BRASILIA, 28 Jun (IPS)  Celso Amorim, one of the fathers of the IBSA Forum (India, Brazil, and South Africa) says in this interview that for this alliance of three major emerging powers, “Helping the poorest countries is clearly one of its callings.This gives it both its uniqueness and its international legitimacy.”

As Brazil’s head diplomat during the government of Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva (2003-2010), Amorim led international negotiations, like the Doha Round of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), the South American integration process, and the broadening of the G8 from the club of the most powerful countries into the G20, a forum dedicated to the coordination of the global economic strategies while incorporating the emerging nations.

Amorim’s achievements led American David Rothkopf in an October 2009 article for Foreign Policy journal to designate him “the best foreign minister in the world”, arguing that it was “hard to think of another foreign minister who has so effectively orchestrated such a meaningful transformation of his country’s international role”

Foreign minister from 1993-1995 as well, Amorim is a diplomat and university professor of political science and international relations.

What was the reason for creating IBSA?

IBSA was created as a lighthouse for policy formulation and South-South cooperation between India, Brazil, and South Africa, three countries with much in common, three large, vibrant, multi-cultural democracies, each located in a different developing continent. The four summits and innumerable ministerial meetings and the intense activity in civil society show that there is great potential for cooperation and mutual learning that we are starting to explore.

Is there a danger that IBSA is diluting certain functions of the BRICS group (which also includes Russia and China), for example, reforming the world financial system, or the International Monetary Fund, or WTC negotiations? In short, how are these groups different, and what do they share?

The commonalities of the IBSA countries are more evident than for the BRICS countries. For a start, two are permanent members of the UN Security Council and thus less interested in reform of global governance in security and peace. This doesn’t prevent BRICS from finding common ground on financial issues efficiently and with greater impact. But on other issues, like Palestine and Iran, it is hard to find a common position for all IBSA members.

How could IBSA contribute to a new structure of international trade, considering the leading role it played in important processes in the Doha Round of trade negotiations to defend the interests of the developing world as well as the divergences between India and Brazil on agricultural policy?

Trade is a good area to demonstrate how cooperation between the IBSA countries can move more quickly. For a start, Russia is not a member of the WTO. On the other hand, the competitiveness of China given the currency and labour standards imbalance, among other factors, triggers a defensiveness that does not exist, at least to the same degree, among the IBSA countries.

The IBSA Forum, joined with other nations like Argentina, was the motor behind the creation of the G20 in the World Trade Organisation, which played a decisive role in changing the negotiating model of the organisation. Though there are differences between India and Brazil regarding access to agricultural markets, both countries share a desire to reduce or eliminate the agricultural subsidies of the richest countries.

How do you see the future of relations between IBSA, or its individual members, and China? Will they move towards greater cooperation or more conflict given China’s aggressiveness in trade, its voraciousness for natural resources, and its disputes in Asia?

I don’t think that relations with China will become antagonistic. However, as a major developing country, China would make a major contribution towards strengthening its cooperation with the IBSA Forum if it took a more positive attitude towards UN Security Council reform.

What influence might IBSA have in effecting climate change? What common positions does it share with other groups that might contribute towards an agreement?

In this area IBSA is in agreement with China inside the BASIC group (Brazil, South Africa, India, and China), which played an important part in negotiations. Beyond official debate, elements of IBSA civil society are in a better position to work out a coordinated plan of action. In this as in other areas, including as part of larger groups, IBSA must not lose its personality.

What role does IBSA play in strengthening the position of the least developed countries in international negotiations, whether in trade, the environment, security, or development assistance for these countries?

Providing assistance to the poorest countries, like Haiti, Guinea Bissau, Burundi, and Palestine, has clearly been one of the callings of IBSA. It is very important that the forum continue to demonstrate its ability to act in solidarity, even in areas of trade and finance, taking advantage of its membership in groups like the G20 (industrial and emerging countries) to defend not only its interests but also those of the poorest. This is what gives IBSA its uniqueness and gives it international legitimacy. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Ambassador Josephine Ojiambo of Kenya, President of the U.N. General Assembly High-Level Committee on South-South Cooperation. Credit:Courtesy of GSSD Expo

UNITED NATIONS, May 4 (IPS) – “In South-South cooperation we are all partners,” Josephine Ojiambo, ambassador of Kenya to the U.N. and president of the U.N. General Assembly High-Level Committee on South-South Cooperation, told IPS. “SSC specifically shies away from the donor-client relationship.”

