Address by
His Excellency Mr. Bharrat Jagdeo
President of the Republic of Guyana
to the Sixty-Third Session of the
United Nations General Assembly
Tuesday September 23, 2008


Mr President of the General Assembly
Mr Secretary General
Distinguished Representatives
Ladies and Gentlemen
I join with those who have spoken before me, Mr President, in
congratulating you on your election to guide the work of this 63'd Assembly,
and in commending your predecessor for his stewardship of the Assembly
over the past year.
I also take this opportunity to commend the Secretary General and his
staff for their continued dedication in advancing the work of the
Organisation.
Mr President:
As we meet this week, the global financial system is confronting its
sternest test in recent memory. The current crisis is systemic in nature,
historic in scale, and global in reach. It comes at a time when the world
economy is still wrestling with the most rapid escalation, and the highest real
levels, ever recorded in the prices for fuel and food commodities. Together
with the world's belated attention to the devastating economic and social
implications of climate change, these developments define the agenda before
global institutions and national leaders today. They make the theme for this
year's debate both timely and necessary
Given the gravity and urgency of the issues before us, we must be
careful not to conduct this year's debate in the customary rhetorical manner.
Instead, we must resolve to translate the detailed analysis, lofty statements,
and good intentions for which this Assembly has become well known, into
concrete actions which the current circumstances demand of us and on
which history will judge us.
We must each, as countries approaching the floor to speak, be
prepared to account for the pledges we have previously made. We must also
be bold enough to embark on a project to achieve real change to the
multilateral system. This change must be based on mandates that are
relevant, institutions that are accountable, and a context that is increasingly
reflective of integration and interconnectedness.
Indeed, I would urge that the theme of the next General Assembly
should emphasise accountability and coherence of action on the part of the
developed world in matters related to aid, trade and development. Often
when taken together the policies of these countries result in a significant net
loss of welfare in the developing world and run counter to their declared
intentions,f or example the achievement of the MDGs by 2015.
Financial Crisis
Mr President:
An episode that manifested itself merely two years ago as a moderate
decline in the housing market in some parts of the United States, and that
evolved into difficulties for that country's subprime mortgage market, has
now grown into a rapidly deepening systemic financial crisis of global
proportions. It is being described as the worst financial crisis since the Great
Depression of the 1920s.
Over the past two weeks, the main financial markets have been
characterised by prominent institutional failures, widespread flight by
investors to quality investments,a nd unprecedented intervention by national
authorities. The cost of the rescue package in the United States alone is
estimated at US$700 billion.
The current episode reiterates the critical shortcomings in domestic
regulation and supervision that are known to exist, and to failures by market
mechanisms for governance and oversight. It also points to fundamental
weaknesses in the global financial governance system. There is clear
evidence that many of the standards and much of the scrutiny that are
applied routinely to smaller countries were not applied to some larger
countries which actually pose much greater systemic risk.
The troubles now being faced will inevitably result in the loss of
thousands of jobs, as the inevitable consolidation of the financial sector
progresses. The situation will exacerbate already depressed business and
consumer confidence, and contribute to recession in the developed
economies and lower growth prospects in emerging economies. And, it will
result in a further tightening of credit, manifested by rising interest rates and
increased risk aversion.
2
Even if they are not fully integrated with the global financial system,
small vulnerable economies such as Guyana will bear the full effect of these
developments as demand for exports tightens, the cost of capital rises,
foreign direct investment becomes scarce, and tourist arrivals and migrant
remittances decline. In short, economic growth and poverty reduction efforts
will suffer a severe setback and the Millennium Development Goals will
become even more elusive.
Food Security
At the same time, crude oil prices rose by 148 percent during the eighteen
months to July of this year. This in turn has contributed to the prices for food
commodities, particularly staples such as cereals, rising in some cases by
more than 200 percent during the same period. While there have been some
signs in recent weeks of these increases tapering off and in some cases
reversing marginally, the outlook clearly suggests that high energy and food
prices are here to stay.
While these increases reflect rapidly increasing demand in some
emerging economies, limited productive capacity, and unscheduled
interruptions in major production centres, they also reflect a deep underlying
relationship with climate change. Specifically, food price increases have also
been driven by supply volatility induced by erratic climatic patterns and
extreme weather incidents, higher fuel prices and a diversion of food
products to the production of biofuels especially as a result of subsidies in
the US market. In the future diversion of land to conservation purposes and
increased scarcity of water would have an upward impact on food prices.
without a doubt, increased food prices provide an important
opportunity and incentive to farmers and agricultural economies for
increased production. However, they also present grave implications for
access to food, particularly by the poor, and by extension, for key nutrition
and health indicators among our populations.
If we are to accept published statistics that the global demand for food
is expected to double by 2030, then measures for the short and longer term
supply including increased productivity and transfer of technology must be
adopted and implemented urgently by the international community to stave
off widespread starvation.
More importantly, the international community must acknowledge the
inextricable link between agricultural development and food security. The
World Bank has warned that priority must be given to the agricultural sector
in the development process if the Millennium Development Goals of halving
extreme poverty and hunger by 2015 are to be realised. Some 75Yo of the
world's extremely poor people live in rural areas and depend directly or
indirectly on agriculture for their livelihood. There is thus a comparative
advantage for agriculture in relation to poverty reduction strategies. Yet we
have seen a systematic decline over the years in ODA for the agricultural
sector and rural development. The share of agriculture in ODA ftlI from
lTYo in 1980 to just 2.9% in 2006. The 2007 World Development Report
also shows that growth generated by agriculture can be up to four times
more effective in reducing poverty than growth in other sectors. Agriculture
must therefore be given high priority in national budgets as well.
It is also urgently necessary for large developed countries to reexamine
ways in which current inefficient and distortionary trade policies,
particularly subsidies that support inefficient domestic production and tariff
that protect against more competitive imports, can be restructured to reduce
distortions in the global marketplace.
Nevertheless, given the impact that persistently high food prices into
the future will have on the poor, the global community must commit itself to
designing and funding appropriate safety nets to ensure improved access to
food and the maintenance of basic nutrition.

