Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Second Question: How united is the G77?
According to many news accounts and delegates from both the G77 and other countries, the climate change meetings in Copenhagen in December last year were not a success for the G77 as a group. While in Kyoto and Bali, the G77 was able to present a strong, common position, this was clearly not the case in Copenhagen. Some say that this is due to the fact that the BASIC countries thought it in their interest to negotiate an outcome without fully engaging the rest of the G77. Also, Sudan (chairing the G77 in 2009)and South Africa apparently did not see eye to eye in Copenhagen as well. Some sources suggest that this divide about climate change is ongoing. Would you like to comment?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
For many decades, the developed countries have tried to break up the G77. Sometimes they succeed, but not for long. The G77 provides small developing countries with a voice in global affairs. With its emphasis on inclusive consensus-building, Yemen will be a good G77 Chair in 2010.
ReplyDeleteI don't get the Sudan/South Africa controversy in Copenhagen - what is your source?
The source is a South African news provider.
ReplyDeleteThe link is
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=6&art_id=vn20091214094111919C742281
I agree that speaking in unity is an important way of countering the western dominance.
ReplyDeleteBut really, if the more powerful/radical countries within the g-77 can dominate the official position, and if this means that the GA and ECOSOC are locked in a perpetual struggle about a more just world order and a more important role of the UN in world politics which however is essentially meaningless outside of the organization, does this really provide small developing countries with a voice in global affairs?