While partnership and support received by Least Developed Countries (LDCs) from traditional donors is often “far from adequate”, exchange of resources, technology, knowledge and best practices between developing countries – generally referred to as South-South cooperation (SSC) – is gaining momentum, Ojiambo said.

In the run-up to the 2011 Fourth U.N. Conference on the Least Developed Countries (LDC-IV) in Istanbul, IPS talked with Ojiambo about how Southern solutions could complement North-South cooperation with LDCs. Excerpts from the interview follow.

Q: What makes South-South sharing so helpful for LDCs?

A: The countries of the South are a tremendous source of tested solutions to development challenges faced by all developing countries especially the LDCs. SSC offers new concrete ideas, models and practices for LDCs and thus provides major additional opportunities. Additionally, Southern countries tend to offer technologies and solutions that are more appropriate to the special needs and circumstances of LDCs, given their similarities in environment, background or development path.

Developing countries – regardless of their size or level of development – have something to bring to the table… Today when LDCs participate in international negotiations, particularly as a group, they are able to exercise a stronger voice at the table while also bringing forward appropriate technologies, agricultural models, and other successful solutions.

Southern countries are now at the centre of the new geography of international trade – as producers, traders and consumers in global markets… South-South [Foreign direct investment] FDI flows peaked at 187 billion dollars in 2008 (representing 14 percent of the total global FDI), up from 12 billion in 1990 (4 percent of the total global flow). The LDCs have been major recipients of FDI from other countries of the South – accounting for 40 percent of total FDI from developing countries.

China, India, Brazil and South Africa in particular have become important sources of development financing for LDCs.

Q: Do the emerging southern powers – India, Brazil, and South Africa (IBSA) or China – help LDCs within a South-South framework? How?

A: Many developing countries have developed substantial knowledge and acquired capacity and experience in setting up dynamic successful institutions for social and economic management, as well as for science and technology development and environmental management. There is now the potential for the sharing of concrete experiences among the South – with development-replicating value. A win- win scenario for all partners.

Examples of some success stories are the ‘Bolsa Familia’ hunger alleviation programme of Brazil, the ‘National Food for Work Programme’ of India, and the central regulatory and liberalisation policies followed by China. These are potentially useful practices to be replicated in other countries.

China and India both also have Africa strategies, which is relevant given the large number of LDCs within the continent.

Q: Building on the Nairobi Outcome of the High Level U.N. Conference on South-South Cooperation a large number of LDCs have called for an international programme of action aiming at reducing the number of LDCs by half over the next decade. What concrete steps can be taken at the upcoming LDC- IV to put LDCs on track to meet this goal?

A: At LDC-IV delegates have to agree on how the successes of the Global South over the last two decades can be translated into solutions to the numerous development challenges faced by LDCs in areas including: food security, agricultural/industrial productive capacities, climate change, public health, education, desertification, trade and investment, infrastructure, transportation, information and communications technology.

The Delhi Declaration – adopted by Foreign Ministers, Ministers, and Representatives of the LDCs and India at the India-LDC Ministerial Conference in February – stresses that the interconnected and globalised world has made it essential for the international community to accord its highest priority to the cause of LDCs.

The international community must express its highest political commitment in support of the Istanbul Program of Action as well. There is an urgent need for the development community to further its engagement with LDCs by helping to enhance their productive capacities, through such means as private sector development, the transfer of productive technologies, and the enhancing of LDCs’ enabling environments.

By developing their productive capacities, LDCs will be empowered to mobilise domestically the resources needed to finance their economic growth, thus lessening their dependence on aid and attracting the sort of private capital inflows that can support their development.

