WIDS: The meeting of minds on international development *

2007-12-19 12:17 a.m.

The Warwick International Development Summit is, and definitely will be, the greatest UK student lead event ever. The name says it all, it’s about discussing about international development and how the world can be improved. This topic has been my primary focus for at least the past four years and so this wasn’t a chance that I was going to miss, especially since I did not catch it in 2006.

Warwick University is in Coventry, south (or maybe south east) of Birmingham and around a thirty to forty minute train ride away from Birmingham. Incidentally, I understand students from Warwick (at least international students) actually shop in Birmingham and not in their quaint little town. Ok, sidetrack. Unlike my university (and perhaps I say this with a sense of pride) Warwick University is not near the train station (Coventry Station) but it takes an hour long bus ride to the campus. The dreary weather didn’t help improve my orientation but a after asking and getting help from a kind soul, I found my way to the Mathematics and Statistics building, the venue.

So the early bird gets its worm, in this case, a deathly silence and an empty hallway. No matter I thought and snacked on my sandwiches. It was about half an hour later that I bumped into Melvin Lee, and old ACS(I) level mate. No long after that, the reception area opened and the event began.

The actual round of talks started about a few minutes late and the topic was “Global Trade: Fair Trade versus Free Trade”. Initially, I thought they were going to discuss about Fair Trade goods but no, the first speaker, Richard Higgot ( the Co-Director CSGR, Warwick Commission on Trade), tried to show that the two terms were not mutually exclusive. He focuses on the history of the global trading regime and the formation of the WTO. He showed the movement towards trade liberalisation from the 1980s onwards and how it was not a good thing for African nations in practice. He showed that that despite the criticisms levelled at WTO, it still aided international development. Oh ok. The main challenge of 21st century trade, he remarked, was to allow third world nations to produce and export on equal terms with developing nations. Alright, that’s not a new thrust, it has been placed forward by others like Joseph Stiglitz

Patrick Low, a Chief Economist WTO, began his speech (which was barely audible to me) along the same lines as Prof. Higgot, stating the history of the trading regime but consistently hammering down the point that liberalisation is a reality and that it cannot be avoided. Typical WTO stance I thought, until he mentioned his opposition to barriers to trade. Alright. Maybe we do have a Stiglitz like person in the international arena.

The third speaker for topic was a Melendez Ortis, the founder and director for the Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development whom again was so soft that I could only make out that he stated that Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) were largely in favour of developed countries. Again, something that I have read from Stiglitz’s works. What was more interesting was he small discussion on the Uruguay Round and the stalled Doha round.

The last speaker, and perhaps the most humorous of the lot, was a certain Duncan Green. Though he was from an NGO, Oxfam, the chair stated that he had a long experience in the public sector and the international arena. His speech, which was gratefully audible, was on the idea of the Most Favourite Nation principle, trade reality versus trade rules, the example of China, and recent EU trade policies with Less Developing Countries.

Q and A came with either audience members not responding with a microphone or the panel not raise their voices. Nevertheless, new issues such as the WTO policies towards the “dumping” of goods, taxation, migration, the usage of FDI in development, and the different degrees of liberalisation that should occur in developing countries. There was a brief discussion amongst the panellists and thus emerged and line that I again already knew: that free trade in today’s context is totally unregulated trade.

Lunch was as I described previously, served on proper plates with metal utensils and delicious soup. Wish I had taken more to make my five pounds more worth it. The next event was a workshop on Child Labour which was a entirely a new topic to me, but tiredness kicked in and I half listened to debates about Chinese Child Labour. The second topic was on Global versus Regional Governance: The Case of Latin America. The single speaker was Luis Alberto Lacelle Herrera, a former President of Uruguay. I waited for him to mention something about IMF/WB /First World policies in his country or the region but my eyes strained to open listening to him recounting virtually entirely the whole history of his country. There was the mentioning and the criticism of some US FTAs and regional FTAs, and that took another half of his speech. The speaker was good, but he was really long winded, even during the Q and A.

I struggled to stay awake fro the last session on International Financial Institutions, another area of my interest. The first speaker, Julius Cole, the latest president of Africare, seemed very distinguished having worked in the US Agency for International Development. Ok, if you read widely or even just Francis Fukuyama, you would note that USAID is within the US State department and deals out aid based on who’s a US ally and who is not. Mr. Cole was yet another one who spoke really softly, but his speech was on that of conditionality in aid, citing various examples of them and stating his strong opposition to it. The second speaker, Paul Talbot, holds the post of Assistant Secretary General at a place called Amicus. His side of the story was that of his organisation and it pushing for stronger ILO standards and his second part was on the voting power of developing countries in International Organisations. Finally, a Prof. Paul Cammack from the Manchester Metropolitan University gave his attack on US and Western aid policies. The Q and A thus flowed from there.

It was certain refreshing to hear the views of not just such distinguished guests but those of the students, all who had the phrase “International Development” etched in their minds. It’s also great to see that not all WTO or IO (International Organisation) officials hold the standard neo-liberal, neo classical economic view. A terrific opportunity indeed.

previous - next