‘G77 to mark 60 years on Ugandan soil’

G77 was formed 59 years ago to advocate for the global south in the multilateral polity. How has that panned out over the years?

Yes, next year we’ll be celebrating 60 years of G77.  Another body that is rarely mentioned in the same sentence as G77 is UNCTAD—the UN Conference on Trade and Development—which gave birth to the former. As the name suggests it was 77 countries at the beginning, and of course with decolonisation most countries became independent and joined the body—now we have 134 countries.  It started as an advocacy group to advocate for the development of the especially poor countries—as they got political independence there was also a need for economic independence. The UN was advocating for decolonisation but was also busy with many other things so countries decided to form a body of their own: it is really ad hoc. It does have the status, of countries to work as a group using numbers to push for development issues at the UN. It is representative of countries from Africa, Asia and Latin America.

Being ad hoc does that mean the association is not robust on pushing the development agenda?

It is really robust. People tend to ask whether it is an international organisation like the African Union; no, it is not. It is a body of countries coming voluntarily to caucus and negotiate; they have really achieved a lot over the years to contribute to the UN agenda. For instance, the formation of the UNDP was really spearheaded by the G77 states; the issue of South-South countries—coming together to share experiences—was really championed by the G77. Recently in 2015, the 2030 agenda was pushed by G77 and you can see the SDGs. For your information it is formally recognised at the UN as a negotiating bloc. Every year there is the Second Committee which deals with economic issues, and 40 percent of resolutions are sponsored by G77.

What are some of the processes involved in nudging members in such a large bloc to reach consensus?

First of all, there is a secretariat that is housed in the UN building. So, the secretariat helps the chair—there is a country chairing every year through regions—who has convening powers to bring member states together but also to be creative on how to approach things; I mean you have big players like China, India, and then have small and big countries—some developed and many not and all with different ideologies. So, the challenge of every chair is maintaining cohesiveness and unity. In such a scenario there is always fear that each group might go their own way so the challenge of the chairing country is to keep them united but also negotiate and build consensus with other groups.

How hard is it/has it been for chairing countries?

Each year is unique. For each chairing country the work is demand driven; it is what the system throws at you.  It’s the process. Next year when Uganda is chairing everyone is talking about the Summits of the Future; different ideas that are being thrown around to make the UN more responsive, agile, and more alert to global challenges. So, each year has its own challenges and its chairing country has its own style.

I imagine it’s no secret that power houses like the EU or the US try to bulldoze the bloc or influence the direction of the agenda?

Oh yeah, in multilateralism countries negotiate hard for their own interests. And of course, issues of the global south, take for instance implementation of the SDGs; why agenda 2030 is in trouble—we have seven years to go and the picture is bleak—is because the elephant in the room is funding. The developing countries ask for more funding to fund this agenda while the rich countries naturally are conservative so the tension builds up. So, we are looking at all avenues including the private sector such as large banks; there is more money in the world than bankable projects but how do you leverage on that? You have the World Bank and IMF, which work with the UN, but have different governance mechanisms. So how we negotiate and reach compromises is key for these things to move.

There is a theme for every yearly session. Isn’t that too short a period to realise something for such a big group? The recent summit in Cuba tackled SDGs and by the time Uganda takes over I imagine nothing will have been concretised.

Yes, every year comes with a different agenda and the group responds to that agenda which is generated internationally. So, the purpose of G77 is to protect the interests of developing countries in that space. Yes, Cuba’s chairing year focused on SDGs and during the recent UNGA we had an SDG summit which was an urgent clarion call, especially on how to raise finances, and raising money for global health and Cuba steered that well. Next year, the agenda will be different but focus on SDGs will also continue.

To what extent does the body disentangle from international politics; I mean, right now you have this incendiary Israel-Palestine issue that borders on sparking WW3 and am sure individual states have options but many are quiet?

The niche of G77 is really economic issues. International peace and security is the responsibility of the UN Security Council and we are represented. Only the Non-Alignment Movement comes closest to politics. But you are still right, it is a big elephant in the room; you cannot ignore geopolitics and tensions: it affects economies but also affects how states relate. So, it is true that geopolitics always finds its way in development issues which impedes work. That’s why the Summits for the Future during Uganda’s chairmanship is important. We will look at the system in its entirety. How will G77 organise itself to participate. Some of the issues being looked at such as the agenda for peace are not traditionally for G77, so there is a role for NAM because G77 and NAM are the only two frameworks which push for the interests of developing countries.

How do the Bretton Woods (World Bank, IMF, WTO) feed into your discussions seeing that the institution focuses on development work?

G77 has branches where the developing countries have embassies in these centers, we call the G20. So, the chair has to participate in the annual World bank/IMF spring meetings in Washington DC because the normative processes and all the broad concepts discussed are discussed in New York but the question of funding remains. So now we have the current chair—Cuba—Morocco at the World Bank meetings where we are discussing things.

How do you then mobilise finances for your agenda seeing that the developed world and multilateral creditors are preoccupied with a dozen problems?

We know where the money is but accessing it is a problem because the system is unfair to developing countries. Look at the rate at which developing countries borrow money and the interest rates. So, the focus now is advocating for accessing money at fairer terms, and I think there is consensus on that in the group. There is also focus on bringing on board the private sector and if you look at the declaration of the recent SDG’s meeting, one of the key things is International Finance Corporation (IFC) reform.

What is in Uganda as an incoming chair?

Imagine being chair of the group of 134 countries? It is difficult to quantify the benefits and some of these are diplomatic, but first of all, visibility and also access of the country to global systems. It also depends on how you leverage this, knowing that as a country you are serving the interests of other 134 countries; the assumption is that all interests are integrated. It also has the potential of improving bilateral relations with countries.

There are murmurs that it was overly ambitious for Uganda to take mantle for the two forums simultaneously?

It was really by coincidence; it was not deliberate. Remember before Covid-19 hit we were talking about the South-to-South summit which was last hosted 10 years ago in Cuba and Qatar and it was a turn for Africa. Initially it was Equatorial Guinea set to host but they couldn’t do it so Uganda took responsibility. G77 and South-to-South are more of the same but different. Of course, it’s a gigantic task but now that Uganda chairs two different but related organisations, it’s an opportunity to forge partnerships. G77 has a secretariat at the UN but NAM has to be overseen at the Mission.

But is the country really ready to host, and are there attempts to understudy both Cuba and Azerbaijan for smooth transition? There is chronic underfunding of Uganda’s foreign missions and there is barely competent staff.

We have had benchmarking trips and we are in constant discussions with Cuba knowing that they won’t leave processes concluded and we’ll have to pick up from somewhere. As for human resource, it can never be enough but our diplomats at the UN are more than ready. I also have the privilege of being the deputy coordinator of the organising committee, so I follow most activities. As regards determining what’s the good time to confirm attendance that is ongoing. The summit is in January and we expect a lot of confirmations in November; even a few weeks to go well be getting confirmations.

[email protected]