Of special importance is the need to commit to specific measures needed to boost LDC productive capacities – delegates emphasised at the February preparatory meeting for LDC-IV in India.

South-South and triangular cooperation, particularly that which engages the private sector through public-private partnerships, have the potential to play a significant role in this agenda as the South is home to many successful examples of effective partnerships, innovative technologies, and sustainable solutions to the very challenges faced by LDCs.

Now, more than ever, it is critical that the development community utilise South-South, triangular and public-private partnerships to empower LDCs’ in poverty reduction, employment creation and sustainable development, enabling LDCs to truly integrate into the international economy, engage in beneficial trade, and escape the poverty trap.

The UN Office of the High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States (UN-OHRLLS), which serves as the coordinator of the LDC- IV process, has mobilised the entire U.N. with a view to deliver a comprehensive, action-oriented and meaningful outcome of the conference, including concrete deliverables.

In response to this call, the Special Unit for South-South Cooperation will be hosting an event entitled ‘South-South Development Roundtable: Building Productive Capacities of Least Developed Countries through South-South, Triangular and Public-Private Partnerships.’ The main objective of the roundtable is to showcase announcements of concrete plans for the successful transfer and scaling-up of actual mechanisms for increasing the productive capacities of LDCs through the effective and efficient application of South-South, triangular and public-private partnerships… The event will feature several presentations of successful, transferable Southern mechanisms… each of which will include a comprehensive description of the mechanism and its expected benefits, and announcement of concrete plans and financial commitments for its transfer and scaling-up.

Q: What is the role Northern-industrialised countries have to play?

A: South-South cooperation is not a substitute for North-South cooperation.

SSC operates on very different principles from those of Northern donor aid. Not only does SSC encompass financial flows, such as loans and grants for social and infrastructure investment projects and programmes, but it also embraces cooperation through experience sharing, technology and skills transfer, preferential market access and trade-oriented support and investment, transmitting and stimulating similar kinds and levels of development, generating employment and building capital and capacity.

However, despite rapid progress in South-South cooperation in scale, scope and dimension, there are limitations also – as Southern countries, particularly LDCs, face huge challenges in terms of a high prevalence of poverty, malnutrition, and unemployment, serious deficits in infrastructure and productive capacities and the impact of external shocks. North-South cooperation and triangular partnerships remain critical in this regard.

Southern development opportunities can be brought to the table through multilateral mechanisms, such as the U.N. Fund for South-South Cooperation managed by the Special Unit for South-South Cooperation hosted by UNDP. The multilateral development system can be a bridge between the countries of the South and Northern partners – it can mobilise donors and be a catalyst for developed and developing countries to intervene where and when needed.

Q: What are limits of South-South cooperation in supporting LDCs? And why?

A: Funding and resources are significant limits. In the last few years, during the financial crisis, LDCs are expressing concern that even past development gains have been eaten away.

(END/2011)

Internally displaced Somalis outside Mogadishu. / Abdurrahman Warsameh/IPS

KAMPALA, Mar 5 (IPS) – The four-year old African Union Mission in Somalia is fighting a desperate defensive action in support of a transitional government that is “corrupt and inept”, according to the International Crisis Group

The four-year old African Union Mission in Somalia is fighting a desperate defensive action in support of a transitional government that is “corrupt and inept”, according to the International Crisis Group

As many as 50 soldiers belonging to AMISOM were killed in fighting at the end of February. AMISOM attacked Al-Shabaab, the Islamist group that controls many parts of Mogadishu as well as most of south and central Somalia, in a bid to expand the Transitional Federal Government’s influence and better protect its own bases.

But Ej Hogendoorn, Horn of Africa Project Director for ICG, says the mission’s real problem is the weakness of the administration it is in Somalia to protect.

Q: Uganda was the first country to deploy troops in Somalia in 2007. How is it possible that four years down the road, AMISOM hasn’t figured out what works and what doesn’t?

A: Part of the problem is the Peace and Security mandate from the African Union is to support the transitional institutions. This mandate is constraining on the part of the troops in terms of what they can really accomplish.

