Features
Continuing relevance of Dr. Gamani Corea’s thinking
Thanks to the Bandaranaike Centre for International Studies, Colombo (BCIS), which is celebrating the 50th year of its establishment this year, the above and linked questions were taken up for scholarly analysis recently at a symposium. In fact a number of thought-stimulating commemorative events have been unfolding at the BCIS over this month under the aegis of the BCIS, termed ‘Festival of Ideas’, to mark the latter’s 50 years as a leading institution in Sri Lanka dedicated to the teaching of International Relations. The events were organized and conducted by the BCIS staff under the guidance of its Executive Director Ms. Priyanthi Fernando.
The Dr. GC-centred symposium referred to was held at the BMICH’s ‘Kolomba Kamatha’ theatre on November 22 under the title, ‘Gamani Corea Restrospective’. Among the prominent attendees was the BCIS Chairperson, former President Ms. Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga.
Three speakers featured in the symposium. They were: Dr. Dushni Weerakoon, Executive Director of the Institute of Policy Studies Sri Lanka, former Governor of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka Dr. Indrajit Coomaraswamy and Dhanushka Pathirana, an economic analyst. The session was moderated by Vagisha Gunasekera.
The discussion took place under three broad segments: World Trade, Southern Debt and South-South Cooperation. These were major areas of specialization for Dr. GC and in his day and age in mainly the sixties, stabilizing developing countries’ commodity prices was a principal issue. Accordingly, in the forefront of his thinking was commodity price stabilization and questions flowing from it. Under his leadership UNCTAD worked towards a commodity price stabilization scheme and checking downward slides in commodity prices was a chief concern for Dr. GC.
A principal issue for the panelists, given this backdrop, was whether commodity price stabilization was practicable today. While appreciative of Dr. GC’s work, the ‘majority view’ that emerged from the panel was that such price stabilization was difficult to achieve at present. For example, Dr. Weerakoon, among other things, pointed out that implementation of price stabilization was currently difficult since ‘trade shocks’ are far too numerous. Besides, price decline is more or less the order of the day. Present day issues of this kind cannot be resolved on the basis of solutions arrived at in the sixties. Moreover, a Southern consensus is lacking on these questions.
Dr. Coomaraswamy, besides other matters, pointed out that Southern collective action in the face of issues, such as commodity price instability, was a key focus of Dr. GC. One challenge that the latter faced was the establishment of buffer stocks among the South, as checks against price fluctuations. OPEC cooperation on this front was not forthcoming. However, thinking on the global economy was enhanced greatly under Dr. GC’s leadership of UNCTAD. Another matter of importance was that Sri Lanka did very well in socio-economic indicators during Dr. GC’s time.
Dhanushka Pathirana pointed out that in the sixties and early seventies, state intervention in the local economy was prominent. The state tried to iron out imperfections in the market and Import Substitution Industrialization was resorted to. But now Sri Lanka’s terms of trade are on the decline. Stagnation is marked in the exports and manufacturing sectors. This has been the case over the decades in fact.
However, a leaf could be taken from some South-East Asian economies. In the latter, the state intervenes to spur industrial growth, but this field is constantly open to private sector participation as well. Hence their economic dynamism.
Meeting debt commitments without the South compromising development in the process emerged as a key issue under the Southern debt segment of the symposium. Dr. Coomraswamy was of the view that the South urgently needed a multilateral framework for debt relief. This is an urgent need as far as Sri Lanka is concerned.
Dr. Weerakoon made the point that Sri Lanka needs to have an independent debt management institution. As regards debt relief, the required ‘international financial architecture isn’t there.’ As far as Sri Lanka is concerned, the higher ‘the hair cut’, the longer will be the economic recovery process. Right now, Sri Lanka is obliged to deal with non-Paris Club creditors, such as China and India, and this could have challenges.
With regard to South-South cooperation, the discussion centred on the feasibility of having a New International Economic Order (NIEO), going forward. This was an order advocated by Dr. GC, because he called for Southern collective self-reliance. Dr. Weerakoon pointed to the unwillingness of most Southern states to put aside self-interest and to come together for a common purpose. Coming together on multiple issues is not possible today.
Accordingly, the symposium proved to be most thought-provoking and the Q&A which followed turned out to be lively and a stimulant to further thinking on Southern development questions in particular. However, it is of the utmost importance to probe as to whether Dr. GC’s thinking has ‘had its day’, so to speak.
This columnist, for one, would disagree with the above conclusion. While the solutions offered by Dr. G.C may be proving dated in some respects today, Southern poverty is not only continuing but exponentially growing despite almost the entirety of the world opting for ‘market reforms’ or capitalist-led growth. To put Dr. GC’s thinking in the correct perspective, it needs to be realized that he was essentially seeking durable answers to Southern poverty.
The latter correctly analyzed that it was the ills of the post-World War Two economic order, dominated by the First World and its growth paradigms that had the effect of aggravating Southern poverty and ‘backwardness’.
Accordingly, the answer to the South’s current economic ills continues to reside in a wider system transformation and it is Southern unity and solidarity that offer some hope of material relief accruing to the world’s powerless. That is, South-South Cooperation continues to be relevant.
A challenge of the first magnitude confronting the South is the tendency among most of its members to be blinded by their own interests. More so why we need leaders of Dr. GC’s stature to galvanize the South once again, bring it together and raise its awareness on the need to gather behind the cause of collective, Southern interest. In other words, the crucial need is Southern leaders of vision and foresight. This is a complex and difficult challenge but it needs to be met somehow.