The Busan International Forum, taking place in South Korea, has been an expression of shifting geopolitical realities. In a contemporary scenario in which some (formerly) major countries regarding international politics are losing their influence upon the world, the BRICS’ rise is something we should keep an eye on.
Some international conferences are immediate failures, but none are immediate successes. It will take weeks, months and ultimately years before the impact of the last few days at the Busan forum on aid effectiveness will be known, and it is impossible to find two people with the same opinion at the moment.
If you care about evidence-based policymaking, this conference has been mixed. While there was not enough explicit referencing, sifting and collation of the plethora of evidence available on what has worked and what hasn’t over the five years since the Paris declaration, it has, nevertheless, filtered into the outcome document, with less important Paris commitments being dropped and the vital ones being reaffirmed.
And that is worth dwelling on. There was a time a few months ago when even core Paris commitments, such as ownership and putting aid money through systems, were thought to be in jeopardy given donor preference for “results” over process. That has not happened. Busan has thoroughly underlined the importance of ownership, and has stronger language on systems-approaches than ever before, insisting that the “default” option should be to use country systems, with any deviance explained to beneficiary countries. The new deal for fragile states will also be seen as one of the successes of Busan.
If you are interested in progressive language more generally, this document is satisfactory. It moves the debate well along from an obsession with aid to a much broader understanding of the co-operation, financial and otherwise, required for development to take place. Sure, they are just words, but sometimes that is useful. There is a section on illicit capital flight, language on creating the “enabling environment” for civil society to thrive and a general tonal shift towards a new global reality in which the west plays a supportive rather than a dominating role. South-south cooperation, with its strong emphasis on horizontal relationships, is the key new area of theory in this document and that is good news. It does not herald a paradigm shift, but describes one that is taking place.
But despite the human resources spent on including time-bound commitments and perfecting language in international documents, we should not exaggerate their importance in driving change. Statements of intent are important, but not very important. That is why some people prefer to look at process issues more than wording, and if we look at political engagement rather than specific targets, Busan emerges as an important step forward. After last minute negotiations (in which Brazil played a key role) and the insertion of a paragraph distancing non-DAC (the Development Assistance Committee of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) donors from concrete commitments, China, India and Brazil all endorsed the idea of working together more closely in what is being described, even by usually critical civil society representatives, as a “new global partnership”. This matters to African countries that want to apply principles to all international partners, without diminishing the distinctiveness of Chinese support for their development.
t is not a leap, it is a pigeon-step, but it is a step nonetheless – the latest in a long line that demonstrate the willingness of progressives to work more closely together to respond to global challenges such as poverty. The inclusion of civil society in negotiations was also an important procedural innovation, in contrast to the reduced political space it is experiencing in many countries. At one panel I was on, the idea emerged that civil society should be a formal part of many more UN processes.
If Paris was a triumph of technocratic organisation, Busan has been an expression of shifting geopolitical realities, with the role of the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) proving more critical than ever before. But ultimately the same question applies to both talkfests: what difference will all this hullaballoo mean for the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people? That will depend more on the actions of the international community than words on a page.
So, as we can see, this huge boat called “global community” is changing (slowly) its direction. And, one thing I always thought, there may be some advantages in being a “colonized” or in being a “developing country”. As a colonized you need to know all about your culture, your problems, your good points… and, at the same time, you need to know all those things about the “developed nations” too. Therefore, having this terrible past helps these countries not to make the same mistakes the OECD countries have made. And, even though the BRICS aren’t the personification of the “Robin Hood” spirit (let’s steal from the rich and give it to the poor), they are far away from being the Sheriff of Nottingham.
Full article here