Everyone thought that President Sheik Sharif was elected [head of the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) in January 2009], that he would be a credible president and do much more to reach out to other groups in Somalia. But his administration has not done much.

A number of people in the AU who we have talked with, agree with our conclusions on the mandate but the question would be how will a new mandate be implemented. And whether the AU agrees to a new mandate to support groups beyond the weak government of Somalia, it remains to be seen.

Q: The recent report published by the International Crisis Group indicates that Somalia’s TFG, which the African Union Mission (AMISOM) backs, is too corrupt and inept to bring meaningful peace to Somalia. Who can bring order?

A: The TFG will not change unless it is forced. Our report sends strong signals to the TFG that if it doesn’t change, the international community should stop supporting it. The international community and AMISOM should be supporting local administrations in central and southern Somalia who are actually the ones providing services and security to the people.

So far the international interventions and attention have been geared towards the TFG.

Our report shows that the TFG has squandered the goodwill and support it received and achieved little of significance in the two years it has been in office.

Q: Do you think continued blanket support for a corrupt and inefficient government has alienated AMISOM troops from Somali civilians?

A: The situation is more complex than that but that is very true.

AMISOM has been painted as a foreign occupier, as a foreign force not good for Somalia’s future. The TFG has done such a poor job to dispel this view. It has not explained to the people of Somalia the AU’s role in Mogadishu.

To some degree, the presence of AMISOM has had a reverse impact on security sector reform in Somalia. The reason the troops are there is to protect the TFG and this takes pressure off the government to actually develop and stand by itself.

The [internationally-backed] Security Sector Reform has been a failure; it is not even a top priority for this government.

Q: What achievements can one point to on the side of AMISOM in the last four years?

A: Al-Shabaab has not taken the whole of Mogadishu. If it wasn’t for the AMISOM the TFG would have fallen long time ago.

The TFG has failed to act as an effective government. For the last two years AU mission has been stuck in a catch 22.

AMISOM was hoping the TFG would be more effective but the TFG argues we can’t be effective until we have more territory but it has failed to reach out to other groups and thus can’t have more territory.

Q: Would that explain the battles for more territory in Somalia in the second half of February, which claimed the lives of over 50 soldiers – many of whose bodies are still in the hands of Al-Shabaab?

A: You remember AMISOM has been protecting the Somali government in a small area in Mogadishu which has allowed Al-Shabaab enough room to attack and even send mortars to the AMISOM bases.

Things have become very difficult for the troops in terms of tactical perspective. It’s a bad set of choices they have got on their plate.

They decided to expand their security perimeter. As we see it, AMISOM could expand its presence in Mogadishu and the battle last week [beginning Feb 19] that’s what they were up to. It is by far the most capable force in Mogadishu.

About a year ago, the big problems was mortar shells reaching the compound of the AMISOM base and as the security perimeter has been expanded it becomes more difficult to protect troops. But as it expands its security perimeter, it exposes its troops to Al-Shabaab which explains why they suffered casualties in last week’s battle.

As AMISOM expands to other parts of Mogadishu, the TFG should provide support to those AMISOM soldiers but the TFG hasn’t.

AMISOM has tried alliances of convenience with some of the militia groups that are not supportive of Al-Shabaab to expand their presence but the cost is that these are not government forces, these are private militia groups.

Q: Many in Uganda – especially those who have lost their sons or daughters – question what the mission can deliver to Somalia . What would happen if Uganda and Burundi withdrew their 8,000 soldiers?

A: There are two scenarios if the AMISOM withdrew from Somalia. First and most likely Al-Shabaab would defeat the TFG and take control of the whole of south and central Somalia to be able to set up training bases and expand their operations well beyond Somalia. They may even be able to expand to the north and north east and this would be a problem because then they could effectively launch their terrorism.

The second scenario in case of AMISOM going would be the TFG would be defeated but then Al-Shabaab itself would fail to govern Somalia and then it would all fall back into civil war. This would enable other neighbouring countries like Ethiopia to come back to being directly involved which would in turn make Somalia more radicalised.

Q: So what will happen if the AU doesn’t change its current mandate?

