UNCTAD: Belgrade Meeting (Hansard, 14 July 1983)

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

§ The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead)
My Lords, our policy was to recognise the interdependence of the economies of the world and of the many issues under discussion in Belgrade, and to seek a realistic and constructive outcome which would contribute to strengthening international economic co-operation and world economic recovery.

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, the Question on the Order Paper asks what was the British Government's policy. I hardly think that the noble Lord's reply constitutes an Answer to that Question. May I ask the noble Lord to put aside his brief for a moment and to take the House into his confidence? Was not this conference a wasteful fiasco for a month? Is it not the case that, on the side of the industrialised nations, Britain, America and West Germany were the main stumbling blocks to an intelligent dialogue with the developing countries? Was that not the sole cause of the fiasco but one of them? May I ask him, in particular, what the British Government representatives did in urging upon the conference the findings of the report of the Commonwealth Group, especially their recommendation that there should be smaller conferences on single issues?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, so far as policy is concerned, I think, if I may say so, that for the Government to say that we recognise the interdependence of the economies of the world—which is a great deal more than just a bland statement of the obvious: it is something which is extraordinarily difficult to achieve, and if only we could do so it would overcome so many problems of the world—and to say that we seek a realistic and constructive outcome at Belgrade, is a reasonable Answer to the noble Lord's Question. So 897 far as concerns the charge of the noble Lord that it was a wasteful fiasco, resolutions were passed on trade matters, on commodity matters and on international finance matters. I think it is fair to say that the outcome of the conference, with some 20 resolutions adopted, compared favourably with previous sessions of the conference.
Thirdly, I refute the noble Lord's charge that the developed European countries were in some way responsible for what was not achieved at Belgrade. If the noble Lord wishes, I will back that up with evidence. Finally, it gives me pleasure to be able to agree with the noble Lord on just one point. Yes, there are problems with the way in which UNCTAD is organised. Its potential is not fully realised because of problems inherent in its methods of operation, and Her Majesty's Government intend to continue to urge consideration of improvements before the next conference.

§ Lord Brockway
My Lords, may I ask the Minister this question? Despite what he has said, would he not agree that this conference, like the eight conferences which have preceded it, has done practically nothing to deal with the problem of the 30 million people in the developing countries who die unnecessarily? Was there a single decision by this conference which would save one life? Is it not the case that the conference rejected the Belgrade Declaration on World Economy? Is it not the case that even with the weak, compromise statement (from which the USA dissociated itself) the United Kingdom, West Germany and Japan made reservations? What has this conference done to solve the problem?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, I think I must ask House to wait. There will be a White Paper issued which will give an account of the conference. The noble Lord asked the Government whether there was one resolution which would have saved one life anywhere in the world. The noble Lord knows very well indeed, from his interest and his experience, that many of the difficulties in the world are in countries which rely upon commodities for their trade. I would point out to the noble Lord that, out of the four major resolutions on commodities which were passed at Belgrade, one urged countries to ratify the common fund to provide finance for buffer stocks. We have already ratified the common fund, and we were trying to persuade other countries to do likewise.

§ Lord Brockway
My Lords, is it not the case that this conference failed to ratify the common fund for commodity prices, about which agreement was nearly reached a year ago?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, yes.

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, is the noble Lord asking us to believe that the success of a conference is to be judged by the number of resolutions passed? Would he answer my supplementary question concerning the Commonwealth report, which I understand the British Government urged on the conference but not strongly enough to have it accepted? When he says that the major issue at the conference was a recognition of the interdependence of 898 the economies of the world have the British Government now become convinced of that about which some of us have been trying to convince them for the last four years—that the recovery of the industrialised world depends as strongly on increased purchasing power in the developing world as vice versa?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, certainly there is no question of suggesting to the House that the success of a conference is to be judged by the number of resolutions passed. I think the thing to do, if I may say so, is to wait until the White Paper is issued. But it is important that I should rectify one misconception on the part of the noble Lord. The United Kingdom tried (it is true without success) to gain support for proposals to improve the negotiating process made recently in the Commonwealth report entitled The North-South dialogue: Making it Work.It was not a question of not pressing hard enough. We ran out of time, and we were extremely sorry that this was so.