Conference Room Paper
NEPAD: Negotiating for Africa's Development
By Vikram Sura
| Home | In This Issue | Archive | Français | Contact Us | Subscribe | Links |
| Article | ||||||||
Raubenheimer is a veteran diplomat from South Africa, a senior Counsellor. He represents his country's interests at the United Nations and warms towards economic and social matters. Late last year, he explained, along with a group of African economic experts he sketched the initial draft of a resolution that was approved in a heartbeat by the General Assembly. The resolution proclaims international support, including that of the United Nations, for Africa's homegrown plan for its development, known as NEPAD or the New Partnership for Africa's Development. Policy and diplomatic circles alike acclaim NEPAD for its new approach. After delegations looked at the draft in October, Raubenheimer donned the hat of facilitator among delegations. His task was to get some 150 nations to lock arm in arm and endorse NEPAD. No less. "It is quite tricky, to use the word", he said. "NEPAD is an African designed and owned programme, and therefore Africa has primary responsibility for its implementation. But at the same time, it recognizes that it cannot happen without international support, and finally UN support, in whatever way possible." The final resolution amounted to 39 paragraphs and the title "Final review and appraisal of the United Nations New Agenda for the Development of Africa in the 1990s and support for the New Partnership for Africa's Development". There had been but one previous text on NEPAD (resolution 57/2): United Nations Declaration on the New Partnership for Africa's Development. Delegations turned to this resolution when ambiguity slowed negotiations. "If you are in negotiations", Raubenheimer said, "and if you have a particularly difficult patch, people say let's go back to agreed language. There was no truly agreed language on NEPAD or on cooperation of the UN with NEPAD."
"We also had some expectations on the outcome", Szczepanski said, "and they were met. Very strong support for NEPAD was one of our objectives, and then to include some ideas on how the UN system can be strengthened to support NEPAD." As with any give and take, these negotiations were no different. Raubenheimer first presented the draft on behalf of the African group to the 134 nations of the G-77, which then submitted it to the rest. He said he had a little difficulty in generating the support of the G-77, which also includes the African group, adding that in principle it had been very supportive of all the African initiatives. "The difficulties were the classic things", he said, "no secrets here. Anything in the draft that may look as if it prefers one country or group that could detrimentally affect others, it immediately attracts attention, not criticism, not negativity, but immediately people look at it very carefully." And carefully the G-77 looked.
Delegations did not totally see eye to eye on the paragraphs relating to official development assistance (ODA), and trade and market access. But noting the excitement and the commitment, though measured, that all the negotiating partners brought to the table, it wasn't a barrier either. "I think we spent most time on paragraphs related to macroeconomic, trade and ODA issues", Szczepanski said. The reason that the European Union preferred not to go beyond the consensus documents of the conferences on finance and sustainable development in Monterrey and Johannesburg last year, she said, was that the "ink was barely dry on them" and that the Second Committee is the "more appropriate place to progress" on macroeconomic issues. "As far as the European Union is concerned, we had no interest in moving beyond consensus language from Monterrey and Johannesburg", Szczepanski added. "I think initially that was where there was a lack of, perhaps, a convergence of views." This lack was noticed, for instance, when the G-77 proposed that language on ODA be more Africa specific. Szczepanski said that, in the end, "we ended up with language on ODA that read in part 'commit a significant share of such assistance to African countries'. So in that sense, you can say some improvement in language was made, but clearly set, adapted to an African context." Should be or not to be Five days of negotiations—over beverages and smokes in the lounges, consulting chambers and low-walled, golden, brightly-lit conference rooms—stretched into eight days. The first day, Monday, 11 October, Carpio Govea presented the draft on behalf of the developing world to all partners, some of whom included the European Union, the United States, Japan, Canada, South Korea and Norway; two days later, only after diplomats had consulted their capitals did real negotiations roll, Raubenheimer said. And finally when he was asked to produce a text with the proposed amendments, it was the fourth day, Thursday, 6 p.m. by his Seiko chronograph. "I drew up a text for Friday morning", he explained, "which everyone accepted as the new basis for negotiations, after which we had a reading on Friday afternoon. Then we came back on Monday; I started pushing very hard because I realized that if we were not going to finish, we were headed toward serious difficulty, since these were the same experts working with the Second Committee and it was poised to start with its own work." But then a linguistic twist emerged. On Tuesday, the seventh day, Raubenheimer noticed that a particular portion of the text was still being read and reread, with diplomats pausing near a short phrase tucked into the print, innocuous maybe, but for reasons of State was arresting their attention. Unto the seventh negotiating day, the arresting paragraph read in part: "… that NEPAD … be the policy framework around which the international community, including the United Nations system, should concentrate its efforts for Africa's development". Delegations from the developing nations proposed a surgical amendment, adding "that NEPAD … should be the policy framework around which …". Raubenheimer said: "Now some saw it was too prescriptive for their democratic right to decide