A: I do hope the mandate of AMISOM is revised. The current status quo is unacceptable and if the mandate doesn’t change and the TFG doesn’t reform, Uganda and Burundi will be stuck in a quagmire.

I should mention that Al-Shabaab is not stupid. They realise they have time on their hands. They have tried to increase the price of UPDF and Burundian forces face through inflicting as many casualties as possible and of course with the Kampala bombings, they would like to force AMISOM to withdraw.

This is happening as we lack serious discussions on whether the TFG is the only partner in Somalia that AMISOM and the international community can work with.

There are groups like like Ahlu Sunna Wal Jama’a which AMISOM can work with efficiently. AMISOM must coordinate with all these groups instead of focusing on a European-style of central governance based in Mogadishu, which clearly hasn’t worked.

Currently Al-Shabaab is not working with these groups, so to concentrate their support on a corrupt government means they will not deliver peace to Somalia any time soon.

(END/2011)

Marchers at the opening of the World Social Forum in Dakar. / Credit: Abdullah Vawda/IPS

DAKAR, Feb 6, 2011 (IPS) – Tens of thousands of people marched through the streets of Dakar on Sunday to mark the start of the annual World Social Forum. Activists carried colorful banners denouncing land grabs, restrictive immigration laws, agricultural subsidies in Europe and the U.S. and many other issues.

Others sang freedom songs and played drums whilst marching peacefully through the streets along a route that began near the offices of Senegal’s public broadcaster, RTS, and ended at the Cheikh Anta Diop University, the main venue for the weeklong gathering.

Bolivian president Evo Morales, who took part in the march, invited his counterparts from poor countries to take part in this event.

“There must be awareness and a mobilisation to put an end to capitalism and clear away invaders, neocolonialists and imperialists [...] I support the popular uprisings in Tunisia and in Egypt. These are signs of change,” said Morales, a former trade union leader who is a regular participant in anti-globalisation movement gatherings.

“There must be resistance and awareness. There must be a programme of social struggle to build a new world,” he said.

“We must save humanity, and to do that, we must know our enemies. The enemies of the people are neocolonialists and imperialists. We must put an end to the capitalist model and put another in its place. It’s necessary to get rid of the rich and change the world.”

The mayor of Dakar welcomed participants, but other senior members of the Senegalese government were absent; President Abdoulaye Wade himself is out of the country, though he is scheduled to take part in an event alongside the Brazilian president later in the week.

The World Social Forum defines itself as an open space where those “opposed to neo-liberalism and a world dominated by capital or by any form of imperialism come together to pursue their thinking.”

As this year’s event is being held in Senegal, many of the discussions will revolve around what organisers term the crisis of civilisation and capitalism gripping Africa and the rest of the world.

“This forum must contribute to changing the world. It’s a chance for all those who represent the world’s downtrodden to speak amongst themselves,” said Senegalese historian Boubacar Diop Buuba, a professor at the Cheikh Anta Diop University.

Philip Kumah, a Ghanaian social worker who works for Amnesty International, said, “We are calling for an end to injustice in our country where the government is robbing communities of their land. This forum is a chance for our government to lend an attentive ear to our complaints.”

For activist Beverley Keene, from Buenos Aires, holding the forum in Africa is an important milestone. “It’s our time to learn from each other and assess the impact that the financial crisis and the looting of the people’s minerals have on livelihoods.”

The financial crisis is prominent among the themes to be debated at the six-day forum seeking alternatives to “the crisis of the capitalist system.”

Italian feminist Sabrina Viche said the event is also an opportunity to listen to African women. “I came to Dakar to give my support to all the women of Africa, who struggle to ensure their voices are heard, I want to hear from them what their struggles are and how we in the North can support them.”

But it is not enough to meet, Canet Raphael, a sociologist from Montréal, Canada, told IPS. “People must know what a social forum is for. The spirit of the World Social Forum has its roots in grassroots social movements.”

Thierry Tulasne, who works on migration issues for a Canadian organisation said, “I’m not sure that social movements can change the world in the near future. But I am sure that little drops of water eventually become rivers.”