Climate Change
Mr President:
Within recent times this Assembly has been deeply concerned with the
consequences of climate change,and rightly so.
But future generations demand that this concern is translated into rapid
action. The climate change challenge will not slow down to meet the pace
set by the United Nations- our response must speed up to meet the pace of
climate change.
The facts are straight-forward - if we are to avoid catastrophic climate
breakdown, we need to stabilise annual greenhouse gas emissions at about 2
tonnes of CO2 equivalent per capita by 2050.
So let the debate move on to how we make this happen, and not stagnate on
a paralysing fear born from the magnitude of the problem.
There are some promising signs - the Kyoto Protocol has resulted in the
emergence of a US$60 billion carbon market,and this is a welcomes tart.
But although common sense dictates that these financial flows should be
proportional to the problem being addressed, the bulk of this money stays
within the developed world.
As a rainforest country, Guyana is particularly aware that there is virtually
no capital flowing to address tropical deforestation despite the fact that it
causes2 0% of greenhouse gas emissions and,as analyses done the IPCC, Sir
Nicholas Stern and others have highlighted that it is the most cost-effective
abatement solution.
This is because the Kyoto Protocol contains no significant incentives to slow
down the rate of tropical deforestation.
As leaders, we must set a clear direction of travel for our negotiators as we
send them to agree a post-Kyoto climate agreement - one which reasserts a
sense of proportionality in addressing the causes of climate change, and
ensures that all major mitigation options are pursued. We must also break
the false debate which suggests that countries must chose between
combating climate change and supporting national development - instead we
need to forge new high-growth, low-carbon economies and make national
development supportive of progress towards global emissions targets.
Specifically, those of us who are leaders of rainforest countries need to
understand that we provide services that are vital to the health of our planet,
and that when we seek capital flows to compensate for this, we are not
merely acting as passive poor countries looking for aid. We are providing a
critical component of the climate solution, and we should be leading the
design of mechanisms as we forge a post-Kyoto climate agreement.
In Guyana, despite the fact that 85Yo of our people live below sea level and
are already suffering from changing weather patterns and rising water levels,
we do not want to just complain about climate change. Instead, we want to
partner with others to create a solution - and as part of this, we are ready to
discuss placing almost our entire rainforest in the service of the world if the
right economic incentives are created, and if this can be done in a way which
neither trades sovereignty over our forest or restricts the legitimate
development aspirations of our people.