how they want to engage. But the argument was that it was Africa's plan, and Africa said 'this is how we want to be engaged. Don't come and try bending our arm to take on things that are not part of our plan'." In the end, should got included. "The Group stuck together", Carpio Govea, Coordinator of the G-77, said. "It's not about victory. NEPAD is a vision of Africa by Africans", he said. "It's a commitment by African leaders to their own people, as well as indirectly to the international community. African ownership are the key words." But sticking points still remained. It was the last day, Wednesday, and Raubenheimer put his colleagues back into the lounges, the consulting chambers and the golden conference rooms. "Between negotiations, they would break up … and the G-77 would go into a corner and then sort out—I came in on occasion—this is the last day I could facilitate. Eventually, at quarter past six, they said they thought they had an agreement—just about." The "just about" divergence of views had been over the phrase "single, comprehensive item"; merged with the remainder of the paragraph, it could have read as the General Assembly being able to cluster everything that happened in Africa and discuss it under NEPAD's progress and implementation. "There was the fear", Raubenheimer said, "that everything would now become part of NEPAD, while there are many other things that are not particular to it. For instance, another resolution, the 'Causes of conflict and the promotion of durable peace and sustainable development in Africa', shouldn't be subsumed into NEPAD. It has a focus of its own and an importance of its own." The phrase, single comprehensive item, however, showed up in the final resolution. And eventually, Raubenheimer said, there had been the difficulty in finding a title to discuss NEPAD in the fifty-eighth session. The developing countries wanted to focus on international support for NEPAD, while the donor community also wanted to include how Africa would implement it. After the negotiations concluded, the final resolution became a merged compromise as the two concepts— international support and implementation—were reflected in the title. The next session of the General Assembly would therefore discuss NEPAD under the agenda, "New Partnership for Africa's Development: progress in implementation and international support". "And this is classical of these divisions", Raubenheimer stressed, "the North-South divisions. The developed countries … they want to see what Africa is doing … is it doing enough … it was a long debate … eventually, it's a compromise, a combination of the two." Monitor thyself The classic fault lines among the developed and developing nations came to the fore also over interpreting an African initiative within NEPAD. Known as the peer review mechanism, a panel of eminent African personalities would monitor in a neighbourly way a country's observance of its commitments. Participation in the mechanism would be voluntary. "The key issue for the Group of 77", Carpio Govea said, "is the urge on the part of donor community to establish conditionalities. This emphasis on the peer review mechanism, for example, we did not accept." Raubenheimer said he had included the peer review mechanism when he had done the first draft. "But the excess of focus given to it now, and too much of prominence, is creating a backlash because it becomes almost a conditionality debate", he said. "So you have to become a member of the peer review mechanism, and only then rewards will be given, which has never been the idea behind it." "They loved it", Raubenheimer said, replying that "they" meant, of course, the donor community. "In a way … they wanted to strengthen it, they wanted to develop it further, they wanted to bring in some of the security issues and link it with the mechanism. But it would be unfair! Because the African Union has its own peace and security mechanism. So, that is not the raison d'être for the peer review mechanism." Szczepanski, who had been negotiating for the European Union, said: "What we were very pleased to see especially paragraphs that clearly signalled commitment by African countries, and to have a reference to the African peer-review mechanism, which we thought is a very positive feature of NEPAD." So that Wednesday evening, when Raubenheimer's Seiko struck six, and well after the debates and delicate surgeries to the text during the two previous days, all delegations began to thrash out the last remaining paragraphs. By 9:15 p.m., 17 October, 45 delegations agreed on the thirty-ninth paragraph. "It was so much my baby from the first draft", Henri Raubenheimer beamed. "I'm quite proud of the Group's achievement, and my role in it", José Carpio Govea, who juggled three additional meetings every day, said. Pia Szczepanski hoped "that it will lead to more effective UN support for Africa". The commitment of developed, developing and even the least developed nations had been exceptional on this resolution, according to these diplomats and others whom the UN Chronicle interviewed. South Korea, Norway, Canada, Japan and the United States were among the many delegations who had embraced NEPAD. The commitment of the donor community could also be seen as a calibrated way to support an initiative that had their helping hand, that it is not stretched too far; diplomats said it was not a blind commitment but one within reason. "There's no doubt that everyone wants to say I have tried my level best to make NEPAD work", Raubenheimer said. "And I think that included Africa, the donor community, the United Nations and the G-77 countries. That includes the least developed countries and landlocked developing countries coming out to assist other countries. That's great. That's unbelievable. That is the substructure on which this resolution could be built." The resolution (57/7) was unanimously adopted by the General Assembly on 20 November 2002. One of its key architects, Henri Raubenheimer, said it was an achievement for everybody. "I was just there, participating", he added. |
| Home | In This Issue | Archive | Français | Contact Us | Subscribe | Links |