*Ebrima Sillah and Koffigan Adigbli in Dakar contributed to this report.

(END)

LISBON, Jan 4, 2011 (IPS) – Despite the global economic crisis that has hit Europe especially hard, Portugal’s official development aid to its former colonies will not decline this year, although “unfortunately no increase is expected either.”

The guarantee that this aid will not be reduced in 2011 was expressed to IPS in this interview with university professor Manuel Correia, president of the Portuguese Institute for Development Support (IPAD), which handles 15 percent of Portugal’s aid to the developing South.

Q: In this time of crisis, which has particularly affected Portugal, has development aid suffered less than other sectors?

A: The crisis has affected donors in different ways. They have become increasingly demanding in terms of requiring accountability, because at times like these we must explain very well to taxpayers where we are spending their money.

Portugal’s official development aid (ODA) fell from 0.27 percent of GDP in 2009 to 0.23 percent in 2010.

It would be easy to speculate that the financial crisis was responsible for that drop, but there has been no reduction in the 525 million dollars in aid handled by IPAD, although unfortunately no increase is expected either.

Q: So the outlook for 2011 is not grim.

A: The financial crisis has had little impact on the funds that Portugal dedicates to cooperation. For 2011, independently of budget restrictions, the funds earmarked for IPAD are the same as in 2010.

In the case of IPAD, many funds are obligatory contributions, to the European Development Fund, World Bank, African Development Bank, and the Asian Development Bank, among others.

It is hard to imagine any impact on technical and military cooperation, which in some countries, such as East Timor, takes on considerable importance. IPAD is in a position to apply for delegated cooperation programmes (in which donors entrust part of their development funds to another donor) to design and manage cooperation programmes with funds that the EU provides to different countries.

Q: Could you specify what kind of assistance and cooperation you’re talking about? Because in many cases aid is conditional on contracts that benefit the donor country.

A: It must be kept in mind that everything we do is in accordance with national anti-poverty plans. It’s true that they ask us for more than we can give, but the options for taking action are always in line with the development strategy of each country.

There are also emerging countries, principally China, that do not want any strings attached.

Q: In what areas is Portuguese aid focused?

A: Our greatest emphasis is on education. If you combine education and training at different levels and through the broadest range of ministries, you will see the fundamental objective of our development aid. In this framework, the training of teachers in different countries is one of the essential elements today.

Our aid ranges from vocational-technical to university education. In health, we primarily invest in training at all levels.

In Angola, in collaboration with the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, we created a centre for research on endemic diseases. Portugal has participated in the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, reaching a contribution of 2.5 million dollars in 2010.

In agriculture, we provide aid in Timor, where we have one of Portugal’s most representative cooperation projects, and in Angola and Guinea Bissau we participate with small projects.

Q: How is that aid distributed?

A: Mozambique, Cape Verde and East Timor are in first place, closely followed by Guinea Bissau and São Tomé and Príncipe. The case of Angola is unique, because we are in a phase in which the projects are now being co-financed at a level of 50 percent.

Q: Is the issue of corruption taken into account when development funds are allotted?

A: Generally, the funds are spent through technical cooperation in the area of training and education, and in the case of bigger projects, through a coordination cell that controls how the money is spent, in the best possible manner.

Although the Development Assistance Committee of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD/DAC) has advised Portugal to provide cash grants to the different countries it cooperates with, in the last DAC exam in November, they willingly accepted our response that the varying levels of development do not yet allow a generalisation of that practice.

For that reason, the level of corruption is low and often nonexistent.

Q: Considering the huge economic potential of Brazil, the world’s largest Portuguese-speaking country, have joint aid projects for Portuguese-speaking African nations and Timor been considered?

A: We are still in a phase of much talk and little action. There have been attempts by both countries, but except in the case of the language, where Brazilian teachers help teach a masters programme in the Portuguese language, very little is done in general.

This is not the time to reflect on this, but one day we will have to understand why the Portuguese and Brazilians talk so much and do so little together. (END)

UNITED NATIONS, Apr 8 (IPS) – When the political leaders of three of the world’s major democracies in the global South – India, Brazil and South Africa (IBSA) – gather at a high-powered summit meeting in Brasilia next week, one of the key items on the agenda would be how best to strength economic cooperation among developing nations.

