumultuous global change, the G-77 Chairman for 2001, Bagher Asadi (Iran), said today at a Headquarters press conference.

Mr. Asadi was joined by the Executive Secretary of the G-77, Mourad Ahmia (Algeria), on the occasion of the Group's thirty-seventh anniversary.  The Deputy Spokesman for the Secretary-General, Manoel de Almeida e Silva, introduced them.

The G-77 was formed in 1964 at the end of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) in Geneva, Mr. Asadi said.  Its membership had since increased to 133 countries, including China, but the name had been preserved for symbolic and historic reasons.  The coalition was the sole universal representative of the concerns, interests and demands of the developing world.  Its foundation lay in its unwavering pursuit of the genuine interests and concerns of the developing world, through active and constructive participation in multilateral processes and negotiations aimed at achieving development and a more equitable and humane world economic system.

Within that context, he said, the G-77 had played a crucial role in the preparation, negotiation and final adoption of innumerable documents, decisions, resolutions, legal instruments and conventions in the field of development, as well as on all major macroeconomic issues of global import and impact.  It had always operated on the basis of democratic, universal participation and made all of its decisions by consensus.  That explained why and how the Group had survived, preserved its open and participatory nature and maintained unity in the face of enormous change and challenge.  It had also contributed immensely to the objective of consensus-building in the multilateral arena –- a very challenging task and yet an indispensable role in a world becoming more diverse, interconnected and complex.

The G-77 had a very full agenda for the year, he went on.  In addition to the huge number of routine meetings and sessions at Headquarters, the Group had on its calendar a number of high-level special sessions and conferences.  It had already left behind the Third United Nations Conference on the Least Developed Countries in Brussels in mid-May, and the General Assembly special session on human settlements, which ended last Saturday.  A special session on HIV/AIDS was coming up in less than two weeks, and in mid-July in Bonn, Germany, there was the resumed United Nations session on climate change, commonly known as the Kyoto process.  In mid-September, there was a children's summit in New York, and in November, the World Trade Organization would convene a meeting in Doha, Qatar.

He said that the Group had been involved in two other important preparatory processes:  the international Conference on Financing for Development, to be held in March 2002 in Monterey, Mexico; and the World Summit on Sustainable Development –- Rio +10 -– to be held in Johannesburg, South Africa, in September 2002.  As part of the G-77's established process for periodic reviews of economic cooperation among developing countries, the Tenth Meeting of the Intergovernmental Follow-up and Coordination Committee would be held from 18 to 23 August in Tehran,

Iran.  That was a very important meeting with a heavy agenda of substantive items on the follow-up and implementation of the Havana Programme of Action, the outcome of the first-ever South Summit in Havana, Cuba, in April 2000.

Asked whether the G-77 had achieved anything of more than symbolic value, Mr. Asadi again referred to its role in the preparation, negotiation and adoption of many outcome documents, which were the product of multilateral work.  The Group served as a sole representative of the developing world, ensuring that its needs were met.  Just last week, it stayed "in the pit" on the global Habitat Conference until 8:30 a.m. Saturday to express the demands of the developing countries and the means to achieve them.  Without the G-77, the outcomes might be quite different.  If there was no United Nations, it would have been terribly wise to create one.  Similarly, if there were no G-77, the world would be well advised to have one. 

At the same time, he continued, it was a deliberative body, and not an executing, implementing agency.  It sat down with the whole United Nations family around the table, representing nearly one third of that family, and said what it wanted and thought about a particular situation.  Essentially, it sought to achieve development through two channels: South-South cooperation between developing countries, and North-South cooperation.

Globalization, he replied to a follow-up question, made the role of the G-77 even more imperative.  The world had become more diverse, interconnected and more complex, and the unbridled forces of globalization had made each country much more vulnerable.  Relying on the collective bargaining position of a larger group was precisely why the G-77 would be needed much more in the future. 

What was the G-77's message for the upcoming HIV/AIDS Conference and did he think its outcome would meet the coalition's demands? another correspondent asked.

From the viewpoint of the developing countries, he said, that was a terribly important gathering owing to the magnitude of the tragedy, with so much concentration in Africa.  The pandemic required a very forceful and urgent response, at the level of the whole international community and in a number of areas:  prevention; care and treatment; emergency; and poverty eradication.  For the G-77, HIV/AIDS was more of a development problem than a health problem.  As such, the Group expected the international community to rally around the Conference and come up with a real commitment of unprecedented magnitude. 

He added that an effective response required $7 to $10 billion per year.  An AIDS fund was being discussed, for which $200 million had been committed by the United States Government, and similar amounts by other donors.  Such contributions were disappointing, but he would wait for further developments over the coming weeks.  Nevertheless, the resources allocated for AIDS should be added to those already on the table for development.  Existing funds and official development assistance (ODA) should not be siphoned off, as they were scarcely meeting the present needs of developing countries.

As far as the outcome text was concerned, he said that the developing world was not terribly happy about its apparent direction.  Hopefully, between now and 25 June, negotiations would be corrected in a way that included more developmental aspects and curbed the tendency by the Western world to "push the envelope" on culturally, ideologically and ethically sensitive areas.

Asked about the impact of domestic events in Iran, particularly the recent presidential election, on his tenure as Chairman of the G-77, he said that

personally, he was very happy about the democratic process and the excellent outcome.  Domestic developments in any of the 133 countries should not have any particular impact on anyone's service as the Chairman of the G-77 -- and no, the Iranian election should not affect his position in any way.

Replying to a question about whether non-members of the G-77 had benefited from the process, Mr. Asadi said he was very proud that the G-77 was a force for consensus-building, which benefited everyone.  During his own diplomatic activity, he had seen the coalition play a decidedly positive role in moving the multilateral community towards consensus.  That was not an easy task, but the Group would continue in the same vein. 

To a question about the Group's emphasis on economic rather than political cooperation, Mr. Asadi said that, indeed, the G-77 did not deal with political issues, as such.  Rather, it dealt with economic and development issues.  For political issues, there was the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) of countries, comprised of many of the same nations.  Questions of how to approach United Nations reform, for example, fell within the Movement's purview.  The G-77 agenda was already full enough.

To a follow-up question about the complementarity of roles between the G-77 and NAM, he said that, in a sense, those were complementary.  For example, the NAM also dealt with economic issues, in general terms, but with one difference:  it adopted its declarations and went on to the next meeting to work on them, whereas the G-77 was engaged in negotiations at the level of the United Nations. 

Asked about the application of Member States to join the G-77, he said that countries applied and a decision about them was made at the ministerial meeting.  He hoped for a reduction in the number of members, however, as that would mean that more developing countries had joined the developed world.

* *** *