Basic HTML Version
In the end, what is at stake is
world peace. Former West German
Chancellor Willy Brandt has called
a confrontation between North
and South potentially more
dangerous than a confrontation
between East and Wes
t.
that had served the developed nations so well in the
past.
More Progress In Parls
ther session of the North-South dialogue was
heduled to begin jn mid-December 1976. But
he election of a oew president in the United
States was used by the Nonh to postpone
discussions until the new Carter Administra–
tion could formu)ate its policies on tbe issues. The session
finally took place in París at the end of May 1977.
It was a tense four-day dialogue that at one point
almost broke down completely. The developing nations
were less srrident in their rhetoric, but adamant in their
demands. The North took the dialogue more seriously
and made what it considered a generous offer, especially
given its painfully slow economic recovery.
Thanks in part to West Germany's willingness to help,
a
$1
billion special fund was proposed to help the poor–
est nations meet their oil bilis, othe r import bilis, and
interest payments. The North also offered to set up a
common fund to stabilize prices of certain commodities.
In additjon, pledges were made to step up assistance for
the development of agriculture in developing nation,s
and to increase the resources of the Intemat ional Mone–
tary Fund in order to help poor nations meet their huge
balance-of-payments deficits. A "decade of Africa" was
designated, in which a substantial effort will be made to
develop African economies.
The South held out for more, bu·t in the closing hours–
of the session they agreed to settle for what the North
was willing to otfer. Their disappointment was not
masked in the final communique as they expressed regret
that "certain proposals for urgent actions had not been
agreed upon." That is, the ir radical demands for "a new
intemational economic order" were too much for the
North to accept.
More Power to the Poor
U
o return for its pledges, the Nortb asked for guaran–
teed access to stable supplies of oil and other raw
materials. They also asked for guaranteed protec–
tion against arbitrary nationalization of foreign in–
vestments. The South summarily rejected both
requests. They had no intention of restricting their new–
found leverage on commodities. Further, they viewed
foreign investments as a kind of corporate colonialism.
14
As Jahangir Amuzegar, Iran's delegate, remarked Iater
at the Alternatives to Growth Conference in Houston:
"In my view, by monopolizing modero complex tech–
nology, industrial countries have managed to keep inter–
national production and distribution patterns véry close
to the old colonial system. Economic relationships be–
tween the rich North and th poor South have become
more lopsided and unequal." In the new economic order
he envisions, "the first principie would be a reduction in
the relative pol ítica! and economic might of industrial
countries." Earlier at the same conference, Ivor Richards
likewise spoke on the proposed sharing of economic and
política! power with developing nations :
" It
isn't good
enough for developed nations to teU developing nations
not to follow our pattern of economic growth, because
eventuaUy they will face the same problems we face now
[pollution, depleted resources, etc.]. Frankly, they would
rather have our problems than theirs.
" lf we do nof[follow up words with actionJ then I fear
we may find ourselves slipping back into confrontation
rather than cooperation. Many in the West thought that
if they, collectively, said no strong enough, loud enough,
and long enough, this problem of the dialogue between
developed countries and developing countries would
quietly go away. Of course, it hasn't worked out that
way. The balance ofwodd polit ics has shifted drastically
in the past five years in the direction of the newly
emerging nations."
Consequently, the South intends to use its resources,
such as oil, as leverage to win additional concessions
from the North in future dialogues. And if that is not
enough, there is ajways the dual threat of nationalization
of the North's investments in the South and the repudia–
tion of the North's loans (now totaling
$180
billion). The
developing nations, 1ow as they are on the ladder of
economic development, have litt le to lose by such drastic
measures and much to gain. The North, on the other
hand, has much to lose and very little to gain.
The vast gap in development and income between
North and South, between what the South demands and
what the North is willing to yield, has created the poten–
tia! for a catastrophic confrontation. l f the dialogue were
to break off in hopeless disagreement, the South could
retaliate with trade embargoes, nationalization of for–
eign assets, and repudiation of foreign Joans. This could
plunge developed nations into a disastrous depression
with all of its chaotic consequences- social unrest , políti–
ca! revolution, and even war.
lf the North were to· accede to the South's demands,
developed nations would inevitably sutfer increased
unemployment and a much lower standard of living for
its citizens. Again, the stage would be set for social
unrest and political revolution.
" In the end, what is at stake is world peace," said a
representative of Venezuela to the París Conference.
Former West German Chancellor Willy Brandt has
called a confrontation between North and South potenti–
ally more dangerous than a confrontation between East
and West.
So far a modicum of cooperation has resulted from
the dialogue. But a lot more talking, agreement, and
action is needed if a confrontation is to be avoided.
o
The
PLAIN TRUTH February 1978