International Trade
Mr President:
In our international economic relations, developing countries have
been advocating a more equitable trading regime. The fact that developing
countries, particularly those with small populations and economies in
transition, cannot compete with the economic giants of the world especially
in the face of subsidies has long been established by studies done by the
World Bank, the Commonwealth and others. As such, the principle of
special and differential treatment for such countries has been a constant
feature in the discourse on multilateral trade affangements. While the issue
is being discussed in the WTO, some regional blocs are insisting on their
own definition of what special and differential treatment should be, and this
is being done in a bilateral context.
Mr. President, the African Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries are
currently negotiating an Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) with the
Europe Union. This agreement may fundamentally affect development in
our societies and jeopardise our future negotiating positions at the WTO.
The European Commission has threatened to impose tariffs under the GSP
on our exports if we do not sign up to Agreements that reflect the EU's
model of WTO compatibility even though the model includes issues that
have been removed from the WTO agenda - the so called Singapore issues.
These Agreements will also seriously prejudice our negotiations with other
countries and may jeopardise the future of our integration movement.
The exploitation of the EU superior negotiating strength and the use of
threats to get countries to sign are ironically how the EU hopes to start this
partnership under the EPA. What is particularly irksome is that we are
incessantly lectured by the same group of countries that national
consultations and working with civil society are essential hallmarks of good
governance. Yet when the same civil society opposes the EPA on the ground
that it is not sufficiently developmental in nature, we are told to ignore them
- that they are complainers. I wonder if the leaders of these countries know,
or care about, what is being done in their name. Even at this late hour I wish
to plead with the EU leaders to review these agreements before they
irretrievably harm the good historic relations that have existed between the
ACP and the EU.

Reform of International Institutions
Mr President:
This brings me to the matter of the much-needed reform of our
multilateral institutions. This matter has been on the agenda for some time,
but it would be fair to say that it has progressed slowly and its results have
been few and difficult to observe.
In the case of the reform of the international financial institution so I
fear that much of this reform is driven not out of a need to respond to current
world reality but out of fear that sovereign wealth funds, regional financial
arrangements, and new bilateral sources of development financing would
make some organisations obsolete. Instead, the reform agenda has to be
driven by what is necessary for good global governance and by the need for
steady and demonstrable improvement in the lives of all of the peoples of the
world.
I believe that the reforms must be pursued along certain pre-defined
principles. Firstly, the institutions must have new mandates that are relevant
to current circumstances, and they must have at their disposal tools to
discharge these mandates effectively. Secondly, the institutions must have
legitimacy and be reflective of equitable representation of their membership.
Thirdly, in the discharge of their functions, they must demonstrate flexibility
and responsiveness .And, fourthly, they must display the highest standards
of accountability and transparency.
As I alluded to earlier, I believe that limitations in the mandate and
functioning of the international financial institutions were a contributory
factor in the current financial crisis. The mandate of the International
Monetary Fund should explicitly be the preservation of systemic financial
stability as a global public good. In addition, the use of passive surveillance
as a general instrument, and conditionality-based lending among the more
vulnerable members, has clearly proven to be ineffective. This is so not least
because the incentives associated with conditionality-based lending are
almost invariably never applicable to countries of systemic importance, and
there exist no mechanisms to encourage larger countries to be responsive to
policy advice.
Likewise, the World Bank should have a revised mandate that focuses
on certain key development challenges being faced, such as protection of the
environment, clean energy, and certain aspects of poverty reduction, instead
of attempting to address every development challenge and undermining its
own effectiveness.
In addition, more needs to be done to democratise the institutions,
align the interests of the management and staff with those of the countries
they serve, and make them more accountable to the membership.
In like manner, a more democratic and reformed United Nations
Organisation will be better placed to play a central role in the multilateral
system to serve in the interest of the international community as a whole,
whether in relation to its peace and security mandates, the protection of
fundamental rights, or to the promotion of development.
Within the Commonwealth, Heads of Government have developed a
set of principles and guidelines which should underpin the reform of the
international institutions. Among their recommendations is a call for a
conference along the lines of Bretton Woods to lead the way in determining
the future of the international financial institutions. I trust that these
principles and guidelines will be fully embraced.
Let me conclude by saying that Guyana remains committed to the
principle of multilateralism and to the principles and purposes of the United
Nations Charter. Especially sacrosanct for us is the inviolability of and
respect for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of all Member States and
the resolution of disputes by peaceful means.
I wish this 63'd Assembly every success.
Mr President, I thank you.