“I am very encouraged by the fact that some of us in the developing world – and India in particular – are beginning to step on the accelerator of South-South cooperation,” Ambassador Hardeep Singh Puri, India’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, told IPS.

And there are very good reasons for it, he points out.

“If, for instance, the multilateral approach to trade negotiations continues to stall – for whatever reasons – doesn’t it stand to reason that a system of trade preferences among developing countries, most of whom are major players in international trade, should be more actively explored?” he asked.

The IBSA initiative, he said, “is another manifestation of our commitment to South-South cooperation”.

With each of the three countries pledging about one million dollars annually, the IBSA Facility for Poverty and Hunger Alleviation, facilitated by the South-South Unit of the U.N. Development Programme (UNDP), continues to provide support for the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

IBSA is intensifying its partnership efforts in several regions across the developing world and more initiatives are in the pipeline, he added.

Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh will be at the IBSA summit in Brasilia Apr. 13-14, along with Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and South African President Jacob Zuma.

As one of the more active partners of IBSA, India has made significant progress in partnering other developing nations in Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Latin America and the Caribbean.

Under the Indian Technical and Economic Cooperation (ITEC) programme, established in 1964, India has provided technical and economic assistance to thousands of scientists, technocrats, engineers, teachers and medical personnel from developing nations.

This flagship programme, according to Ambassador Puri, covers 158 developing partner countries with over 5,000 participants being offered training in 200 courses spread across 42 leading institutions each year.

The wide range of high-tech areas covered include information technologies (IT), science and technology, pharmaceuticals, agriculture and rural development.

Since 2003, and following the India-Africa Forum summit in 2008, the Indian government also pledged five billion dollars in extended lines of credit over a five-year period – besides the one billion dollars in concessional lending and grants annually.

India has also unilaterally agreed to duty-free and quota-free market access to goods from the 34 least developed countries (LDCs) in Africa.

Meanwhile, the first project under a 10-million-dollar South-South Experience Exchange Facility, set up in 2008, involves the replication in Africa, and specifically in Tanzania, Ethiopia and Uganda, of the success achieved by India in dairy production (India is now the world’s largest producer of milk and dairy products).

“Our overall approach is guided by partnership development,” Puri said in an interview with IPS U.N. Bureau Chief Thalif Deen. “We are not looking at maximising pure commercial and economic gains. That is not our primary focus. We focus on technical cooperation and capacity-building.”

Excerpts from the interview follow.

Q: How does South-South development assistance differ from North-South development assistance?

A: Unlike North-South cooperation, our cooperation with fellow developing countries is premised on the principle of voluntary partnerships – free from conditionalities typical of official development assistance (ODA). We also believe in generating national ownerships in line with national priorities of our partners.

Q: Is the United Nations doing enough to promote South-South cooperation?

A: I would find it very difficult to subscribe to the view that the United Nations is doing enough on South-South cooperation. I would encourage the United Nations to do more. In political terms, we value the work of UNDP’s South-South Unit. But it is a very small operation. I would like to see parts of the United Nations, which are entrusted with development priorities, to be undertaking much more ambitious and comprehensive schemes.

Q: Are there any lessons learned in strengthening South-South cooperation and South-South experiences?

A: Today, we are dealing largely with post-colonial societies in the developing world. Many of us have the experiences of nation building as part of our expertise and post-colonial experiences. Isn’t that more directly relevant to the challenges faced by other developing countries in Africa and elsewhere?

These are not just my observations but observations made by representatives of these countries when they see the development and progress in fields such as science and technology, information and communications and biotechnology in countries such as India, Brazil and the developing world.

There is a certain natural synergy which attracts people. You have to facilitate that. And one of the means to facilitate that is South-South cooperation.

You have the technology developed specifically for people in a developing society. Therefore it is easier to take that technology to these countries because they are cost-efficient and already tested in laboratory conditions in similar societies.