The 'karma' of conferences

What was India's position at the International Conference on Finance for Development (FfD)?
India has been working for a long time on this question of the conference itself, and Kamlesh Sharma, our permanent representative in the UN was the first, I think, chairperson of the working group for preparing the document.

There have been reports that India asked for a system of global taxes of some sort at the meeting...
When I made interventions on behalf of India, I mentioned some proposals. For instance, a tax on capital flows or pollution taxes. But I was advised that we should only mention these generally in the plenary session statement, so they don't become India's 'proposals'.

Could it be that India does not do any homework, and therefore has no firm proposals to put on the table at international conferences?
That is probably a slightly mistaken impression. In putting forward a proposal, you don't want to stake the position so far out of line with everybody else that the proposal just becomes an academic proposal. A better way may be to introduce the idea as a principle, and then go on building an environment for it to be accepted by everyone.

Don't you think there was support for these global taxes from not just civil society, but also from governments? For instance, the French government expressed support.
President Chirac made a very fine statement, but ultimately it depends on whether all 190 countries in the UN are willing to go along or not. I think, at the root is persuasion.

What is this other device? Stronger alliances between the developing countries themselves, and between the developing countries and the European Union...
Yes, that's a very important point. But by alliances it does not mean... Southern alliances...all this business of going on having a lot of trade, South-South trade, South-South dialogue. I have seen this in the case of the textile agreement in several World Trade Organisation (WTO) meets. Anybody taking a stand out of line is just isolated. So I believe that the lesson is of much better networking and homework.

It is said that the reason this conference was so ineffective was because (US president) George Bush was coming, and the final agreement had to be general enough for him to agree to.
I don't think that is the case. Actually it is because of having to come to FfD that Bush, perhaps, was more enthusiastic about announcing a very substantial increase in foreign aid.

But he has already tied his promised aid to conditionality!
I think we must look more creatively at conditionalities and standards. Don't look upon conditions as impositions. I don't see the moral hazard that others see in tying aid to conditions. There are things that developing countries should be doing on their own. It may be that carpet sellers in Europe are using the child labour issue to do down our carpet exports. That's true. But we should think creatively. If child labour is a concern to them, why don't we think, say, of converting half the day for carpet manufacturers to run schools in their own establishment...or some other device. We should not look at conditions as a blanket thing...that would be, then, asking for charity...

But what when that amounts to protectionism?
Well, argue against protectionism. After all, because of the voice that was raised on the matter of steel imports, Bush has modified the American stand. So, alliances, persuasion, and propaganda...these are the instruments by which you can proceed.

To what extent, do you think, is aid effective in dealing with poverty?
That question requires a nuanced answer rather than a blanket one. I think the flow of funds certainly helps. But a lot depends on how we use it. For instance, in the case of the Northeast, in the last five years, the Centre has transferred Rs 48,000 crore. That's a lot of money. Where has it gone? So, for me to take the position - transfers from the Centre don't lead to development - is not right. On the other hand, to say that transfers alone will do the job is not right again. Both things have to be done together. Much depends on us.

To what extent, do you think, was this conference able to address poverty?
Well...it did address several dimensions of the issue. But whether conferences are the instruments by which poverty is going to be removed...naturally, I can't certify that! (laughs)

May I ask you a candid question, sir? How many people in the government do you think really understand how to deal with poverty? The impression we get is that all they ask is for money but they have no follow-up plans...
No, no, I don't think so. I think the quantum of aid is just one of the factors that was mentioned. And every speaker said - at least the ones I heard - they all said that, yes, quantum is important...but much of it depends on us. I certainly felt...the primary responsibility is ours. But quantum cannot be disregarded. We should set our policies right...we should plug corruption ...these are primarily our responsibilities, and nobody from outside can really change that.

There were six main themes to the Monterrey Consensus. If India were to take a lead in one of them, in pushing a global agenda forward, which would it be? Investment, trade, aid,...
The best thing for us to do is to make a showcase of India itself. I feel we should work towards the whole idea of redefining progress. If we really thought of alternate methods...public transportation, satellite towns, free buses...so many good ideas...that would have a much better effect than merely delivering statements.

How satisfactory is the Monterrey Consensus?
The question is what follow-up work is done. And go on preparing intellectual opinion in the full faith that events will occur to vindicate what you were saying. India has been taking a position on terrorism for such a long time, but people were just not listening to us. Then, events so happened that the same is being inflicted on the one superpower today. Now, everybody starts talking about terrorism.

Do you think a similar event will happen to win support for global taxes?
Yes, I do. Because the point that environmentalists have been making is now being vindicated by the environment, and by time. Twenty years ago, when the first articles on chlorofluorocarbons came, people thought some chap is taking an extreme view. But work on the ozone layer has made everyone aware, and remedial measures were actually taken. So, in life, time and chance happen to all.

So we should leave it to fate?
Not fate. Actually, it is karma (laughs)... that is bringing everyone to the right path.

Do you think, in terms of Indian participation, there will be some continuity from FfD to the World Summit on Sustainable Development?
I can't say that at all. I went only because the prime minister decided that I should go. He couldn't go because of the Parliament - and Yashwant Sinha, who was supposed to go, couldn't go because of the budget.

The ministry of finance consulted none of the other ministries for the FfD...
Why do you think like a government department? (laughs) I can't say generally, but as far as disinvestments is concerned, I assure you, everybody is consulted a lot!

Subscribe to Daily Newsletter :

SUPPORT US

We are a voice to you; you have been a support to us. Together we build journalism that is independent, credible and fearless. You can further help us by making a donation. This will mean a lot for our ability to bring you news, perspectives and analysis from the ground so that we can make change together.