Do you write for the President?

quote:

Originally posted by Burhamson:
Do you write for the President?

I can barely write for myself. Anyway when you copy from Abode Acrobat reader, some of the letters gets messed up.

I spoke with someone who was at the general assembly when Jagdeo spoke and said he made quite an impression.

After the speech I heard that the Guyana mission had a reception for the president and he spoke with several Guyanese.

My source said the Pat Langford, anti-PPP and anti-Indian, actually praised the president for putting on a very successful CARIFESTA. Ah wonda wa she want fron de government.

quote:

Originally posted by stalin:
I spoke with someone who was at the general assembly when Jagdeo spoke and said he made quite an impression.

After the speech I heard that the Guyana mission had a reception for the president and he spoke with several Guyanese.

My source said the Pat Langford, anti-PPP and anti-Indian, actually praised the president for putting on a very successful CARIFESTA. Ah wonda wa she want fron de government.

Impressive. Who would have believed that the world would actually care what the Mayor of Guyana had to say?

quote:

Originally posted by BLACKBEARD:

quote:

Originally posted by stalin:
I spoke with someone who was at the general assembly when Jagdeo spoke and said he made quite an impression.

After the speech I heard that the Guyana mission had a reception for the president and he spoke with several Guyanese.

My source said the Pat Langford, anti-PPP and anti-Indian, actually praised the president for putting on a very successful CARIFESTA. Ah wonda wa she want fron de government.

Impressive. Who would have believed that the world would actually care what the Mayor of Guyana had to say?

That is the beauty of the UN, it is a world forum, which means once you highlight your problems and solutions, other countries latches on and try to come to a resolution.

Living in the US, it is hard to find good news about the UN, because the UN stand for equality and global discussions, yet understandable provide the security council for more powerful nations. The problem is the security council is not always viewed favorable by the rest of the nations in the general assembly, and who cares right? Screw them, the smaller and weaker countries, well wrong, there is might in numbers, not to invoke war or a better analysis, win wars, but they don't have to win, they can hinder your chances at success.

I had a Political scientist (non-Guyanese) once told me that Dr. Jagan vision of a new global order is way before it's time. She said Dr. Jagan was the rockstar before Bono even know what he was fighting for. Trust me people in the political world knows what is going on at the UN, forget the guys sitting there and (probably) sleeping.

The UN is a world body symbol. It have it good and bad alike. For the poorer countries, its just an alternative hope that some relief may be possible to aide their cry of discomfort.

The UN, however, is monopolized by the security council, especially, the US of A.

quote:

Originally posted by Prince Juno:
The UN is a world body symbol. It have it good and bad alike. For the poorer countries, its just an alternative hope that some relief may be possible to aide their cry of discomfort.

The UN, however, is monopolized by the security council, especially, the US of A.

I was watching a show on National Geographic, called "Bush pilots". If you look in Africa, especially the poorer parts the UN symbol is everywhere. They fly and truck in food, medicine, medical care and other basic necessities. Have to give credit, Christians missionaries also help a lot, regardless of the price the locals pay to them.

No doubt, the USA is the leader for charity around the world. Africa is the poorest of the poor and aide is a priority to that part of the world. They do that also to contain diseases that can spread easily to other nations. The Christian missionaries, the UN, and other privite charitable organization are going a great humanitarian deed to the poor nations than to just to sit and watch them die of starvation, as their leaders would do. The US and its rich allies can do more, but all the do it to contain the situation that was there a hundred year and still is. The rich nation is responsible for most of the world's poor. The British, French and the Americans are to be blame since they are were the invaders and conquerors upon the poor nations. They have an obligation to undo the things they have done wrong to others.